Agenda item

Question a) from Michael Ryan, Chief Executive of the St Luke’s Community Centre, to Councillor Burgess, Executive Member for Health and Social Care:

Why has the Council decided to cut funding of £26,000 pa for the unique dementia daycare service for such vulnerable members of our community when concern about dementia and isolation of older people is so high?

Reply:

Thank you for your question.  Following savage cuts to our budget by the government, which has cut our core budget by 50% since 2010, we have to examine every grant we give and ensure that public money is spent in the most effective way.  11 people are registered to attend the St Luke’s sessions and according to St Luke’s own recent figures an average of only 5 people attend daily.  The service costs £2,363 per service user per year and no assessment is made or referral required, so it’s possible that some of the service users don’t meet the thresholds.  We delayed making this cut until we could ensure that users can access other services and they can now do so by using the council’s Accessible Community Transport.

Supplementary question:

That’s the first explanation we have received from anyone, but we can’t understand how the £26,000 is going to save money if it is withdrawn.

Reply:

I wish that treating dementia was as simple as continuing the funding, but dementia carries on regardless. Islington Council supports the users of the daycare service and will continue to support people to access services here at St Luke’s – there are a lot of excellent services there and we will be providing transport to enable them to access them. The St Luke’s Community Centre has its own funding reserves, whilst we are struggling badly.  We want to help people with dementia; we spend £12million a year on services for people with dementia, but we have to send it where it has most impact.

The meeting was opened to questions from the floor.

Question from James Thurlow regarding the Council’s approach to the Tenant Tax. I am 34 years old and single and have stage 4 bowel cancer. I am on the housing waiting list and earn around £20,000 a year, however I am still nowhere near having enough points for my own home. Why is the Council challenging ‘pay to stay’ when it will support people who earn double my salary to stay in council homes?

Reply from Councillor Diarmaid Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

Thank you for your question. The Tenant Tax punishes hardworking residents and families when both parents are working. The Tenant Tax takes no account of residents’ outgoings; many families have children and it will be very difficult for them to find money for the resulting rent increases. The Tenant Tax is unfair, it taxes people just because they are council tenants.

Question from Margaret Rudge regarding cuts to services for vulnerable people. You talk about cuts, but you are hitting what I call “below the belt” people. Why don’t you tax big firms instead? The Council needs to go back to “real delivery” and your Finance Committee should look into everything you do. 

Reply from Councillor Andy Hull, Executive Member for Finance, Performance and Community Safety:

Thank you for your question. I would love nothing more than to tax all of the big firms with international headquarters in the borough. Sadly we can’t, so I urge you to take up this question with the Prime Minister and the Government to allow us to set higher taxes; it is an insult that we are forced to make cuts that affect vulnerable people. The government has cut 50% of our budget over the last five years, and we expect another quarter to be cut in the next five years. There are things we can do, we try to make sure that businesses pay their rates and have introduced Council Tax support schemes to defend residents most affected by government cuts. It is unacceptable that this government is balancing its books on the back of the poor, but we can’t do everything.

Question from Gill Weston. As several members already know, Housing and Adult Social Services is planning to build a large three storey block on Windsor Street to house 12-14 adults with specific disabilities. The council is failing to follow relevant building standards for this client group and will be putting these vulnerable people at risk of harm. The council will not respond to expert's reports which warn that the building will not be fit for purpose. When will the council seriously consider redesigning this building to guarantee the safety and wellbeing of the intended residents?

Reply from Councillor Diarmaid Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

I have visited and am in close contact with the Windsor Street residents by email and phone. The process is continuing and residents will continue to be kept informed of developments.

Question from Benali Hamdache. What can residents do to challenge the boundary review of parliamentary constituencies?

Reply from Councillor Richard Watts, Leader of the Council:

I think it is a disgraceful disenfranchisement of local people and we will be starting a petition. The Council may also respond corporately. I urge you all to reply to the Boundary Commission consultation. If we can work across parties to end this travesty we will be pleased to do so.

Question from Tessa Courage. The Council is planning to build a large three storey block on Windsor Street to house 12-14 adults with specific learning disabilities and challenging behaviours.  Can the lead councillors for housing and wellbeing explain what the capital cost for this is, whether this factors in legal costs arising from issues such as right to light, the cost of the tree that they have already removed from site, the cost of HTA consultants to get around the council's own planning rules, and the cost to the health and wellbeing of existing and intended residents?

Reply from Councillor Diarmaid Ward, Executive Member for Housing and Development:

Councillor Diarmaid Ward advised that he did not have the information to hand and would provide a written response after the meeting. The following response was subsequently provided:

The capital cost for the scheme is £3.2m inclusive of fees for legal and expert input. It is normal for any organisation carrying out development, including the council’s new homes development team, to engage a planning consultancy service as part of expert advice. The capital sum does not include a cost assessment around health and well-being. However, as has been shared with residents living locally, there has been an assessment of the need of residents with learning difficulties housed outside the borough currently to be closer to their families and support networks.

Question from Ernestas Jegorovas. Why is the Council failing to meet the government’s public sector apprenticeship targets?

Reply from Councillor Asima Shaikh, Executive Member for Economic Development:

Great efforts are being made to provide apprenticeships, to increase the number of people in apprenticeships through the iWork service, but there are challenges. London Councils have been lobbying against the unrealistic public sector apprenticeship target set by the government. We see great value in apprenticeships, and our youth employment support services are raising awareness of apprenticeships to teachers and students, and we work with schools to increase the take up.

We are working to make apprenticeships as attractive as other career paths. We are pushing for parity of esteem to other pathways as it is important that apprenticeships are considered as valid and valuable as other forms of education.