Labour plan to re-launch Fair Grant campaign in response to damning charity report

A campaign which aims to lobby central government for more funding for the London borough of Harrow is set to be re-launched.

Earlier today getwestlondon revealed that the poorest in Harrow are paying the highest price for council tax following reforms, but the Labour administration has responded by pledging to fight the Tory-led government for better funding.           

Harrow receives one of the lowest government grants in London – £1,608 per resident, compared with neighboring Brent Council which receives £3,317.

The authority, which ditched the campaign when the Tories were in charge, are now pointing to a lack of funding from government as one of the reasons why the poorest residents are asked to pay the highest rates in London.

Labour’s Sachin Shah, cabinet member for finance and major contracts, said: “It is a shame that this report does not highlight many of the things that we as a Labour administration have done to help the most vulnerable.

“We have put £300,000 into the our Welfare Reform Scheme, £200,000 into combating domestic violence and £100,000 towards the hardship fund.

“Of course I would love to be in charge of the council’s finances when there is a lot of money to invest, but unfortunately we are operating against a backdrop of ruthless cuts from the Tory-led government and we have to make £25million savings in the next year.

“That is why we are now looking at relaunching our Fair Grant campaign to secure a better deal for Harrow so we are better funded, and it is one I hope getwestlondon's readers will get behind.”

But with £25million of underspend currently on the council's books, opposition councillors are not buying the argument that central government is to blame.

Conservative group deputy leader and finance spokesman councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane said: “Predictably Labour are blaming the Government, but the Council has underspent by £25million over the past two years.

"So Labour could fund this benefit if they wanted to, but are cutting it instead – even though it’s costing less than predicted and despite a great many people who receive it being disabled or facing other difficulties."