Content

(1)       
The following Motion submitted by the
Conservative Group, was declared LOST and not approved:
 
“Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) –
Don’t Punish Brent Drivers
 
This Council notes
that:
 

1.     On
4th March 2022 the Mayor of London announced his plan to expand the
Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) from its current boundary of the
North and South Circular Roads to cover almost all of Greater London. 
Despite the best efforts of Londoners, the Mayor of London (Sadiq
Khan) pushed through and expanded the Ultra Low Emission Zone
(ULEZ) on 29th August 2023 to all cover the whole of
London.
 

2.    
Whilst the ULEZ was originally introduced covering the same area
and with the same boundaries as the Congestion Charge Zone it was
expanded on 25th October 2021 by 18 times its original size to its
previous boundaries before the further expansion on 29th
August 2023.  The ramifications of this
significant change are being felt in outer London Boroughs with the
full extent still to be assessed. It goes without saying that the
Mayor of London is on an anti-car rampage and won’t be
satisfied until we are “all out of cars”!

 

3.     The
expansion of ULEZ means that those with non-compliant vehicles are
paying £12.50 per day to drive within the ULEZ.  Residents are being forced to pay more to get to
work, attend hospital appointments, visit friends and family and
are not being able to take advantage of local businesses and high
streets. This is costing jobs with essential workers such as
doctors, nurses, care workers, teachers who rely on their vehicles
also affected, especially those working nights who rely on use of
their cars.  ULEZ is damaging the social
fabric of our local area, and many businesses have been forced to
locate elsewhere or plan to close.

 

4.     The
ULEZ is a regressive tax, as the less well-off are
disproportionately penalised. The expansion has also meant many
more areas with poor public transport have been included within the
zone which is fundamentally unfair as those residents unable to
afford to keep or replace their car are being forced to rely on
inadequate levels of public transport.

 

5.    
It is disappointing, but not at all
surprising, that the Mayor of London has left a black hole in
TfL’s finances and the Labour Mayor now expects millions of
families to foot the bill with an exorbitant £12.50 daily
charge.

 

6.    
Drivers have paid an estimated
£52 million in levies and fines in the first month of the
ULEZ expansion.  £52 million paid
out of the pockets of the poorest Londoners is a disgrace with the
scheme nothing more than a tax andmoney
making scheme and nothing to do with protecting
environment.

 

7.    During his time in office as Mayor of
London Sadiq Khan has accumulated enough air miles to fly around
the world fourteen times. He even chose to fly to Argentina for a
hybrid meeting. All this whilst charging Londoners more and more to
use their cars! That can't be right.

 

8.     The
science behind the
expansion and other anti-pollution measures more generally is a
case of pay your money, pick your scientist. Sadiq Khan has pointed
towards figures suggesting ULEZ reduced Nitrous Oxide levels by
more than a quarter in its first six months but a team at Imperial
College.
London looked at the data and suggested they fell by just 3%. Lies,
damn lies, and emissions
statistics.
 
The Mayor of London, Sadiq
Khan’s suggestion that a majority of voters back his crusade
to tackle air pollution and that backing ULEZ places him on
“the right side of history” and might work as a
long-term strategy, is a fantasy.
 
As a result of the
concerns highlighted this Council believes
that:
 

1.    
Measures such as ULEZ which have been backed by the Labour
leadership nationally, push up the cost of living in Brent by
imposing taxes and charges on residents who rely on motor vehicles
without providing them with realistic alternatives should continue
to be opposed.
 

2.     The
£400 million set aside by the Mayor of London for the
expansion of ULEZ and related projects would have been better spent
on measures that would have a more positive impact on residents in
Brent and across London such as
 

·            
a faster upgrade to a zero-emission bus
fleet.

·            
increasing the roll out of
rapid electric vehicle charging points.

·            
encouraging more freight
consolidation schemes.

·            
bringing back the previous Boiler Cashback Scheme to
encourage Londoners to upgrade their boilers to reduce household
emissions.

·            
financing a generous scrappage scheme to support
Londoners in replacing their non-compliant vehicles.
 
Therefore, this
Council resolves to call on the Leader of the Council to write to
the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan outlining the concerns set out
within the motion and crippling impact of the ULEZ tax on residents
in Brent.”
 

(2)       
The following Motion submitted by the
Liberal Democrats, was declared LOST and not approved:
 
“Making our Voting System Fairer and More
Representative
 
This
Council believes:
 
The next General Election is an
opportunity to take our country on a different course after years
of chaotic Tory rule. This is especially true in the aftermath of
the Brexit referendum, which saw the UK crash out of the European
Union, with a bad deal, that has left us diminished, poorer and
less important on the world stage. The next General Election will
be fought under the antiquated First Past the Post voting
system.
 
First Past the Post (FPTP)
originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and
voting was restricted to property-owning men. It is not fit for a
‘modern democracy’.
 
In Europe, only the UK and
authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for
general elections. This produces governments that have typically
not had strong support across the country.
 
