Agenda item

Questions from Members of the Council

Meeting of Council, Thursday, 25th June, 2015 7.30 pm (Item 54.)

Minutes:

Question (a) Councillor O’Halloran to Councillor Murray, Executive Member for Housing and Development

This Council has a proud record of building new homes at affordable social rents. That’s why I know many members will be extremely concerned about the policy of the Government to force councils, like Islington, to sell off valuable homes. Could Cllr Murray comment on the likely impact this policy will have in Islington?

Reply:

Thank you for your question. Forcing councils to sell high value properties will be a battle for the soul of Islington. Some independent research has been carried out which suggests that 1800 council homes in Islington could be forcibly sold in the first five years of the policy. It would reduce our ability to support people by providing affordable housing and force people to move to outer London where rents will then go up. It is difficult to believe what this policy will mean; we are currently building 20 new council homes on the Bemerton Estate which are ringfenced for local people. With property prices out of control, these properties will be worth a lot of money; a nearby estate leaseholder property is on the market for £435K. If the government does set the figure at £400K and we assume any property we build will have a similar value, all the new properties we build, we will be forced to sell by the government. There will be no incentive for people to downsize and there will be families stuck in overcrowding for many more years. It is no exaggeration to say this is about the social cleansing of central London and we need to come together to oppose this.

Supplementary question:

Can you explain how we can fight this disastrous policy?

Reply:

The government has promised that all homes sold will be replaced, but they said the same with right to buy and barely one in ten was and they weren’t like for like; they were different size homes in different areas. If they force us to sell it will be impossible for us to replace the properties; anything new we build we will be forced to sell again. We need to make sure that all the evidence is publicised to stop people being hoodwinked by this policy and we need to campaign on the street to get the public to oppose it too.

Note: The time for questions from members of the Council having expired, written replies to the remaining questions were sent as detailed below.

Question (b) Councillor Gantly to Councillor Watts, Leader of the Council

Cllr Watts will have seen the announcement by the Chancellor that, despite delivering the largest cuts to local government in our history, the Chancellor wants to wield the axe again and the LGA has warned that this could mean in-year budget cuts. What does this mean for Islington?

Reply:

Thank you for your question, Cllr Gantly. You are of course correct to say that since 2010, the Tory-led Government has imposed the largest peacetime cuts to local authorities. In Islington, we have already been forced to take around £150million out of our budgets, and the election of a majority Tory Government will mean the scale of the cuts will continue. We anticipate that the Chancellor's plans will mean a further £90million of cuts to the council over the next 3 or 4 years. This will mean that the council will have around a third of the funding we had in 2010.

Recent announcements by the Chancellor have suggested that non-protected departments will face cuts of up to 40% in departmental spending - this includes the Department for Communities and Local Government. We must be honest with the people of our borough that the scale of these cuts will mean that services will change. We have already done the simple things and save money where we could, so we must now carry on with our radical agenda to reform services so that we save money by tackling issues earlier. However, even with this pioneering work, the cuts from Government are disproportionate and will hit Islington hard.

Question (c) Councillor Heather to Councillor Shaikh, Executive Member for Economic and Community Development

I have concerns about the Community Warden scheme being run by the Finsbury Park Business Forum who are based in my Ward. I note that Islington Council is opposed to workfare, and my concern is that this scheme appears to be a workfare scheme. Can the Executive member for Economic and Community Development please assure me that the Council will investigate the scheme with both the Department of Work and Pensions and FPBF to establish whether this is a workfare scheme, and also establish who benefits financially from the scheme?

Reply:

Islington Council, as demonstrated by our recent Employment Commission, is committed to supporting local residents into work as the best route out of poverty. There are many different employment schemes operating in the marketplace, some good, and some not so good. The Community Wardens Scheme operating around Finsbury Park station is run by the Finsbury Park Business Forum. After you and others understandably raised issues with the scheme, council officers contacted Job Centre Plus for more information and I called the Director of Finsbury Park Business Forum to ask him some questions too.

