Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Good evening and welcome to the Abu'l U.N. Security Committee meeting. My name is Councillor Jack Dahy-Chowdhury and I will be chairing this meeting today. Only members attending in person can vote and does not include co-opties. The meeting is being recorded for the Council of Sites for public viewing. If there are any technical issues, I will decide if and how the meeting should continue after taking advice from the officers. Before we move on to apologies, I want to remind members and speakers that we are in part the period from now until the election takes place on 12 September. Therefore, you must not discuss or involve any election issues or party political content and stick closely to the matter set out for the discussion. Thomas, is there any apology? Good evening, Chair. Hello. We have three apologies, two from our co-opties and then we have also Kasa Ali who has given apologies due to a family bereavement this morning. Yes, we heard Councillor Aminari lost her brother. So it's our conduct to her and her family. Can members declare whether they have any disclosable secondary interest and indicate which aspect the interest relates, state whether their interest is of personal or prejudicial nature. Our only item this evening is a calling. It is a mayoral decision on the revised homeless accommodation placement policy agreed by cabinet on 10th of July 2024. Before we go into the details, can I remind members about the conduct in this session to act professionally and not be political. Keep an open mind throughout the discussion. Not discuss matters that are not part of the calling. Not discuss anything confidential or commercially sensitive and not discuss matters that are factually incorrect. Can members be mindful of time? Please be clear and concise with your questions so all committee members have an opportunity to ask questions. The committee is asked to consider the alternative course of action as set out in the calling report. We must hear from the calling members after five minutes followed by a question from the committee. We will then hear a response from Councillor Kabila Ahmed, cabinet member for regeneration, inclusive development and housing building after five minutes followed by a question from the committee. I will then open the question and discussion to the committee. We will then vote on the matter and, if necessary, have a brief adjournment to draft any recommendation wording before closing the item and moving on to the next item. Before we hear from the calling members, can I remind members of the video and written submission from Mr George Brinkley, which has been circulated to all members. You can consider this as a part of calling. Councillor Mark Parsons of the call member to speak. Can I ask Councillor Mark Parsons to make a calling, please? You have five minutes. Thank you, Chair. Is there going to be a clock? If there is not a clock, could you just give me notice with two minutes remaining, please? Thank you. So thank you, committee, for hearing the calling on the homelessness accommodation placement strategy from the 10th of July cabinet. The reasons for our calling is that this is a terrible policy being implemented prematurely and without taking any meaningful account of what homeless families who are affected by it feel about the policy. The first that most homeless families seem to have heard about this change is when they received a letter from the council warning that they are now at risk of being moved into temporary accommodation even further from Tower Hamlets. In the three months since then, Labour councillors have had many families come into them in fear of what this might mean. We expect even more once this actually starts happening. It's a policy of total and abject failure. The report to the Mayering cabinet removes the current 90 minute journey time as a maximum distance from the Tower Hamlets statutory homeless households that are placed in temporary accommodation. And the report sets out the places where families can be moved to. In general, only families with children in their final year of GCSEs or A levels will be placed in TA in the borough. Families with children in other year groups will be placed anywhere in London and those whose children are not yet in school could be put anywhere in the home counties. This approach appears to be based upon one adopted by the former Conservative administration in the city of Westminster following the legal challenge on behalf of Tatina and Zola Maso in 2013 when she was told that the only TA available was in Milton Keynes. That challenge was upheld by the Supreme Court and the decision was struck down. The report argues that the current subsidy arrangements for homeless households in TA mean that the Tower Hamlets faces significant deficit every week for every homeless household in TA and that this led to a £12 million cost to the general fund in 2023-24. While it's true that local authorities find themselves subsidising the costs of homelessness, the report fails to acknowledge that much of this cost in 2023-24 was because of the failures in management of the homeless services itself that resulted in hundreds of homeless families unlawfully spending months in unsuitable bed and breakfast hotels. In addition, the report fails to acknowledge the impact placements in TA far from support networks of family and friends can have severe consequences for vulnerable families, especially lone parents and those already suffering mental health problems. In recent years, the council also has a poor track record of helping homeless households get essential repairs done and proactively checking the condition and suitability of TA out of borough, leaving children at risk from damp and mould in poorly maintained electrics. Elected members have repeatedly raised concerns about the experiences of individual homeless households with the Housing Options Service. For some of us, the response to concerns about the suitability of TA is slow, inadequate and frequently requires referrals