Agenda item

Motions

To debate the Group motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 41.

Members are asked to note:

· The motions submitted for debate have been attached.

· Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

(Agenda republished to include the Group motions submitted for debate on 5 November 2025 along with an amendment submitted by the Labour Group on the Conservative Group motion on 10 November 2025)

Minutes:

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that a total of 40 minutes had been set aside for consideration of the four motions submitted for debate, based on an initial allocation of 10 minutes per motion. Should the time taken to consider the first motion be less than 10 minutes he advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

10.1 1st Motion (Conservative Group) – Holding Highways Contractors & Utility Companies accountable for unsafe and substandard reinstatement works.

The Mayor invited Councillor Jayanti Patel (on behalf of Councillor Kansagra) to move the first motion which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group. Councillor Jayanti Patel began by highlighting the way in which the motion had been presented to reflect concerns being raised by many residents across the borough and with the examples of issues within his ward outlined within the motion not felt to represent isolated incidences but a wider pattern of neglect and disregard for public safety as well as a breach of trust in the way reinstatement works were being undertaken and completed by highways contractors working on behalf of utilities companies. As a result, he pointed out the motion was seeking a consistent approach towards enforcement to ensure works were being carried out to the required standard and in compliance with the relevant legislation in an effort to deter repeated defects requiring enforcement activity. Highlighting the use of disputes by contractors as no excuse for delays in reinstatement works being completed to the required standard, the motion was seeking to challenge the level of reinstatement failures whilst reaffirming the Council’s commitment to public safety, transparency, and in seeking to hold highways contractors and utility companies accountable for the quality and timeliness of their works, which it was hoped all members would be willing to support.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Jayanti Patel for moving the motion and then drew members attention to an amendment submitted by Councillor Krupa Sheth on behalf of the Labour Group, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.

In moving the amendment, Councillor Krupa Sheth began by acknowledging that the motion highlighted real issues faced by residents which, it was recognised, caused significant frustration when highway reinstatement works being undertaken by utility companies caused prolonged disruption and supporting the need for those utility companies to be held accountable. At the same time, however, it was also felt important to recognise the problem as not being new or isolated but reflecting the product of decades of mismanagement and underinvestment following the sale of publicly owned utilities under past Conservative governments resulting in shareholder returns being prioritised over public service with Thames Water being one of the clearest examples of what was regarded as the failure in public policy.

In terms of the amendment, Councillor Krupa Sheth felt this better reflected the action already being taken locally to address the concerns highlighted with the Council’s inspectors taking the necessary enforcement action against defective reinstatements under Section 72 powers and ensuring responsibility was established and repairs made safe when ownership of unsafe apparatus was disputed under Section 81. This approach had also included additional investment in a further Inspector (for a 12-month period) using Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) funding to strengthen enforcement capacity. In terms of providing a wider context, the amendment moved had also been designed to highlight the need to move towards a model where utility companies were established to serve people rather than profit with the action being sought also strengthened to invite Thames Water’s leadership be held accountable via the Council’s scrutiny function and answer directly to Brent residents. As a further action, it was also proposed to write to the Secretary of State supporting the Water Act, recognised as the first serious attempt to fix a broken system, by banning bonuses for polluters, giving Ofwat stronger powers, and putting environmental protection first.

In concluding, the need for a new model of public ownership for essential services like water was highlighted as a means of ensuring utility companies operating in the borough were focused on delivering first and foremost for Brent residents. On this basis, the amendment moved by Councillor Krupa Sheth was as follows:

To add the wording underlined and delete the wording indicated:

“Holding Highways Contractors and Utility Companies Accountable for Unsafe and Substandard Reinstatement Works

This Council notes with concern the increasing number of highways works, and substandard reinstatement activities carried out by utility companies across Brent —particularly on Kingsbury Road, Westmoreland Road, and Dryburgh Gardens. These works have led to unsafe footways, prolonged disruption and unacceptable conditions for residents, businesses and road users.

This Council further notes:

· After decades of underinvestment through their model of privatisation, Thames Water are now finally undertaking major upgrade works across Brent – work that should have been delivered years ago. While these long-overdue improvements are essential, they are also causing significant congestion and disruption on local roads.

