Agenda item

To enable Non-Cabinet Members to raise an issue of relevance to Brent for debate on which notice has been provided in accordance with Standing Order 34.

Members are asked to note that the subject identified for debate at this meeting is as follows:

Broken Promises and Failing Finances – Brent Deserves Better than Labour’s Short-Term Thinking

Please note: The motion submitted as the basis for this debate has been attached.

In accordance with Standing Order 34, the Mayor advised that the next item on the agenda was the non-cabinet member debate, with the subject chosen for consideration being “Broken Promises & Failing Finances – Brent Deserves better than Labour’s Short-Term thinking”.

Members were advised that the motion submitted as the basis for the debate had been circulated with the agenda and that the time available for the debate was 25 minutes before inviting Councillor Lorber to introduce the motion which had been submitted (on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group) as the basis for the Non-Cabinet Member debate.  In introducing the motion, Councillor Lorber began by highlighting concern at the delay in delivery of the change promised by the government following the last election in terms of the financial support that local authorities such as Brent urgently required.  As a result, it was pointed out that the Council was still awaiting provision of the multi-year funding settlements needed to plan ahead and invest efficiently, with the motion moved as the basis for the debate seeking to outline the resulting impact of the ongoing uncertainty on the ability to invest in essential services and rebuild local infrastructure.  Referring to the Council’s own budget forecasts, Councillor Lorber outlined how these had shown continued shortfalls in funding for street maintenance, waste and recycling, local infrastructure and adult and children’s social care with demand and costs continuing to increase making it more challenging to prioritise those issues being highlighted by residents as concerns.

In terms of any response, it was felt the approach adopted by the Labour Administration needed to be challenged with its record of financial management characterised by short-term fixes, rising debt levels and an over-reliance on developer income, none of which was felt to provide sustainable solutions and the need therefore identified to stand up for local residents and demand a fair deal from government.  In recognising the additional burdens being placed on local authorities and the lack of supporting funding in relation to the increased demand on temporary accommodation, Adult and Children’s Social Care and challenges needing to be address in health and social care provision, Councillor Lorber advised the motion was therefore calling on the Council to use its influence in calling for the government to honour their commitment to the provision of multi-year financial settlements, the fair funding review alongside greater flexibility to raise and manage revenue locally in order to provide greater stability and certainty on the essential investment required to deliver clean and safe neighbourhoods and effective public services that worked.  On this basis the motion was moved as the basis of the debate.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Lorber for introducing the motion and then opened the debate for contributions from other members.

Opening the debate, Councillor Hirani supported the concerns expressed that despite the government’s promises, local authorities had still not received the multi-year funding settlements needed to provide stability and be able to plan ahead with the government’s approach increasing uncertainty and compared to that of a sticking plaster.  Highlighting concerns being raised by local residents in relation to the level of Council Tax, given the neglect of public realm, rubbish and the state of highways and pavements across the borough it was felt residents deserved better and as such she highlighted the Conservative Groups support for the motion moved as the basis for the debate.

Councillor Tatler then spoke to highlight what she felt was a need to correct a number of comments made in introducing the debate, with members advised that the announcement on the outcome of the government’s fair funding review and implementation of multi-year financial settlements had not been delayed and was anticipated in a matter of weeks.  The need was also identified to contrast this with the approach taken by the previous Conservative government who had presided over the current regime of single year settlements and reduced funding for local authorities as part of their programme of austerity, which it was pointed out the Labour government was now seeking to address including the focus on the fair funding review in addressing those areas with the highest level of need based on identified deprivation.  In view of the approach adopted by the current Government she advised she would not be supporting the motion.

As a further contribution, Councillor Clinton then spoke to query the potential impact of the Fair Funding review recognising that whilst Brent included areas of high need and disadvantage this did not always get reflected in funding allocations provided for local authorities in London.  Concerns were also highlighted in relation to what was regarded as the short term approach adopted by Labour in seeking to address the need for investment in services such as potholes broken pavements, rubbish and housing estate maintenance, with the need for more fundamental reform of local authority finance identified as essential in being able to provide more sustainable investment and funding to deliver cleaner and safe neighbourhoods, well maintained roads and pavements and other key public services relied on by residents.

Following on, Councillor Kelcher highlighted that whilst the motion moved as the basis for the debate had identified the need for a longer-term approach it was felt this contradicted the approach taken by the Opposition Groups in regularly seeking to oppose developments at the Planning Committee.  In contrast, the Council’s track record in meeting and exceeding delivery of its housing targets and associated impact on the Council Tax base and generation of CIL funding along with the record level of New Homes Bonus awarded was felt to highlight the Council’s ability to deliver real and positive change when compared to what he felt was the short term approach reflected in the position taken by the Opposition Groups.

Speaking next Councillor Kennelley, referring to comments made earlier in the debate regarding Council Tax, felt it important to provide further context in relation to the level set by Brent when compared to that in Conservative controlled Harrow, which he pointed out was currently much higher and reflected what he felt to be the more financially sustainable and efficient way services being delivered within Brent.

As a further contribution opposed to the basis of the motion, Councillor Chohan felt it important to clarify and commend Brent’s and the governments approach towards encouraging development and delivery of affordable housing despite the stance often taken by the Opposition Groups.  It was also felt the efforts being made by the Council to support local community organisations and events as well as enhance parks, open spaces and the public realm should also be acknowledged and highlighted as a means of providing a further welcomed focus on resident priorities.