to legal advice agencies to pursue formal challenges. Between 1997 and 2010, the then government made significant improvements to the subsidy arrangements to TA that resulted in an end to the prolonged use of B&B for families with children and ultimately halved the numbers of households in TA. While the new government has not made that manifesto, newly elected MPs are already working hard with local authorities to make the case for this. In July, just two weeks after the Mayor's decision in Cabinet, the National Audit Office published a report revealing how seriously the subsidy arrangements for TA need to change. London Council, representing all the boroughs, has been orchestrating a campaign to make the case for reform in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. That decision will be made on 30 October. Why then is the Mayor and officers rolling out this awful policy in advance of that decision? And why are officers already implementing that decision by sending letters to homeless families when it is subject to this calling? They must be very sure that some of the councillors on this committee are not going to be supporting this calling tonight and will endorse the Mayor's original decision. The measure to send vulnerable homeless families even further away from town homeless is premature, unnecessary and doesn't take proper account of its impact on those families. So the Mayor should reverse his decision. Instead, he should instruct officers to focus on the procurement and management of TA in East, North East and South East London and bring external expertise in to secure these homes. In addition, he should instruct officers to commission a survey of our own nearly 3000 homeless households in TA to properly understand the impact placements far from town hamlets have on them and publish those decisions. Finally, a decision on the necessity of any change along these lines needs to be seen in light of the comprehensive spending review decision at the end of October, including the subsidy arrangements both for homelessness and for local government in general. So I hope you'll support the calling this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. I invite members of the committee, you can ask any questions you have maximum 10 minutes. Council on attorney. Let me make a note question. Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Councillor Francis for bringing this. What do you think? What do you see as the the central problem in which the the homelessness team is not overcoming with this policy? And what fundamental change given that given the context that it's operating in what what fundamental change do you think we could make to make the policy work better? So I don't want the mayor's policy to work better. I want the mayor's policy not to be implemented. I think that's really important to state. So it may well be that we come to a time when town Hamlets Council can do nothing, can afford nothing other than to place homeless families into temporary accommodation far beyond 90 minutes away from this borough. But I don't believe that we're in that place at this stage. And I don't believe that we'll be in that place following the comprehensive spending review. There's everyone here's every day that they're you know, there's not loads of money. And that is obviously the case. But nevertheless, just today, the government has announced an additional 500 million pounds for the household support fund. So my understanding is that that's around half the money that is required for pre accommodation subsidy as well. So it just goes to show that money can be found. It won't be found easily. But my point is that this decision, our point is that this decision is premature. And the other thing we really want to say we really want to emphasise is the fact that homeless families have been told that this is happening, but not ask their opinions about about it, obviously, some, most I would expect be have concerns about it themselves. But we should be doing more than just saying do you think it's good or bad, we should just be be asking people what up whether it's appropriate or what are the what are the extra challenges that they have by being placed so far from their home borough. I had a young family in my vice surgery earlier in the summer a couple of weeks ago, who are placed in a one bedroom flat, two children open plan kitchen diner, they shouldn't be in there for a start because it's an open plan kitchen diner, but that she has serious mental health problems. She's a young mum with two young children. She has no connections other than those that she has in town Hamlets, and she's in Medway. And you know that falls within the scope of the policy is difficult enough. You can imagine how much worse that will be if she ends up being even further out in Kent or Essex. Thank you, Chair. My question is, was we can remain hopeful that the new government will bring measures to support local local government? Do you not agree that Tower Homeless Council must make the best decision possible in the short term revising the 2021 policy, which is no longer fit for purpose, protecting the public purse, reserving the right to modify his position if new resources are provided by the new government? So, Councillor Ahmed, I think my point back to you would be it like if you think that this is a possibility, why is this happening in advance of the decision being announced? I mean, you might have you might have thought there might be a decision on the comprehensive spending review earlier in the summer. I mean, the reality is that this is probably the earliest it's going to be. I mean, if all that this is about is about saving money and not about protecting the future of families in Tower Hamlets, then it seems to me you're looking at this problem or the mayor and his team are looking at this issue in the wrong way. You know, what I'm talking about is to try to make sure that we deliver a service which is along the lines of the service that Tower Hamlets has historically delivered ever since the frankly