· That on Dryburgh Gardens, outside several properties, Thames Water subcontracted a company whose backfill works failed to meet required standards. The ground has since sunk, leaving footways hazardous for pedestrians.

· That on Kingsbury Road, the footway was excavated near a BT chamber and reinstated with concrete rather than the original paving slabs. When contacted, Brent’s Highways team confirmed no permit had been issued for these works. This raises serious concerns about illegal excavation, and ~~lack of oversight and whether Brent Council is maintaining a record of roads being dug up without authorisation and left in a dangerous state~~ adherence to public realm safety management from utility companies operating in Brent.

· That outside Morrison Patrol Station, two clear breaches have been identified and reported:

Ø A footpath originally laid with paving slabs has been reinstated with low-grade asphalt;

Ø A double yellow line across the carriageway has not been reinstated following trenching works.

· These reinstatement failures breach the “like-for-like” standard and pose trip hazards to pedestrians.

This Council further notes:

· That defects identified under the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) Section 81, where apparatus is unsafe or unrepaired, are subject to strict response timelines yet often remain unresolved due to disputed ownership.

· That defects identified and that come within Section 72 of the NRSWA — where reinstatement fails to meet prescribed standards—are enforceable and chargeable, yet enforcement remains ~~underutilised~~ difficult without transparent public ownership and accountability of these utility companies.

As a result, this Council therefore resolves to:

(1) ~~Publish~~ Explore new options within out Transformation programme to publish a public-facing defect tracker for Section 72 and Section 81 of the NRSWA, detailing timelines, responsible parties, and enforcement actions, as well as making reporting easier.

(2) ~~Escalate~~ Maintain strict enforcement under Section 72 of the NRSWA for all confirmed defective reinstatements, including chargeable inspections and remedial permits.

(3) Report ~~quarterly~~ annually to Full Council on progress, enforcement outcomes, and resident feedback.

(4) Reaffirm its commitment to public safety, transparency, and holding highways contractors and utility companies accountable for the quality and timeliness of their works.

(5) Invite Thames Water’s senior leadership to attend a Brent Council Scrutiny Committee to present their new investment plan, explain current disruption, and set out how they will deliver lasting local benefits.

(6) Write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, expressing Brent’s support for continued reform of Thames Water and other utility companies, and urging that any future restructuring of Thames Water prioritises a transparent pathway toward a publicly accountable, sustainable model of ownership.”

The Mayor thanked Councillor Krupa Sheth for moving the amendment before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

In opening the debate, Councillor Chan (speaking in support of the amendment) also took the opportunity to highlight his concern at the impact which he felt the privatisation of key utilities such as water had created in terms of their focus on shareholders as opposed to the service being provided for residents and customers. Support was therefore expressed for the renationalisation of all water companies and key utilities as a more publicly accountable and sustainable model of ownership.

As a further contribution, Councillor Rajan-Seelan (speaking in support of the original motion) raised concerns about the current effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms in seeking to address issues relating to reinstatement works along with proposed annual reporting on enforcement outcomes, given previous attempts made through scrutiny to hold Thames Water to account regarding drainage and discharge issues. It was consequently felt that a focus needed to be maintained on concerns relating to public safety and disruption given the impact on residents, businesses and road users.

As a final contribution, Councillor Kansagra (also speaking in support of the original motion) felt it important to highlight it’s focus on the standard of work being carried out in terms of highways reinstatement by utility companies and the Council's responsibility in enforcing the necessary compliance and holding them to account. Given the wider focus of the amendment moved and way in which the original motion had been designed to reaffirm the Council’s commitment to public safety, transparency, and holding highways contractors and utility companies accountable for the quality and timeliness of their works, he advised the Conservative Group would not be supporting the amendment and instead voting in support of the original motion, as moved.

At this stage, the Mayor advised that the time limit allocated for debate on the motion had been reached. In drawing the debate to a close, he therefore invited Councillor Jayanti Patel (as mover of the original motion) followed by Councillor Krupa Sheth (as mover of the amendment) to exercise their right of reply.