Continuing the debate, Councillor Nerva then spoke in support of the need for reform and introduction of a more progressive and fairer system of local government funding, also taking the opportunity to echo the comments made regarding the much higher levels of Council Tax currently being charged by a range of Conservative and Liberal Democrat led Council Administrations across London.  Reference was also made to the additional funding which had been provided by the government to address issues such as pothole repairs supported by the award of funding through the Pride in Place Impact Fund for local authorities, including Brent, to deliver further improvements to the borough’s high street and public spaces with Labours commitment to the re-introduction of multi-year funding settlements and the fair funding review also welcomed as a means of providing the ability to plan ahead with more certainty in a fair and viable way.

As a final contribution to the debate, Councillor Rajan-Seelan spoke to highlight what he felt had been the failure of the Labour Government to deliver the long term and more, stable and predictable funding required by local authorities and associated impact in terms of the basic services that mattered most to residents and wider public services such as access to the police.

In view of the remaining time available the Mayor then invited Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) to summarise and close the debate.

In closing the debate, Councillor Muhammed Butt began by highlighting that whilst the motion had referred to “broken promises and failing finances” there was a need to recognise the role of the Liberal Democrats alongside the Conservatives as the architects of austerity, which had helped to break the system by reducing the funding available to support areas such youth provision, social care and housing budgets.  As a result of austerity, Brent had been required to cut £238m from its budget since 2010 which had directly impacted on the provision of those services relied on the most by local residents, resulting in the Council seeking to deliver more with less while demand for services also continued to increase.

Given the impact of austerity, it was recognised the need to address the challenges identified would require a longer-term approach with the Council seeking to take the initiative as a campaigning authority by taking its case direct to the Treasury focussed around the Autumn Budget submission.  Members were reminded this had set out six clear, practical steps that it was felt would make a real difference including a visitor levy to help fund local services; gambling reform to give councils real power to protect their high streets; investment in West London Orbital to unlock homes and jobs; a Cultural Contribution Requirement enabling Wembley’s global success to support local services; a long-term housing partnership to deliver genuinely affordable homes and finally fairer funding formulas designed to reflect the true cost of housing and deprivation in London.  This had already delivered progress with the successful lobbying (through London Councils) for housing costs to be included in deprivation calculations as part of the forthcoming financial settlement and work ongoing to make sure Brent’s voice continued to be heard.  In terms of the motion submitted as the basis for debate, Councillor Muhammed Butt, in concluding, felt that if members truly wanted to demonstrate they cared about Brent they should join the Administration in continuing to make the case for fair funding, housing and gambling reform and in support of the powers needed to build stronger communities and to deliver the funding, freedom and fairness the borough deserved.

Having thanked members for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to the vote on the motion moved as the basis for the Non-Cabinet Member debate which was declared LOST.

It was therefore RESOLVED to reject the following motion as the outcome of the non-cabinet member debate:

“Broken Promises and Failing Finances – Brent Deserves Better than Labour’s Short-Term Thinking

16 months since the general election that promised “change”, the Labour Government has failed to deliver the financial support that local authorities like Brent urgently need. Instead of providing sustainable funding allowing councils to plan properly, invest in essential services, and rebuild local infrastructure, ministers have continued the same pattern of uncertainty, offering only one-year settlements and short-term sticking plasters.

In Brent, the Labour Council’s response has been unacceptable. Rather than standing up for local residents and demanding a fair deal, the Council has meekly accepted the Government’s excuses while presiding over neglected streets, crumbling pavements, and services stretched to breaking point.  Local people pay some of the highest Council Tax in London but see little in return - roads full of potholes, littered streets, unreliable waste services and a backlog of repairs to Council homes.

Brent Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for investment in the essentials: clean and safe neighbourhoods, well-maintained roads and pavements and public services that work. Yet Labour at both national and local level have failed to deliver the stability and competence.

This Council notes that:

·            Despite a year of promises from the new Labour Government, Councils have still not received the multi-year funding settlements needed to plan ahead and invest efficiently.

·            Brent’s own budget forecasts show continuing shortfalls in funding for street maintenance, waste and recycling, local infrastructure, and adult social care.

·            The Labour Council’s record of financial management has been characterised by short-term fixes, rising debt levels, and an over-reliance on developer income, none of which provide sustainable solutions.

·            Residents repeatedly raise concerns about potholes, broken pavements, overflowing bins and poorly maintained estates, everyday issues that the Council consistently fails to prioritise.

·            The Labour Administration’s focus on photo opportunities has too often come at the expense of basic services that matter most to residents.

As a result, this Council believes:

·            The Government’s failure to deliver long-term, predictable funding for local authorities show their election promises to “rebuild Britain” and “empower local communities” have not been delivered.

·            Brent Labour has failed to use its voice or influence to fight for our borough, choosing instead to remain silent while residents and front-line services suffer.

·            Councils must be given multi-year settlements, fair funding formulas and greater flexibility to raise and manage revenue locally.

·            Cleaning up our streets, fixing our roads, and investing in neighbourhood infrastructure are not optional extras. They are the basic responsibilities of any competent local authority.

This Council therefore resolves to:

(1)       To highlight that the Labour Government and Labour-run Brent Council have failed to secure and plan for long-term financial stability in Brent.

(2)       Urge the Government to introduce three-year funding settlements for Councils by 2026 and to provide additional ring-fenced investment for highways, pavements, and public-realm maintenance.

(3)    Support the commitment (as made by Brent Liberal Democrat Group) to campaign for a cleaner, safer, better maintained borough, with proper investment in local infrastructure, transparent budgeting and accountability for how every pound is spent.”