Labour Party came in and stopped the Lib Dem policy of trying to ship homeless families, mostly Bangladeshi families, like all over the country, in fact, sometimes out of the country as well. So we've had a really strong history within Tower Hamlets of going the extra mile to protect our homeless families, of not resorting to the bare statutory minimum. And I think what we're asking for is that that continues. And yes, that requires some additional public subsidy beyond what the government might give us, I would ask where the kind of the mayor's priorities lie, if that subsidy isn't going to be put in, then if Councillor. Can I just add, I think Councillor Hamlet said the council implements policy in its best interest. Now, whose best interest is it? If you talk about council's best interest, are we forgetting about the vulnerable people, the residents, the families, the children who are placed in temporary accommodation? Surely, we should look at their best interest. So as Councillor Francis have we asked homeless families, have we done a survey rather than sending a letter saying we're moving you miles and miles away from London? So there are welfare issues. I had a family come to me, living in bed and breakfast for four months and they go two bedroom on two different floors. I have other members. I'm asking for the best interest of the family. This is always best interest of the residents, Councillor Abdul-Mannan, please. Thank you, Chair. To Mark, the alternative proposal suggests delaying any decision until the government comprehensive spending review, which is coming this summer. What are the risks and benefits of waiting for this review before implementing such significant changes? What are the risks and benefits of waiting for this review before implementing such changes? I would suggest that the benefit is for the families themselves not to be moved from the place that they already are and moved even further out. I mean, there's more than two and a half thousand households now in temporary accommodation. I think around half of those are in Tower Hamlets. Around about a third of those in Tower Hamlets are actually in TA that's owned by the council, having been bought under the last administration from various sources, over 400 homes bought. It seems to me that was a really good approach to trying to accommodate homeless families in Tower Hamlets. It's certainly a better one than this. Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Thank you, Councillor Francis. The law of supply and demand suggests that if more councils, obviously we're in the same boat with a lot of other councils, are chasing a limited number of houses for the homeless people, which is extremely sad, external expertise which you suggest as a solution will not give us affordable housing to use as temporary accommodation. What do you suggest that the officers do to avoid overspent, which is very important to us, to pursue what you are suggesting in your callings? Thank you. So in relation, so you're saying that there's an overspend and officers are worried about that overspend continuing. So I think I would point to what I said in the initial presentation. So in large part, that overspend was caused by the, frankly, poor leadership of Housing Options Service and the failure that meant that over 100 homeless families were unlawfully in bed and breakfast beyond the six week legal limit that happened under this administration, not the last administration, this one. Yeah. And that is one of the key drivers of the overspending homeless services, plus the additional issues that they've been with the management of the service. So how do you get around that? Apart from obviously bringing in new management, new expertise to try to resolve that, which I understand is in train. And there's also been some structural changes as well. So I think one of the key ways that you do that is by setting a budget that is realistic, and that you can adhere to, and sweating the assets of this council. As I said, like you described homeless families as being in affordable accommodation and not they're in stuff that's either rented, leased from the private sector, or that we ourselves own. As I said, over 400 homes were bought under the last administration for useless temporary accommodation. So 400 more homes have been bought now, we might not be in this position, or it's been bought in the last two years, it might not be in this position. But that's stopped. So that's a big part of the problem as well. Thank you Mark. Any other members? James? I've got a question. I think, what equalities impacts do you think, it's not really mentioned in the call-in, but what equalities impacts you think there will be, or dangers could there be, but through the implementation of this policy, because it's something I'm quite concerned about knowing. Lots of the people come to my surgery and I deal with who are in temporary accommodations usually because of familial breakdown and things like that, usually very difficult, and indeed as you mentioned, health issues as well, which then means they're farther away from support and things like that. So what equalities impacts do you think the policy would have and could be avoided or could be further looked at? Thank you, Councillor King. So I think Councillor Francis already gave you an example of a family with mental health issues re-housing a two-bedroom or one-bedroom open plan. So that's an example of equality impact, I suppose, the other area. So especially if you look at these current policies, the 90-minute rule has been taken away, families can be placed in places far away from Hamlets. Now if you look at a Muslim family with children being housed, someone like Buckinghamshire or somewhere like Hertfordshire, you have to think about not just a school, because you can find a school place somewhere, but what about places of religious worship? Will somebody find a mosque locally somewhere? What about access to halal food, butchers, et cetera? There are certain places that you will find very difficult to access those