Internationally, Proportional
Representation (PR) is used to elect the Parliaments of more than
80 countries.  It is a system that works
and has fostered a more consensual, pragmatic way of conducting
politics and policy making.
 
PR ensures that all votes
count, have equal value, and that seats won match votes cast. Under
PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of both local
communities and of the nation. Whilst the UK has taken leaps
forwards in terms of electing a more diverse Parliament, we are
still behind many other countries.
 
MPs better reflecting the
communities they represent in turn leads to improved decision
making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of
decisions taken. PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of
the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of
the power. Fair, proportional votes also prevent ‘wrong
winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February
1974.
 
PR is now the national policy
of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, SNP, Plaid
Cymru and Women’s Equality Party along with a host of Trade
Unions and pro-democracy organisations.
 
There is a growing consensus
that the UK’s voting system must change.
 
PR is already used to elect the
parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its use should now be
extended to include Westminster and considered at a local level
too.
 
Our democracy is in a fragile
state, with confidence in politics at a record low. Changing the
voting system to guarantee that every vote counts equally can help
to inspire renewed confidence in our political system, increase
participation and ensure that the electorate are able to elect the
type of government that the majority of
the British people want to see.
 
This
Council therefore resolves to:
 

1)    
Join 29 other local authorities across the country, of different
political persuasions, in supporting calls for a change to the
UK’s voting system to Proportional Representation.

 

2)    
Request that the Leader of the Council write to H.M. Government
calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws and to enable
Proportional Representation to be used for UK general elections and
local Council elections.

 

3)    
Request that the Leader of the Council write to H.M Leader of the
Opposition to encourage that the Labour Party include changing the
electoral system in their next election
manifesto.”
 

(3)    The
following Motion submitted by the Labour Group was
AGREED:
 
“Save our Services
 
This Council notes:
 

·            
The ongoing campaign by both Unison and the Local
Government Association highlighting the devastating impact of cuts
and the £3.5bn shortfall in funding for the local services we
all rely on every day.
 

·            
During the pandemic, councils spent billions of
publicly accountable funds, to protect the most vulnerable
residents – and now after 13 years of cuts, local services
that were already stretched are at breaking point.
 

·            
Over the last thirteen years core funding from
government has decreased by 78%. On top of the £210m of cuts
made since 2010 we now must find a further £8m in cuts
between 2024/25 and 2025/26.
 

·            
While funding has decreased, demand for our services
has exponentially increased. There are now 800,000 more
Londoner’s and overall funding across the capital remains a
fifth lower than 13 years ago.
 

·            
Rather than fully fund local government from the
centre, successive Conservative Chancellors have moved the
responsibility onto residents – using Council Tax, a tax
aimed not at the wealth of the occupants but based on your property
value as rated in 1991. The Government has consistently declined
other equitable alternatives to raise funding.
 

·            
Successive Conservative Chancellors have insisted
that Core Spending Power has increased in local government –
but this metric is a smokescreen and reliant on all local
authorities increasing Council Tax by the maximum
amount.
 

·            
In a recently published study, London Councils, a
cross-party organisation representing all 32 boroughs, has found
that councils across the capital face a £400m shortfall in
2023. Of this figure, nearly £90m is due to unprecedented
pressures on Temporary Accommodation. They also found that 9 in 10
boroughs were expected to overspend on their budgets this
year.
 

·            
The cross-party Local Government Association has
published analysis ahead of the Chancellors Autumn Statement,
showing that inflation has added £15 billion nationally to
the cost of delivering council services in just 2 years.
 

·            
A survey of 47 local authorities in the SIGOMA group
revealed that five are in the process of deciding whether to issue
a Section 114 notice and a further nine councils may have to
declare bankruptcy next year, with at least 12 other councils
across the country also considering issuing a section 114 notice in
23/24.
 
This
Council also notes:
 

·            
Over the last 13 years of austerity, difficult
decisions have been taken to allow this council to pass a legally
balanced budget each year. In doing so, funding has been directed
to protect frontline statutory services and ensure no resident is
left behind – with to date, £14.5m invested in the
Residents Support Fund and £32m dedicated to our Council Tax
Support Scheme each year.
 

·            
Sadly, Brent like authorities up and down the UK, is
experiencing an unprecedented demand for housing, driven by
spiralling rents, catalysed by high interest rates.
 

·            
If demand continues at the same rate, the housing
needs service will receive a total of 7,700 applications this
financial year, an average of 148 applications every week, the
highest it has ever been.
 

·            
In the last year, we saw more new homes built in
Brent than anywhere else in the country. In contrast Liberal
Democrat controlled Richmond, Kingston and Sutton built less than
200 between them.
 

·            
Yet our increased supply cannot keep pace with
unparalleled demand, with a 22% increase in the number of residents
presenting as homelessness, when compared to last year.
 

·            
The Chair of the G15 group of major housing
associations has said that the capital is now facing the
“worst situation” in regards
to housing, ever seen. With inflation in the construction
sector running at between 25% and 43% many major projects will need
to be paused to await more favourable economic
conditions.
 