As Councillor Jayanti Patel advised he did not wish to exercise any right of reply the Mayor then invited Councillor Krupa Sheth to speak who, in exercising her right of reply, felt it important to highlight the range of work being undertaken to address the concerns identified in seeking to hold utilities companies to account and also with Transport for London regarding implementation of a lane rental scheme as a further means of seeking to control the quality of work being undertaken by utility companies in the borough.

Having thanked councillors for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to the vote on the motion starting with the amendment moved by the Labour Group.

The amendment, as set out above, was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

The Mayor then moved on to put the substantive motion, as amended, to a vote which was declared CARRIED.

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

“Holding Highways Contractors and Utility Companies Accountable for Unsafe and Substandard Reinstatement Works

This Council further notes:

· That on Kingsbury Road, the footway was excavated near a BT chamber and reinstated with concrete rather than the original paving slabs. When contacted, Brent’s Highways team confirmed no permit had been issued for these works. This raises serious concerns about illegal excavation, and adherence to public realm safety management from utility companies operating in Brent.

· That outside Morrison Patrol Station, two clear breaches have been identified and reported:

Ø A footpath originally laid with paving slabs has been reinstated with low-grade asphalt;

Ø A double yellow line across the carriageway has not been reinstated following trenching works.

· These reinstatement failures breach the “like-for-like” standard and pose trip hazards to pedestrians.

This Council further notes:

· That defects identified and that come within Section 72 of the NRSWA — where reinstatement fails to meet prescribed standards—are enforceable and chargeable, yet enforcement remains difficult without transparent public ownership and accountability of these utility companies.

As a result, this Council therefore resolves to:

(1) Explore new options within out Transformation programme to publish a public-facing defect tracker for Section 72 and Section 81 of the NRSWA, detailing timelines, responsible parties, and enforcement actions, as well as making reporting easier.

(2) Maintain strict enforcement under Section 72 of the NRSWA for all confirmed defective reinstatements, including chargeable inspections and remedial permits.

(3) Report annually to Full Council on progress, enforcement outcomes, and resident feedback.

(4) Reaffirm its commitment to public safety, transparency, and holding highways contractors and utility companies accountable for the quality and timeliness of their works.

10.2 2nd Motion (Liberal Democrats Group) – Affordable Homes for Brent – Standing Up to Labour’s failure and the Mayors retreat on housing

The Mayor then invited Councillor Clinton to move the second motion, which had been submitted on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group. As context to the motion, Councillor Clinton began by highlighting the need to recognise that the housing crisis, was not one impacting on the wealthy or investors and instead was one disproportionately affecting working people, families and young people. The way out of the crisis was therefore not felt to be solved by the building of expensive apartments, with the hope that benefits would then trickle down, but by delivering more genuinely affordable homes. As such the motion was seeking to highlight significant concern and disappointment at the Mayor of London's decision to lower the affordable housing target from 35% to just 20% for new developments seeking fast-track planning approval, which it was felt represented a surrender to developer pressure as well as a betrayal of local residents enabling corporate interests and “viability” arguments to be prioritised over the moral imperative of providing homes people could actually afford. In commending the motion to members, Councillor Clinton felt it reflected a need to introduce stronger requirements on developers, for investment in new council homes, and for revised affordability standards supported by the introduction of a national target for affordable housing as being called for by the Liberal Democrats.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Clinton for moving the motion and invited other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

In opening the debate Councillor Maurice spoke in support of the principles within the motion, also denouncing the Mayor of London's decision to lower the affordable housing threshold to encourage fast-track developments given the current nature of the housing crisis at a time when tens of thousands of residents in Brent were struggling with housing costs, and over 25,000 people remained on the borough’s housing waiting list. In highlighting the need to ensure flexibility was retained in terms of housing targets to avoid developments becoming unviable, the need was also identified to ensure the approach adopted in seeking to provide more affordable housing was initially focussed on the development of brownfield rather than green belt sites.