The scheme runs for 30 hours per week for 4 – 6 weeks and is meant to provide work experience. Islington JCP first set up the scheme with FPBF in December 2011 and so far a total of 57 participants have been referred by JCP to attend the scheme, with the last referral from Islington JCP being in October 2014. Islington JCP is not currently referring people to the scheme. Other participants have volunteered off the street or been referred by local voluntary and community sector organisations.

FPBF have informed us that there are currently about 35 people involved in the scheme. It has plans to expand the scheme beyond the area around Finsbury Park station. FPBF have asserted that 80% of all past participants in the scheme have enjoyed positive outcomes in terms of future employment, but no formal evaluation of the scheme has taken place, so we are not at all clear about how many people have got a job as a result of the scheme.

According to JCP, the scheme is not mandatory up until the time a participant agrees to take part. Once participants have agreed to participate, it becomes mandatory and sanctions may apply for non-attendance. Otherwise, the DWP continues to pay benefits and will pay travel fares too, if needed. FPBF do not receive any money from the DWP for the scheme and the council has no involvement with the scheme or with FPBF in general. FPBF have informed us that the scheme is funded by donations and by the dues paid by businesses which are members of the FPBF.

My view, having established all this, is the same as yours, Gary: this is Workfare in all but name and I condemn it. Once a Community Warden has embarked upon the scheme, they are then part of a programme of compulsory, unpaid work experience and if they drop out they can be sanctioned.

The council does not support Workfare in general or this scheme in particular and we have no involvement with it or with the Finsbury Park Business Forum. Indeed, we have insisted that FPBP remove the Council’s logo from its website. As for your request that we seek to ascertain if anybody benefits financially from the scheme, and, if so, who, we will try to do just that and we will let you know what we uncover…

In terms of moving forward it is suggested that we could do the following:

1) Write to JCP / DWP urging them not to refer anyone to the scheme henceforth (although they don’t currently anyway)

2) Write to Courtney Bailey asking him if anyone makes any money from the scheme (although he’s probably not obligated to tell us)

3) Write to the local police to ask if they support the scheme in any way (and urging them not to)

4) Potentially share any of these letters with the local press

Question (d) was taken under the urgent items relating to 38-44 Islington Park Street above.

Question (e) Councillor Diarmaid Ward to Councillor Hull, Executive Member for Finance and Performance

This Tory Government's plans to reduce the benefit cap to £23,000 per household will have a huge impact in Islington because the cost of housing is so high. How can the council help families who are struggling to cope as a result, in the short term and the long term?

Reply:

Thank you for your question, Diarmaid. It’s timely because we expect the Chancellor’s budget statement on 8^th July to include a commitment by the government to reduce the existing overall Benefit Cap by £3,000 per household.

Our modelling suggests that this will hit about 575 more Islington households, on top of the 250 Islington households already affected by the current cap, who will all get hit again as well. Up to 1,000 more Islington children are likely to be impoverished as a result, in a borough which already has the fourth highest child poverty in England. The move will result in an additional £1.6m in lost benefits in the borough. If the government cutting the cap leads to private landlords evicting large families, which it probably will, then, given the cost of temporary accommodation in local properties with more than one bedroom is also likely to be above the cap, this threatens to increase homelessness in the borough as well.

According to the government, the benefit cap is meant to reflect the average income. But average earnings haven’t dropped by £3,000, so why are they cutting this support from families who need it? It is a national, one-size-fits-all policy that takes no account of local realities. Rents in London are much higher than elsewhere, and yet the same caps and cuts apply. With such a shortage of affordable housing in the capital, cutting the benefit cap won’t drive down rents, it will just drive people into poverty.