·            
The seriousness of the Council’s financial
position cannot be understated. Fulfilling our statutory duty to
support those at risk of homelessness has driven a potential
overspend estimated by officers at £13m.
 

·            
As a result, we are bringing in additional spending
controls across the council to help balance our budget this year.
These sensible, proactive and prudent
measures will ensure vital services are safeguarded at the same
time as protecting our financial position.
 
This
Council believes:
 

·            
Austerity was always a political choice not an
economic necessity.
 

·            
The government should be held accountable for its
role in every Section 114 notice issued by councils of all
political colours across the country.
 

·            
It is the essential role of all Councillors to set a
balanced budget, which ensures the long-term sustainability of this
council.
 
This
Council welcomes:
 

·            
The recommendations of Labour’s Commission on
the UK’s future, chaired by Gordon Brown, setting out a plan
for what Labour would do for local government – bringing
decisions closer to the people affected by them; and with
longer-term financial settlements, moving away from a model of
ad-hoc bidding for funding pots.
 

·            
The Leader of the Labour Party’s recent
comments outlining how a Labour government would fix how councils
are funded and move away from short-term funding settlements. In
contrast, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “it was up to councils to manage their
own finances”.
 
This
Council resolves:
 

1)     To
request that the Leaders of all Group’s should write to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and call on the government to take
responsibility for providing the long-term sustainable funding that
councils so desperately need.
 

2)     To
ensure that budget proposals taken by Brent Council prioritise the
protection of frontline services and the support available to
residents most in need.
 

3)     To
support London Councils five-point plan to address the housing
crisis in the capital:
 

·            
Raising Local Housing Allowance (LHA)

·            
Supporting councils to buy accommodation sold by
private landlords

·            
Boost Homelessness Prevention Grant
funding

·            
Increase Discretionary Housing Payments

·            
Bring forward a cross-departmental strategy to
reduce homelessness.”
 

(4)    The
following Motion submitted by the Labour Group was
AGREED:
 
“Lift the Ban
 
This
Council notes that:
 

·            
Brent has a proud history of embracing individuals
seeking safety within our borough. Our diverse community of communities
has contributed to the values which make Brent the open and
welcoming borough it is today.
 

·            
The Conservative Government’s attitude towards
asylum seekers is unacceptable. It seeks to demonise families who
have come to the UK for safety and a better life. This is reflected
in both the UK-Rwanda partnership, which will criminalise refugees
and threaten them with removal to Rwanda. It is also seen in the
recent rhetoric of the Home Secretary who has said that
multiculturalism has “failed”.
 

·            
The government’s approach can be seen in the
significant problems with the UK asylum system, with over 700
individuals residing indefinitely in hotels in Brent while awaiting
the outcome of their application to remain. There is a record
backlog of cases awaiting a decision alongside a de facto ban on
working, all of which leads to a circle of
impoverishment.
 

·            
Since 2002, people seeking asylum have only been
able to apply for the right to work after they have been waiting
for a decision on their asylum claim for over a year, and only if
they can be employed into one of the narrow, highly-skilled professions included on the
government’s Shortage Occupation List.
 

·            
That people seeking asylum are left to live on
£5.39 per day, struggling to support themselves and their
families, and left vulnerable to destitution, isolation, and
exploitation.
 

·            
The potential for economic gain of millions of
pounds to the UK via increased taxable income and reduced payments
of accommodation and subsistence support is foregone.
 
This
Council believes that:
 

·            
The Home Secretary’s view that
multiculturalism has failed is an insult to the residents that have
built their lives in Brent and contributed to this
borough.
 

·            
People seeking asylum want to be able to work so
that they can use their skills and make the most of their
potential, integrate into their communities, and provide for
themselves and their families.
 

·            
Restrictions on the right to work can lead to
extremely poor mental health outcomes, a waste of potentially
invaluable talents and skills for the economy, and greater poverty
and homelessness in Brent.
 

·            
Allowing people seeking asylum the right to work
would therefore lead to positive outcomes for the local and
national economy.
 

·            
The UK needs an asylum system that empowers people
seeking safety to rebuild their lives and enables communities to
welcome them, not to isolate them.
 
This
Council therefore resolves to:
 

1)    
Join the Lift the Ban Coalition (led by refugee action), which is
campaigning to restore the right to work for everyone waiting for
more than 6 months for a decision on their asylum claim.

 

2)    
Request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Home Secretary
to request that:

 

·            
People seeking asylum and the right to work should
be unconstrained by the shortage occupation list, after they have
waited six months for a decision on their initial asylum claim or
further submission.
 

·            
The Home Office work with local authorities and
communities to build a refugee protection system that treats all
people with dignity and compassion.
 

·            
Financial support be made available for councils
like Brent, that will have more refugees that require wraparound
support with housing, upon being awarded the right to
remain.
 

·            
The Home Secretary apologise for describing rough
sleeping as a “lifestyle choice.” There are at least
1.5 million people residing in the UK that have no recourse to
public funds, many facing homelessness and many whose visa status
has not been determined.”