As a further contribution, Councillor Donnelly Jackson then spoke to respond in her capacity as Cabinet member for Housing and in support of the Council's record on delivering new homes. In thanking all those involved for their efforts in terms of delivery, the opportunity was taken to highlight the positive impact of housing developments delivered through schemes such as Fulton Road, Grand Union and Cecil House, with support also expressed for the Renters' Rights Bill in seeking to drive up standards and protection for tenants in the Private Rented Sector. In addition, members were reminded of work undertaken to develop the Council’s own supply of Temporary Accommodation as a means of addressing supply and cost pressures with the acquisition programme also being undertaken through i4B as a Council owned housing company also commended for the contribution being made to addressing demand pressures in relation to housing supply, reducing reliance on the use of temporary accommodation and supporting the provision of safe, good quality and genuinely affordable homes. Given the work outlined, Councillor Donnelly Jackson concluded by advising that the Labour Group would not be supporting the motion as moved.

As a final contribution, Councillor Benea (speaking in her capacity as Cabinet member for Regeneration, Planning and Property) also outlined her opposition to the motion, noting the irony of the Liberal Democrats championing housing development given their regular opposition to development across the borough. This approach was contrasted with the approach taken by the Labour Group and Affordable Housing update provide for Cabinet in July which had identified the Council remained on track to exceed the pledge to deliver 5,000 affordable homes by 2028, including 1,700 directly delivered by the Council which included over 4,000 affordable homes having already been delivered, and more than a thousand currently on site across sites at Grand Union, Watling Gardens, Church End, Alperton and South Kilburn. As a result, it was pointed out that Brent had been one of just three London boroughs to not only meet but exceed its housing target representing real progress. It was also felt important to recognise the role of successive Conservative (including the coalition) governments in driving the current housing crisis through reducing the level of available Council housing and funding available to support local government, which it was felt had created the broken market that Labour were now seeking to fix. In light of this, Councillor Benea stated that the Council were committed to continue taking the tough pragmatic decisions that were needed to deliver more homes, recognising the need to deliver the affordable and sustainable homes needed by local residents in a way that not only balanced ambition with realism but also sought (working with the Mayor for London) to unlock investment for Brent in order to build a fairer, more affordable borough.

At this stage, the Mayor advised that the time limit allocated for debate on the motion had been reached. In drawing the debate to a close, he therefore invited Councillor Clinton (as mover of the original motion) to exercise his right of reply.

In exercising his right of reply, Councillor Clinton questioned the definition of affordable housing, noting that if people could not actually afford the homes being built then even if targets were met the value of such housing became questionable. He stated that the Liberal Democrats had been consistent in opposing developments that did not deliver the homes it was felt people needed and would continue to do so. It was then emphasised that the Liberal Democrats were the only party willing to give councils the leverage to properly challenge developers, setting targets for social homes in law rather than allowing corporate interests to take precedent over the imperative of providing homes people could actually afford. In his final remark Councillor Clinton urged Brent Council to stand up to the Mayor for London’s decision to reduce affordable housing and also to developers.

Having thanked members for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to the vote on the motion which was declared LOST.

It was therefore RESOLVED to reject the following motion:

“Affordable Homes for Brent – Standing Up to Labour’s Failure and the Mayor’s Retreat on Housing

For years, Brent Liberal Democrats warned that Labour-run Brent Council and the Labour Mayor of London are failing on housing.

Despite endless press releases and photo opportunities, the delivery of genuinely affordable and council-owned homes has fallen well short of what is needed. Developers have been allowed to dictate terms, pushing up their profits while the Council accepts watered-down deals that do little to help local people.

In a move that is a retreat from responsibility, the Mayor of London has announced that he will lower the affordable housing target from 35% to just 20% for new developments seeking fast-track planning approval. This decision represents a complete capitulation to developer pressure and a betrayal of Londoners who were promised a fairer, more affordable city. Instead of standing up for communities, Labour in London is bending to corporate interests, allowing “viability” arguments to trump the moral imperative of providing homes people can actually afford.

This Council notes:

· The Mayor of London has reduced the GLA affordable housing requirement for major developments from 35% to 20% to “unblock” stalled sites.

· This comes at a time when tens of thousands of Brent residents are struggling with housing costs, and over 25,000 people remain on the borough’s housing waiting list.