services. So are you saying that families have to travel somewhere near the place they've been placed in or come to Hamlets to access those kind of services? That's apart from the family disconnection. So I think there are huge equality impacts in this policy, and I think, as Councillor Francis said, I think proper evaluation needs to be carried out and consultation with homeless families before we thoughtfully implement this policy and wait until the spending review is over as well. If the government puts in more money, there is no need to implement such a policy. When I was cabinet member responsible, I remember we had developers offering us temporary coverage like a Harwich and Margate and refused, because we did not want to disconnect people from town, as importantly for a Muslim family, it would be very difficult for the kids to go to a mosque in Harwich or access halal food, et cetera. This is why we declined them, and we purchased the 400 properties to place homeless families into Hamlets, as well as we used lots of decant properties from housing associations to place homeless families, plus we were part of capital letters, for example, which were no longer, and other innovative ways of free housing such as a place project. Can I just add a specific group, because we were talking about equalities, this has been my last point. So Councillor Kinge knows, because he was on the housing and scrutiny committee last year, that we have particular concerns being raised with us by families of Somali heritage. I have families from all different ethnic backgrounds coming to me, but the council has had this complaint and concerns raised by Somali families about the way that they are engaged with, the quality of their temporary accommodation, the distance that they're placed in, and how long it takes for them to get a move within the portfolio of temporary accommodation. And that is a really serious concern that has never been properly kind of responded to back to this council in general, or the scrutiny committee, or ONS as well. So, you know, there's an example, but I agree with what Councillor Isamu said about others as well. So we don't pretend that this is easy. We don't say this could never ever happen under any circumstances. What we're saying is that the decision was premature in July, and the council should be joining with other London boroughs to argue for the change to the subsidy and relationship. So that's what our MPs across London are already doing, and we need to wait and see what the outcome of that is, and what improvements can be made, rather than this rush to force people into TA much further out. Thank you Mark. Can I invite Councillor Kobi Rahmat, cabinet member, and Karen Sepp and other officers to please make your representation? Can I ask the officers who have mentioned them to introduce themselves please? Abul Kalam, Service Manager for Housing Management and Procurement. Karen Swift, Director for Housing Strategy, Policy and Regulatory Assurance. Thank you. Mohan Sain, Interim Director of Housing Options and Homelessness. Thank you. Thank you chair. Can I start off by setting the scene chair? The Homelessness Code of Conduct guidance guides boroughs to place a household in borough, or as close as possible to the borough. This remains the case, but is not always possible due to affordability and availability. Now that's the key, the availability. That's something that my colleagues, councillors who presented, weren't too bothered about. This is the same struggle that was faced by administration after administration, not only in this local authority, but currently in every single local authority in the country. A recent report identified over a billion pounds being spent on temp accommodation, on average 90 million pounds of being spent within London, and a large section of that is within this borough as well. Local authorities like Newham are facing potential section 114 territory, which is essentially going into administration and bankruptcy as a result of the bill associated with temporary accommodation. National policies, and we know national policies take time to change, however assertive a government wants to be, only pays us 90% of the local housing allowance from 2011, and we know house prices have exceptionally risen in Tower Hamlets. So, going into the details of the call-in, but prior to that I just wanted to pick up on a few points, and I want to make it very clear to this committee that no Tower Hamlets MP has been proactively working with this council, and that's categorically clear. And to date, we are still waiting for them to work with us, and I'd like to take this opportunity to invite all three MPs to specifically come and discuss housing issues and how central government can support this council in these challenging situations, particularly around finance, particularly around issues of good financial management, because on the one hand we do operate with the heart, and on the other hand we have a balanced budget that we must deliver. Again and again we are being scrutinised on how prudent we are with our money. However, as we come to the issue of this policy itself, there are assertions within this that are tactics to scaremonger. Now let's put something into context, the 90-minute rule. Using the Elizabeth line will take you to Peterborough. We can actually place people under the current policy in Peterborough, which is 100 miles away, yet Councillor Islam was worried about sending people to Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire. We can send them a lot further away under the current policy. We talk about capital letters. Well, actually, we terminated our contract with capital letters because they weren't providing enough properties to us, which they were contracted to do. It was less than 50 per cent of what they were supposed to provide, and we brought those two procurement officers to this council in order to procure properties directly for this council. We've invested an additional - this year we've invested an additional £1.95 million in order to boost