I am seriously concerned about the council’s capacity to support more households who may struggle to cope. The Government is currently cutting Islington Council’s budget for Discretionary Housing Payments – short term grants designed to help people who are struggling to meet their housing costs – from £1.35m in 2014/15 to £989,000 in 2015/16. But reducing the benefit cap will mean more demand for Discretionary Housing Payments, not less. In addition, the Council estimates it would have to increase the number of IMAX welfare advisors and iWork employment coaches working closely to support those affected by the benefit cap by 50%, at a further cost of £110,000 a year.

For Islington, the government cutting the benefit cap will mean huge losses of around £1.6 million in Housing Benefit, likely to translate into a big rise in tenants’ arrears. At a time when the council’s budget is stretched to breaking point, we can’t guarantee to cover the loss. We will do our best to support struggling families in our community but there’s a limit to our ability to shoulder the burden of government cuts and shield residents from their impact.

We are committed to maintaining our specialist teams that work with these households and which have helped hundreds of capped families secure exemptions or employment since 2013. So, far, this work has meant the council has not evicted anyone as a result of arrears caused by the Benefit Cap.

We will campaign hard to ensure that the level of Discretionary Housing Payments allocated by government to mitigate such cuts is increased, not cut further as it is being at present. But there will inevitably be people who will be worse off and who will struggle to pay their rent. Many more nationally will be forced into homelessness by this government policy as the lowering of the cap will mean that it is no longer a problem only for London.

We will work hard to ensure that we are ahead of the game in our preparations for this and the other benefit cuts that will inevitably follow. But, sadly, these cuts are coming, and the reduction in the Benefit Cap may not be the worst of them. We shall have to wait until the 8^th July budget statement to hear just how bad the government’s £12bn of welfare cuts are going to be. We will be leading London’s resistance.

Question (f) Councillor Diarmaid Ward to Councillor Shaikh, Executive Member for Economic and Community Development

Public libraries can provide community space, skilled staff and assisted online access, and reach out to vulnerable people. Do you have any plans to try and encourage more Islington residents to use the library service?

Reply:

Anyone who lives, works or studies in Islington can use our library services and we will continue to encourage as many people as possible to become library members. We ran a membership campaign from February – April this year which attracted 2,000 new members. We will continue to promote our services over the summer through events and activities. Our annual Word Festival finishes this week and has had an exciting programme of events for adults and children to promote reading and writing, including a focus on supporting people with mental health issues – many of these events are aimed at encouraging people who wouldn’t traditionally use libraries to get involved.

We have a full programme of summer holiday activities for children in our libraries and will also be encouraging all primary age children to join in the Summer Reading Challenge to read 6 books during the school holidays.

We are taking the library out into the community to advertise our work, including attendance at the Cally Festival and ‘BookSwaps’ in leisure centres, adventure playgrounds and other community venues. Our library staff are being trained to provide support to people who need to access on-line services such as help with benefits applications and Freedom pass renewals.

We will use printed publicity, our web pages and social media to promote all our services, including our on-line information and e-books.

Question (g) Councillor Russell to Councillor Shaikh, Executive Member for Economic and Community Development

Finsbury Park business forum is running a workfare scheme with A4E In which unemployed people are working 30 hours per week unpaid and risk their benefits being sanctioned if they do not turn up. Will the council join me in condemning this practice as exploitative and will you use your influence as a partner organisation of Finsbury Park Business Forum to bring this practice to an end and ensure that any station wardens are paid the London living wage in future?"

Reply:

Thank you for your question, Caroline, which is very similar to one asked by Cllr Heather, so please forgive me for using much of the detail from my response to him in my reply to you.

Islington Council is committed to supporting local residents into work as the best route out of poverty. Our pioneering Employment Commission looked at the many barriers facing local people from getting and keeping good and flexible jobs, and I proud of the work this council has done to tackle youth unemployment.

The Community Wardens Scheme operating around Finsbury Park station is run by the Finsbury Park Business Forum.