· Brent’s Labour Council has consistently failed to deliver on its own council housing targets, while approving developments that contain too few genuinely affordable homes and too many at so-called “affordable” rents far beyond local incomes.

· Brent Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for stronger requirements on developers, for investment in new council homes, and for affordability standards based on what people actually earn, not arbitrary percentages of market price.

· That while the building sector faces cost pressures, cutting affordable housing obligations is not the answer, it merely passes the problem on to those already priced out.

As a result, this Council believes:

· That the Mayor’s decision represents a serious backward step that will reduce the number of homes affordable to Brent residents, deepen inequality, and damage public trust in the planning process.

· That Labour, both locally and at City Hall, has chosen to side with developers instead of Londoners.

· That targets for their own sake mean nothing if the homes being built are unaffordable to the people who need them most.

· That national government must also shoulder responsibility, its “build, build, build” slogan rings hollow when councils lack the powers and funding to build the right homes.

This Council therefore resolves to:

(1) Oppose the Mayor of London’s decision to reduce affordable housing targets.

(2) Request the Leader of the Council publish within three months a detailed plan setting out how Brent will:

(a) Increase the number of new council homes built or acquired each year;

(b) Enforce stronger Section 106 obligations to deliver genuinely affordable housing;

(3) Call on the Government to provide sufficient funding for council-led building and land acquisition to support a new generation of council homes.”

10.3 3rd Motion (Labour Group) – Supporting Labour’s 30 hours of Free Childcare: A Better Start for Every Brent Child

The Mayor then invited Councillor Begum to move the first motion submitted by the Labour Group. In moving the motion, Councillor Begam began by highlighting what she felt to be the transformative nature of the Government’s 30 hour offer of free childcare, which the motion was seeking to support given the significant burden which it would lift in relation to childcare costs for families struggling with cost-of-living pressures within Brent and across the country. In supporting evidence that investment in early years education improved children’s life chances, narrowed attainment gaps and supported economic growth by enabling parents, particularly mothers, to return to work, the motion also sought to highlight the difficulties created as a result of childcare costs within the UK reaching one of the highest levels in Europe under the previous Conservative government, which had led many parents to make the tough choice to leave work to care for their children and the cost of childcare identified as a barrier to work and a major contributor to hardship.

As such, Councillor Begum advised the motion sought to recognise the proposed expansion of the free childcare offer as representing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild a fair and universal early years system that would ensure every child in Brent could thrive, regardless of background or circumstance. In commending the motion to members, Councillor Begum ended by taking the opportunity to commend officers within the Children & Young People Department for the work also being undertaken to support childcare providers in delivery of the offer and also in ensuring the high quality of care was maintained.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Begum for moving the motion before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

In opening the debate, Councillor L. Smith, speaking in support of the motion, took the opportunity to thank a childcare provider in Brondesbury Park for the high quality early years childcare provide for a member of her family, recognising from a personal perspective, the positive impact this had provided. In highlighting the importance in ensuring the same type of provision was more widely available to families across Brent it was felt the 30 free hours childcare offer being made available by the Government would be crucial not only in terms of easing the cost-of-living pressures faced by local families, reducing child poverty, and giving thousands of parents better support, but also in ensuring access to childcare was affordable, accessible and fair. In recognising the wider benefits which good quality early years childcare had been demonstrated to provide in terms of the outcomes achieved by those families in receipt, Councillor L.Smith ended by commending the motion to members for support.

Councillor Grahl (speaking as Cabinet member for Children, Young People and Schools) also spoke in support of the motion. In thanking Councillor Begum for highlighting such a crucial issue, the importance of the investment identified by the Government was recognised given the wider benefits identified with the Council continuing to work and support early years childcare providers in seeking to identify workforce pressures, address training needs, and fill gaps in provision. Councillor Grahl noted that across the country there had been a marked increase in the number of children with Education, Health, and Care Plans, with speech and language difficulties often a major contributing factor and early years educators recognised as playing a key role in detecting and supporting children with such needs. As a result of the investment being provided in the support of 30 hours of free childcare for working families, it was therefore felt this would not only nurture children during their vital early years but also reduce the level of support needed later in their development. In also commending the motion to Council, Councillor Grahl ended by assuring members of the Council’s ongoing collaboration with the government and local childcare providers to ensure Brent’s early years sector was fully prepared to deliver high-quality care to every child in an effort to ensure every child in Brent had the best possible start in life and with sufficient capacity identified to meet current demand across the borough.