up the homelessness and the temp accommodation department, including procurement. We've appointed a new director specifically to focus on those areas, to provide good quality housing, but also reduce costs as well, because we have to operate within a reality that has to have a balanced budget. Now, we want good quality homes. If we can't procure good quality homes within Tower Hamlets, because of the costs involved, we want to give - You have two minutes left. Sure. We want to give residents the opportunity to have good quality homes, and therefore if we can procure properties outside, as previous administrations did in Medway, in Kent, in Bromley, in all areas beyond the M25, but people have gardens, people have a little bit more space, yet pay less for it, then that's supporting the needs of residents. In terms of allocations, the council is in charge of allocations, so we have a policy in place which will support residents in terms of looking at priorities. We've set out priorities, but if there are other mitigating circumstances, all of those will be taken into consideration. Now, the key is about having not-so-low working, which is what is proposed. What we want is an integrated system, where we can process paperwork faster, where we can get people permanent homes faster. In terms of acquisitions, we're targeting 600 buybacks of new properties, as well as old buybacks of 600 homes. Now, these are steps we're taking. We're not talking about 400 here. We're talking about 600 here, 200 more. Now, can we just sit here and wait for government to change policy, while at the same time, Hembridge, millions and millions of pounds, is that a responsible thing to do as elected councillors, as an administration? No, it's not a responsible thing to do. So we have to balance. Now, within that balance, this is a policy. However, if we have truckloads of money, which is needed from central government, in order to facilitate homelessness, in order to build new homes, in order to procure more homes from the private sector, yes, we will happily recoil back on policies such as this. Your time is up. Thank you. Can I invite members to ask questions? You have 10 minutes. Let me make a note, Councillor Haslam. Councillor – you can start. Councillor Natterli, maybe you can start. Thanks, Jay. I just wanted to, because I started last time. Does anybody else want to start? Yeah, so thank you for that. My first question is about the two pilots that are running alongside this, one being cost of living grant scheme and the other one, find your own PRS. The grant scheme has, I have to be honest, has a lot of details in it about the gaps it's trying to fill. However, I want to know, addressing Councillor Francis' point about this policy being too premature, why are you not giving some time for these two schemes to have some time to see how much relief is going to be applied to the homeless department and then putting this into action, if needed. I just wanted you to answer that and then I've got three other points to come back on. The two pilots that were in the cabinet report yesterday, the two schemes, they're both pilots and they're only for six months and they're only for £150,000 each, which is the amount of money that we've been able to get from the Homelessness Prevention Grant. The amount of people that would be able to help with those, it's a pilot to see whether it works and then we would be able to extend it. So I think it needs to run alongside these sort of changes, because it's not in itself going to be the game changer that we would be looking for. It has to be sitting alongside a whole range of other measures. I'll give you one more please, because everybody wants to ask questions. When I've got time I'll give you time again. Can you ask one more question now? Okay, to come back on this point then, the report doesn't supply any information about how far you think these pilots are going to go, like what is it based on, what evidence, who else has done it. Also, like you said, trying to find a solution for this problem is going to need multiple strands of solutions. You don't also talk about that and this is the thing, this is quite a big policy, a big change for those that are in need, but you don't supply the information and the evidence, or where's the expert advice that has come through in order for this having to be a last resort. I don't get a sense of that from the report. So I think you've got to draw it into context. This does not mean every single resident that comes through these doors as homeless will be placed outside of London. It means that we will start in Tower Hamlets and then we will move outwards from Tower Hamlets and we will try to house as many people as possible within Tower Hamlets, neighbouring boroughs, as we are doing right now. However, we also need to keep the option open for good quality homes and there are a lot of people who would choose a better quality home outside in a suburban area as opposed to within Tower Hamlets and if they want it voluntarily we should give them that opportunity. Not everybody prefers to live in a building. Other people may choose to live in houses. We can procure houses at a cheaper rent than we can procure a flat, you know, three floors, four floors high. So there are lots of options available, but it doesn't mean that there will be an exodus out of Tower Hamlets. Our first priority will always be to locate people in Tower Hamlets. Sorry, I just wanted to pick up on the point that Councillor Francis made, which was related to your question. So Councillor Francis talked about the Zolomisa case, which was the Westminster case whereby they placed a family in Milton Keynes and they were judicial reviewed and they were found to be at fault. And because of that case, placement policies came out of that decision, out of that judicial review. So there weren't placement policies before. Local authorities weren't able to say why they chose Milton Keynes or why they chose Harwich. Out of the Zolomisa case came placement policies and all local authorities have a