Agenda item
Questions from the Opposition and other Non- Executive Members
Questions will be put to the Executive
Minutes:
Councillor Hopkins referred to the community functions that took place from the Queensbury pub in Willesden which would be under threat if the redevelopment proposals for the pub were agreed and asked what action was being taken by the Council to protect the provision of these functions. Councillor Butt replied that the One Council programme included a project looking at the provision of youth services. The provision by the Council and by community and voluntary organisations would be reviewed to see what was provided and what was needed. He expressed his wish that the Council could do more but was unable to because of the Government’s cut to funding for local government. Efforts were being made to find different and innovative ways to protect residents from the worst effect of the cuts. Councillor Hopkins responded by pointing out that the functions run from the Queensbury pub were not funded by the Council and so wondered how the Council would protect them. She stated that more than a token effort was needed from both the Council and the developer and suggested the provisions under the Localism Act might be used to protect the facilities.
Councillor Choudry asked what efforts the Council was making to promote the uptake of the Living Wage by the Council's partners and contractors. Councillor Butt replied that the Council would be sending a strong signal that it expected its partners and contractors to pay a fair wage to their workers. The Council would look to work in partnership with businesses and Councillor Pavey would be taking the lead on this. Councillor Butt added that he was looking to work further with the employers side by establishing a joint forum and felt such a move would make a real difference for local residents. Councillor Choudry thanked Councillor Butt for his reply.
Councillor HB Patel referred back to two years ago when it was said that the Council needed to cut its budget by £100M over 4 years. He referred to the reductions so far made which showed that with two years to go there was a shortfall of £21.1M. He wondered if the assessment of how much the Council had to save was wrong and had led to scaremongering tactics in order to cut services that had not needed to be cut. He asked if the Council would now decide not to increase its reserves and spend its resources for the benefit of residents. Councillor Butt replied that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA) had advised the Council that it had reached the minimum level of reserves it recommended. He stated that the cuts in funding were being made by the Government and the Council would use its reserves when the situation demanded it. Councillor HB Patel responded by saying that the cuts had not been imposed by Government but instead had been made necessary due to the mismanagement of the country's finances by the previous Labour government. He felt it was down to common sense what level of balances were needed and at a time when money in the bank was not generating an adequate yield he felt it should be spent on services and reiterated that reserves should not be increased.
Councillor Brown asked what progress had been made since the last meeting of Council on the arrangements for making permanent appointments to the posts of Chief Executive and Director of Finance. Councillor Butt replied that arrangements were in progress with the interim Chief Executive being tasked with the job. The appointments would be made in due course through the Council’s agreed procedures. Councillor Brown responded by expressing the view that the Leader was allowing the matter to drift and that it was a matter of concern to the whole council as to when permanent appointments would be made.
Councillor Mitchell Murray referred to the troubled families programme and asked if the Council had its trouble shooters and its partners in place to deliver the programme. She also asked what would happen to the Government funding for the programme if the programme did not deliver. Councillor Arnold replied that the programme included 800 identified families and that the key workers had been recruited and partners were in place to deliver on the programme. She confirmed that payment would be by results so it was important to press hard to deliver the outcomes. This presented an opportunity to tackle a number of issues in a holistic way. Councillor Mitchell Murray thanked Councillor Arnold for her answer.
Councillor Hunter stated that planning permission was granted for new floodlighting in Gladstone Park in 2009 and the floodlighting was installed soon after. She asked why therefore were the rugby club and other local sports clubs still waiting for the lights to be connected. She asked if it was agreed that the rugby club should get a refund because it had paid for a service that it had not received. The Council had consistently failed to keep local members updated despite numerous requests for information and updates. Councillor Powney replied that he was not familiar with the situation described by Councillor Hunter and so would get officers to provide an answer and submit a timeline for a solution to the problem. Councillor Hunter responded by saying that enthusiastic club members were leaving because of the lack of facilities which was a great shame.
Councillor Pavey asked about the news that Michaela Free School intended to locate within the borough. Councillor Arnold replied that confirmation had been received from the Department for Education that a site had been bought in Wembley for the Michaela Free School and this was without any consultation with the Council. She referred to the Government’s diversion of funds towards the provision of free schools. She expressed concern at the recent news and would be approaching the school to seek assurances over its plans. Councillor Pavey shared the concern expressed by Councillor Arnold. He responded by saying that he served on the governing body of a primary school which worked hard to educate local children only for the threat that they would be handed over to unqualified teachers working in free schools. He stated that the education sector should not be run for profit and hoped the Council would take a strong position on this.
Councillor Lorber referred to CIPFA's recent report about libraries which showed how poorly Brent compared to similar councils following the library closures that had happened in the borough. The future of the libraries had been frequently debated and there had been conflicting views over the implications but the CIPFA report suggested that those who said it would result in a worse service were right. He asked if his concern was shared over the low number of active borrowers in Brent which the CIPFA report suggested showed that the library service did not engage as well with the population when compared to other authorities. He also asked when a rethink on library policy would happen. Councillor Butt replied that the CIPFA report referred to an out of date period when the library service was undergoing significant change and it did not correlate with the present position. All the borough's libraries except the Town Hall library had been modernised and a new library would soon be provided at the Civic Centre. Usage figures now showed an increase and the decisions taken on the library service were now being justified. It was Government action that had forced the Council to take hard decisions on the budget but funds were being used in the most efficient and effective way. Councillor Lorber submitted that the Council needed to take serious account of the CIPFA report which set out that the borough had the fewest number of libraries as a proportion of population, that the number of active users had declined, that 25% less than other authorities was spent on the service and that there was poor use of volunteers. Councillor Lorber felt facilities could be improved if there was a more positive approach to using volunteers. He felt there had to be a change in Council policy and that funding streams to local government allowed the Council to invest more in its library service.
Councillor Van Kalwala referred to the reduction in the local government settlement recently announced and the impact this would have on the local community. He asked for reassurance over how the Council would manage with further reduced resources. Councillor R Moher replied that £100M had already been taken by the Government and the 2014/15 settlement would require a further £17M saving. She stated that it was difficult to reassure members over this. The Government had originally stated that it was a 4 year savings programme but this had now been extended and would continue to most affect the poorer members of the community. Councillor Van Kalwala responded by referring to the complexity of the settlement but pointing out that whilst Brent had a reduction in it spending power of £1.5M, St Albans Council's reduction was £95,000. This showed that the people of Brent were being badly affected by the actions of the present government.
Councillor Beck asked for reassurance that the Council would formally object to the massive block of flats that A2 Dominion had proposed for the Edgware Road on the Brent/Barnet border. This would present a burden on the quality of life for local residents with any compensating benefits only going to Barnet. He asked would the planning application be opposed. Councillor Powney replied that this was a planning matter and he was sure that officers would consider the application and be sure to submit any objections considered necessary. Councillor Beck responded that he understood a revised application had been submitted before Christmas last year and there was only two weeks left to object. He submitted that it was important that the Council stood up for its residents.