As a further contribution, Councillor Hirani spoke to highlight concerns at the framing of the motion and debate as a new government policy when she felt the pledge had first been announced by the previous Conservative government and with the eligibility criteria remaining largely the same as that identified within the original Conservative governments proposal and not applying to all families. Whilst the offer had been highlighted as free, Councillor Hirani also felt it important to point out that the provision would not include other costs associated with child care such as travel etc which could also be prohibitive for those on low incomes or experiencing cost-of-living pressures.

As a final contribution, Councillor Kelcher spoke in support of the motion taking the opportunity to place the offer within the wider context of the Labour Government’s overall approach toward families. As a result, the offer of 30 hours free childcare along with the Mayor of London's free school meals provision and wider package of wrap around support being provided through the Council’s leadership in early years and family support through its network of Family Wellbeing Centres, Children’s Centres and support of Early Help Partnerships were all felt to provide a comprehensive package of support delivering measurable impact and providing vital early intervention to help people access something that should always have been a right. In summing up, Councillor Kelcher therefore commended the motion for outlining the way in which the Government and Council were seeking to step up to ensure families had the support needed to provide the next generation with the best possible start in life.

At this stage, as the time limit for debate had been reached, the Mayor then invited Councillor Begum to exercise her right of reply. In thanking members for their support and comments, Councillor Begum reiterated the importance of early year’s education in setting the foundations for the start of every child's life with the formative early years of child development having been proved to have a sustained and significant impact on children's outcomes in later life. A such she was proud to have been able to move the motion on the basis that the cost of childcare should never provide a barrier for parents entering work or create financial hardship which, she felt, had unfortunately been the case under the previous Conservative Government.

Having thanked all members for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to put the motion to a vote which was declared unanimously CARRIED.

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

“Supporting Labour’s 30 Hours of Free Childcare – A Better Start for Every Brent Child

This Council notes:

· The Labour Government’s pledge of 30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents of children aged 9 months to school age, ensuring affordable, high-quality childcare for families.

· Evidence that investment in early years education improves children’s life chances, narrows attainment gaps and supports economic growth by enabling parents – particularly mothers – to return to work.

· Brent is home to over 73,000 children and young people under 18, representing 22% of the borough’s population. Yet 35% of children aged 15 and under live in poverty after housing costs – one of the highest rates in London. For many families, the cost of childcare has been a barrier to work and a major contributor to hardship.

· The previous Conservative Government’s neglect left parents facing some of the highest childcare costs in Europe, with many local providers struggling to recruit and retain skilled staff due to chronic underfunding.

· Brent’s Family Wellbeing Centres, which reached over 7,400 residents in just one quarter of 2024/25, are a cornerstone of our local early years system – bringing together health visitors, early education, and family support to give children the best start in life.

This Council believes:

· Labour’s 30-hour offer will be transformative for Brent, easing the cost-of-living pressures faced by local families, reducing child poverty, and giving thousands of parents better support.

· Delivering this reform successfully requires sustained national funding and local flexibility – recognising the higher operational costs faced by London providers and the importance of valuing and retaining the childcare workforce.

· Brent’s experience through its Family Wellbeing Centres and Early Help partnerships provides a strong foundation for implementing the new entitlement locally, ensuring wrap-around support for children with additional needs and for parents seeking employment or training.

· This expansion represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild a fair, universal early years system rooted in community, equity and opportunity – helping to ensure that every Brent child can thrive, regardless of background or circumstance.

This Council therefore resolves to:

(1) Welcome and support the Labour Government’s childcare reforms and commend the decisive action to make childcare affordable, accessible and fair.

(2) Celebrate Brent’s leadership in early years and family support through its network of Family Wellbeing Centres and Children’s Centres, which are already delivering measurable impact and providing vital early intervention.