placement policy because it's about being transparent about what it is that we can do in order to help you. So this policy already existed. It's not a new policy. It was in place in 2021. It was out of date. It was out of date because guess what, we'd had judicial reviews about some aspects of the placement policy. We'd had Ombudsman's cases. We'd also realised that other local authorities had better placement policies than us. So we refreshed it. We also realised the 90 minute rule was not really working because it's so reliant that transport can be disruptive. You can't ever measure 90 minutes from one day to the next. And most local authorities have moved to these zones. But what I will say is that zones are commonplace, but our policy goes even further because in other boroughs they just state in borough or out of borough. So with the exception of Newham, Waltham Forest, Camden and Southwark, who set out zones where their households would be placed. So we are following the likes of Newham, Waltham Forest, Camden and Southwark by actually setting out the zones. So the first zone is to Hamlets and then it's London, then it's out of London, then it's further afield. A lot of other boroughs just say in or out of London. So we're taking the best practice from all of the other placement policies and putting it there so residents can see that we're transparent about where it is that we're going to look for accommodation. There are 3,500 households in temporary accommodation at the moment. There was 2,800 last year. And Councillor Francis talked about the National Audit Office report. And the statistics came out last month for the Ministry in July, Ministry of Local Government issued in July in 2024. The quarterly homelessness statistics from January to March 2024. And they revealed a record number of households living in temporary accommodation. And the Deputy Prime Minister said the situation is described as the most acute housing crisis in living memory. I'm really hopeful that we do get some announcements from government in October. But this policy already exists. It's just about updating it. And we are using the best practice for most of the London boroughs in terms of setting out the zones that we're using as opposed to in borough and outer borough. And currently 58% of the placements are outer borough. Thank you, chair. And thank you very much for your nice presentation. Can you explain to me more about how will the council ensure the quality and safety of the temporary accommodation in the inner boroughs? Can I ask everybody to, when you ask a question, please be brief. And when you answer, please be brief as well, because I have a time limit to meet you. Why are we in such a rush this evening? I don't understand. Why is that? No one's explained that. Why is that? This is quite important. So I don't understand why we're being restricted to an hour. This has never happened before. If it helps you, chair, when I chaired the overview experience committee, we had call ins, we'd spend half an hour doing questions and answers. Last time as well, but I've been advised that this calling has to be one hour. Why? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but I'm just... So this is the time setter in the council's procedure rule, which is part of the constitution for call ins. This is the time for all call ins and as said at the owner's procedure. Obviously, it's up to the committee and the chair if you want to end. I think even for the first round, we will... It's a 10 minute allocation. I think we spend about 15 minutes. Can I repeat the question again, please? Yeah, can you repeat it? Yeah, can you just repeat the question again, please? Thank you. How will the council ensure the quality and safety of the temporary air commutation out of Berkeley? Thank you. So I'll pass on table, but just to let you know, in addition to what was already in place, we've invested another 1.95 million, just under 2 million pounds in recruiting 35 staff, frontline staff, as well as a number of other staff, which also includes appointing a new interim director, which we will be going permanently for, who will specifically oversee homelessness and temporary accommodation. That includes the quality that's delivered as well as acquisitions and take a real direct focus on it. Now Karen, she's done a fantastic job, but Karen also needed support in that area. It was such a large area and it's gone... The way it's grown in terms of the level of focus it needs, one person can no longer deal with it. So that's why Mo Hussein's been brought in. He's a specialist in the area. He's worked across around 15 London local authorities delivering this kind of quality and change. I've also got Abel here, who can also explain in more detail. He's the service manager who's in charge of procurement of temporary accommodation, servicing the quality of it and also negotiating with landlords in getting services up to scratch as well. Abel, do you want to say a few words? Thank you. So we have commenced a robust inspection regime of all TA. This commenced in August this year. So recently we've been given additional resources so that we are able to visit all households in TA at least minimum once a year. We also did a temporary accommodation survey last year and we took the findings and made some changes. We're due to send out another survey to residents again in the coming months. The last survey we've got about 300 responses from residents. So we're hoping this time we'll get a lot more responses and we will include questions around location. We did include that in the last survey about how they're feeling about the location. Answers were that initially they didn't like it but then they've settled there. But yeah, we have started a full inspection regime of all temporary accommodation. In addition to that, can I just add that us as local councillors, we're all elected to champion residents and they provide our bread and butter essentially. And if any councillor within this committee or within this council does have issues around quality, please raise