Council officers have contacted Job Centre Plus for more information and I called the Director of Finsbury Park Business Forum to ask him some questions too.

The scheme runs for 30 hours per week for 4 – 6 weeks and is meant to provide work experience.

Islington JCP first set up the scheme with FPBF in December 2011 and so far a total of 57 participants have been referred by JCP to attend the scheme, with the last referral from Islington JCP being in October 2014. Islington JCP is not currently referring people to the scheme. Other participants have volunteered off the street or been referred by local voluntary and community sector organisations.

FPBF have informed us that there are currently about 35 people involved in the scheme. It has plans to expand the scheme beyond the area around Finsbury Park station.

FPBF have asserted that 80% of all past participants in the scheme have enjoyed positive outcomes in terms of future employment, but no formal evaluation of the scheme has taken place, so we are not at all clear about how many people have got a job as a result of the scheme.

FPBF do not receive any money from the DWP for the scheme and the council has no involvement with the scheme or with FPBF in general. FPBF have informed us that the scheme is funded by donations and by the dues paid by businesses which are members of the FPBF.

My view is that this scheme is Workfare in all but name and I condemn it. Once a Community Warden has embarked upon the scheme, they are then part of a programme of compulsory, unpaid work experience and if they drop out they can be sanctioned.

Thank you for your question.

Question (h) Councillor Russell to Councillor Webbe, Executive Member for Environment and Transport

There are five things a council can do to reduce road casualties: Lower speed limits, re-configure roads, enforce speed limits, use new technology such as intelligent speed adaptation and invest in behaviour change and education.

In light of the 35% increase in serious collisions in Islington in 2014 compared to 2013. Will the council underpin the 20mph speed limit by

reconfiguring streets to reduce traffic flow with filtered permeability,
working with the police on enforcement via community speedwatch
calling on TFL to bring in an Independent Speed Adaptation bus trial in Islington and
promote behaviour change to encourage compliance with speed limits, drink/drug driving laws and mobile at the wheel bans?

Reply:

Thank you for your question, Caroline, and for your support for our pioneering 20mph speed limit – another example of Islington leading the way on road safety and lowering emissions.

Turning to your question, you are well aware of the various policies the Council has implemented to support its Sustainable Transport Policy, which are aimed at encouraging alternatives to car use. This includes cycle schemes and promoting cycle use, speed and accident reduction projects to improve safety and also lorry ban schemes to enforce our lorry ban areas.

Filtered permeability, or road closures as others refer to it, is something that is considered where appropriate. However, we have been successful in making roads and junctions safer by securing support from residents for our plans. An important part of this has been undertaking detailed studies to evaluate the impact such measures would have through traffic displacement to other roads. Carrying out careful research and being sympathetic to the views of local people is how we will continue to approach such matters.

We have an excellent relationship with the Police and have worked with them on a number of stop and advise sessions over the last 18 months. As a result the Police felt confident enough to initiate speed enforcement and we continue to lobby them to ensure regular active enforcement of the speed limit in the borough, as this is a priority and is something that residents have clearly asked us to do. We will have discussions about Community Speedwatch with the Police as this is something we would clearly need to work together on.

The Transport Research Laboratory, a body who works on behalf of the Department of Transport, are undertaking some work for TfL to understand the impact on surrounding traffic of buses which will have a control device fitted to limit their speed to the speed limit. One of the routes being looked at is the number 19 which runs through the borough. Islington have been working with the Transport Research Laboratory to enable the study to take place and the research from this study will be available later in the year.

Finally, it is of course right that we encourage drivers to change behaviour around responsible driving, and press the Police to enforce the law. We promote Department for Transport campaigns such as drink driving and speed compliance. However, we do engage in further work with the Police to undertake advice sessions, which has seen over 1,000 motorists stopped and advised of the 20mph limit in the borough.

Supporting documents:

Questions from Members of the Council 25 June 2015, item 54. PDF 154 KB