(3) Work with local nurseries, schools, and childminders to ensure Brent is fully ready to deliver the expanded offer from 2025 onwards, identifying any workforce pressures, training needs or gaps in provision.

(4) Write to the Secretary of State for Education to:

· Welcome the policy and reaffirm Brent’s readiness to deliver;

· Emphasise that funding must reflect London’s higher cost base and ensure sustainability for local providers; and

· Highlight the importance of linking childcare expansion with wider Family Wellbeing and Early Help reforms.

(5) Commit to convening a local childcare partnership forum, bringing together providers, parents, trade unions and council officers to oversee delivery, share best practice, and ensure that every Brent child benefits from Labour’s promise of a better start in life.”

10.4 4th Motion (Labour Group) – Reforming the Two Child Limit: A Fair Deal for Families funded by Fair Gambling Reform

The Mayor then invited Councillor Chan to move the second and final motion submitted by the Labour Group. In moving the motion, Councillor Chan highlighted the work he and a number of other ward councillors supported by other colleagues across the Council and local MPs had been undertaking on behalf of residents, not just in Harlesden and Kensal Green, but across Brent to fight for a better and fairer future and to oppose the proliferation of gambling establishments specifically within Harlesden and across the borough as a whole. Whilst seeking to push this as far as possible, the motion represented an attempt to broaden the focus on the wider impacts arising from gambling related harm including on the local economy as well as health and social inequalities, which he felt also supported the case for wholesale reform and reconfiguration.

In recognising what was felt to be the negative impact arising from imposition of the two-child limit and household benefit cap in pushing many families and children into poverty, with Brent experiencing some of the highest child-poverty levels in London, he pointed out the motion was seeking to support a more credible fair funding route involving a reform of gambling taxation to fund the reform and lifting of the benefit cap. This had been supported as a proposal by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) as a means of raising around £3 billion per year through fair and progressive tax reform and increasing duties on the gambling industry as a means of helping to tackle child poverty and contribute in seeking to address the social harm associated with gambling in line with the principles of prevention, responsibility and fairness. In commending the approach outlined, Councillor Chan hoped all members would support the motion as an approach in seeking to reform and remove the two-child limit and benefit cap, funded by progressive gambling-tax reform as a means of lifting around half a million children out of poverty.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Chan for moving the motion and invited other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

In opening the debate, Councillor Afzal spoke in support of the motion, highlighting that whilst recognised as a welcome approach towards supporting removal of the two-child benefit cap the imposition of the cap as a welfare reform should never have been introduced given its impact as one of the main drivers of poverty within the UK. Highlighting the disproportionate impact of the cap on those families on low income and ethnic minority communities he felt it reinforced wider issues of social injustice across society. As such, Councillor Afzal felt there was a need for an immediate and radical overhaul of the current social and economic system designed to lift the vulnerable, elderly, families and children out of poverty with the approach outlined within the motion welcomed as starting point in that process.

Following on, Councillor Kansagra then spoke, highlighting the Conservative Groups opposition to the motion. Whilst supportive of the need for gambling reform given the recognised harm being caused and commitment to child welfare and talking child poverty it was felt the wider focus on welfare reform failed to recognise wider principles of fairness, fiscal responsibility as well as personal accountability in terms of lifestyle choices. On this basis, he advised the Conservative Group would not be voting in support of the motion.

As a further contribution, Councillor Clinton spoke next confirming the Liberal Democrats support for the principles and approach outlined in the motion towards a fairer taxation system including of the gambling industry. Having also opposed introduction of the child benefit cap, the approach outlined in seeking to ensure gambling firms (as wealthy businesses) contributed a fair share, linked to their profits, toward addressing the harm created by gambling was also supported and as such he confirmed the Liberal Democrats support for the motion.