it with us so that we can actually directly deal with these issues. There are some that may slip through the net and we have to be honest about that. And if they do slip through and it comes to casework for yourselves, please notify the team and we will... Thanks, Chair. So one of the, I think I have basically two questions. One of them is around the contribution that we had from a campaigner called George Bleakley who was concerned about the lack of provision for people in wheelchairs and people with disabilities in the temporary accommodation and the homelessness allocations policy. His story was really, really, you know, I was really affected by it and I'm really shocked. He has taken, he's now settled his case but he mentioned that there are other cases that the council is also engaged in. I'm really concerned that there isn't a discussion of equality's impact within the policy. What are we doing to serve our disabled residents, homeless residents better to prevent this from happening? That's the first question. And the second question is, I think this is less about the policy but more about the reality that the team is operating in. I don't really understand because I'm a private renter myself, I don't really understand. So I looked on Zoopla this afternoon because I looked at the report that was issued by you and it said we're paying something like 382 pounds per week, I guess per case on bed and breakfast accommodation. I thought surely that's an affordable amount of money to be spending within Tower Hamlets on flats and lo and behold there were nearly 3,000 properties on Zoopla for 950 pounds per week. We are placing 58% of our homeless households within Tower Hamlets but if there are sort of 3,000 properties technically available, what's the gap? Why can't we as the council say to landlords we are a reputable tenant, essentially? Just explain that to me, because I'm not getting that. So I think one of the first things is there's a lot of private leaseholders or freeholders who don't want to rent to homeless or work directly with the council. It's more lucrative for them and they find it more sustainable not to give it. There's misconceptions. Why is it more lucrative in the private sector? Because we're essentially entering the private sector. No, no, this is the misconception. So I'm just trying to explain the misconception but there is a level of discrimination when it comes to homelessness residents from the owners of the properties. What we are doing is those two officers we've brought back from Capital Letters along with Abel's team, there's been a campaign that's been going on for about a year now. We're trying to get landlords directly engaging with the councils so that we can get those properties to house residents. We will even offer them inducements in order to get those properties to support council residents, to support homelessness residents. The volumes also increased due to no full evictions section 21 notices and that's happened nationally all over. But the reality of it is there is also a number of vacant properties within the borough. However, if the landlords don't want to work with us or allow homeless residents in there, we are unfortunately our hands are tied in relation to that. Even if trying to bid over the asking price, that kind of thing. So I'll give you a real-term example. So I was speaking to a housing operator not that long ago and the example is I don't want homeless people because they're going to nick things. I don't want homeless people because they're going to break things. I don't want children in the homes because they're going to damage my property. Those who are in temporary accommodation are going to ruin, I've just spent £50,000 doing the house up. They're going to ruin it. I won't get that money back. And then there's ways payments are made. Oh, they're going to run off with their money. I won't be able to evict them afterwards. So there's a multiple of unjustified reasons that people don't allow homeless residents to reside in a number of properties. And, you know, Councillor, I would ask you to go to some of the bigger operators and speak to them. So, you know, without mentioning names, we see the billboards, we see it advertised everywhere. I would suggest you speak to the state agents sometimes. Or if there are property owners, you know, who want to work with the council, I more than welcome you to bring them forward to the council. >> Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Amelie.

Quickly, please. >> So just in terms of the call in, George, who came to the cabinet meeting, I was at the cabinet meeting. I heard George. And I responded to his calling, to his deputation. And I think the first thing I said to George was it's really good to hear from a service user who is affected by our policies. It's certainly encouraging when we get people who want to come to say what their thoughts are. He did have his own experience of the service. And as you said, that wasn't up for discussion on the night. There's a full EIA attached to the cabinet report. And the EIA concludes that there's no negative impact on any of the protective groups. If the safeguards in the policy are actually carried out, they would mitigate against all of the possible negative impacts. So the safeguards are contained in Section 3.1 and 3.5 of the policy. So each house would be considered on their individual circumstances. Officers make a competent assessment of the person's need to determine the suitability of any offer made. There are no arbitrary requirements or any criteria to inform the priorities around a placement. It's completely done on the composite needs of the individual. And that's really clearly set out in the policy in Sections 3.1 and 3.5. And the EIA said that if those were carried out, there would be no negative impact of the policy on any of the protective groups. Thank you. This is more a question about procurement. So in terms of Zone D, just how far are we looking? Just how far are we going? And what challenges does that present to you and officers