As a final contribution to the debate, Councillor Mili Patel (as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) also took the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. Outlining what she felt to be the moral scar on the country created by the increase in child poverty whilst the Conservatives had been in government she contrasted this with the approach taken by the last Labour government in lifting over a half a million children out of poverty and the need now identified for a serious strategy to address the issue once again with the measures already implemented to undo this damage highlighted to include more breakfast clubs, free school lunches, family hubs and additional childcare. At the same time the need to adopt a financially responsible approach was also recognised, especially in seeking to protect and safeguard those frontline services relied on by the most vulnerable who it was felt had been failed by the previous Conservative Government and with a clear path identified recognising the profits generated through the gambling industry at the expense of local high streets, the local economy, and community wellbeing. In highlighting the national campaign pioneered by Brent in seeking urgent gambling reform to redress the balance and provide a fairer economy, it was pointed out that the harm being created by gambling was costing Brent’s local economy over £14m a year, which represented very little to organisations worth over £11.5 billion yet only contributing £2 billion of that in tax. As a result, Councillor Mili Patel concluded by highlighting the need to ensure all options were considered to address the challenges identified recognising that whilst gambling would not build a country for the next generation, children, freed from poverty, would.

Prior to conclusion of the debate, Councillor Kansagra, raised a point of order regarding the application of time limit for speakers during the debate. In response, the Mayor advised the approach adopted had been designed to allow as many members as possible to speak within the time limit provided with the opportunity to seek a review of the arrangements available through the Constitutional Working Group.

As the time limit for debate had been reached, the Mayor then moved on to invite Councillor Chan to exercise his right of reply. In highlighting the focus of the motion as a means of supporting a fair, compassionate and fiscally responsible approach to ending child poverty and addressing the wider impact of welfare reforms imposed under austerity, funded through progressive gambling-tax reform and as a means of addressing the harm being created by gambling, Councillor Chan hoped this would encourage all members to support the motion as moved.

Having thanked all members for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to put the motion to a vote which was declared CARRIED.

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

“Reforming the Two-Child Limit – A Fair Deal for Families, Funded by Fair Gambling Reform

This Council notes:

• That the two-child limit and household benefit cap are among the most punitive welfare policies in recent history, pushing hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and disproportionately affecting single parents and larger families.

• Nationally, over 1.6 million children are impacted by the two-child limit, with affected families losing around £3,500 per year, while 115,000 households are affected by the benefit cap, most of them single-parent families.

• Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) shows that removing these two policies would lift around half a million children out of poverty overnight, at a cost of around £3 billion a year.

• The IPPR and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown have proposed a credible and fair funding route – a reform of gambling taxation, raising around £3 billion per year by increasing duties on online casinos, slot machines and general betting, ensuring gambling companies contribute more to repairing the social harms they may help create.

• In September 2025, the Chancellor confirmed that reforming the two-child limit is “on the table”, signalling a welcome willingness to consider compassionate and fiscally responsible reform.

• Brent continues to experience some of the highest child-poverty levels in London, with around 35 per cent of children under 15 living in poverty after housing costs, and many families struggling with food and fuel insecurity.

This Council further notes:

• Brent’s leadership in tackling gambling-related harms, including our partnership with the Social Market Foundation (SMF), to examine how high-street gambling impacts communities and to develop evidence-based solutions.

• The recent Brent Council and SMF report, recommending reform of the licensing objectives that underpin the Gambling Act 2005 and the “aim to permit” principle – so that councils and communities have greater powers to protect public health, fairness and local wellbeing.

This Council believes:

• That no child should grow up in poverty because of the number of siblings they have or where they were born.

• That reforming the two-child limit and benefit cap, funded through fair taxation of the gambling industry, offers a responsible way to reduce child poverty while remaining fiscally disciplined.

• That gambling firms should contribute their fair share, linked to their profits, toward addressing the harm, in line with the principles of prevention, responsibility and fairness.

This Council therefore resolves to:

(1) Write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and to the Chancellor, expressing Brent’s support for reforming the two-child limit and benefit cap, funded by progressive gambling-tax reform.

(2) Reaffirm Brent’s leadership in tackling gambling harms, building on our work with the Social Market Foundation to strengthen local licensing powers and protect communities.

(3) Share this motion with Brent’s Members of Parliament and the Local Government Association, urging them to support a fair, compassionate and fiscally responsible approach to ending child poverty.

(4) Contact all landowners in Wembley to encourage them to replicate the Council’s advertising policy, which prevents gambling operators from advertising in the public realm.”

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

Motions

Navigation