and your team? Because I don't know how you do this, but are there going to be physical site visits across the country to make sure that these places are up to standard and quality? And how difficult does that become to maintain to ensure that these places are kept at a quality level if these places are God knows where? And then the other thing as well, because I was a little bit baffled by this, if somebody can explain this to me, that would be great, in the same vein, Chair, is an equality impact assessment. Basically that if somebody is placed out of borough and outside of London, officers will ensure there are established communities whereby a diverse community can be catered for. How are we measuring that? I don't understand that. How do you measure diversity in a random place? Who decides what's diverse enough for a certain family? So I'll go by what Councillor Shiraajul Islam suggested, a Muslim family, for example, as he said. So we will try to procure properties. Is it Penton House? Yeah. So an example is Penton House. It's in Lushan. Okay. So there are Muslim families who are placed within that site as well as other families as well. So there is access to halal food. There is access to places of worship. There is access to other facilities they may need, medical facilities and so on and so forth. So these are some of the areas we can say which would be culturally sensitive that we would also look out for. If they identify specific needs, then again officers will try to work towards those specific needs in order to support their move, you know, as much as possible. But I think the key thing is what we don't want is people to lumber in temporary accommodation. So the key thing is to work towards actually getting them out of temporary accommodation as quick as possible. And if we had the stock available, then nobody would be in temporary accommodation. And I suppose that's the key, getting them into permanent accommodation as quick as possible. And that's why we've got also officers who are working diligently in order to try to reduce those numbers and get them into permanent accommodation as well. And we're looking at multiple products in order to do it. And it also depends on money as well. And if they're earning money and they can afford certain amounts of rent, then they will qualify for certain products. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. My question is to the lead member. The report seems to be influenced by the Westminster case where temporary accommodation was offered in Milton Keynes. This was upheld by the Supreme Court. So Tower Humblers is on strong legal ground. My concern is that it takes a village to bring up a child. So placing families a long distance from family and social network is harming our communities. What do we, what do you propose to do so family families are supported and not cut adrift? And my second point is, I would probably could answer at the same time, despite your previous comments, you agree that the landlords are not willing to rent out to or communicate with council. And you point out some of the reasons. But I think, is it not one of the main reasons that because I live in the area and come across a lot of landlords, is it not one of the cases that the landlord find that when a family is being let by through Tower Humbler Council, it's very difficult for them to, if they want the property back for some reason, they want to sell it or they want to sell the lease or something like that, it's very difficult for them to take them out of the property because they are always advised by the officers that don't go out. They can't force you out. So is it something that you can ease or something like that in order to invite a lot of landlords? Thank you. So if I start from the reverse side, Chair, in terms of evicting people, there are statutory legal guidelines. The council will always, when it comes to any resident, advise the resident as their best legal options. And particularly, no full evictions is not something that this administration supports. And I don't believe it's ethical or moral. When somebody who's paying their rent on time, who's working hard to bring up their family, is evicted just through mere financial inducements or through whatever reasons it may be. That's my first point around that. So the council isn't going to do anything exceptional that isn't that person's legal right. And yes, absolutely, I'll stand by that. We will advise every resident to the best of their abilities to follow the legal opportunities they have in law. In relation to your other points, just remind me what it was? A village to raise a child. Again, we're not suggesting that people will be left in a secluded hut or a tent in the middle of the countryside. No one's suggesting that. So where people will be placed will be much like they are placed now. But we're looking a little bit afar where needed. And that's the key message. Now the current policy can take them quite easily to Peterborough. It takes one hour, 15 minutes by public transport to get to Peterborough. The current policy allows one hour, 30 minutes. Now Peterborough's nearly 100 miles away. That is the reality of today. That is the reality of the previous administration's policy. Now it's not rubbish Councillor Ainslie. So what I will say is we are revising the current policy to make it more sustainable. Now there are numerous families, there were property acquisitions made by the previous administration which were in Kent, which were in various different places outside of London. So it's not a reality that's new. Yet we will do our best to endeavour that there are communities there that people can live with. They won't be isolated. Councillor James King. As a second time you mentioned Peterborough as an example of somewhere the council could send home the service to. So how far away is too far away? What is the limit that the council should be sending people away from their social networks in terms of miles? You suggested twice that 100 miles is too far away. So as I said, the focus is to keep as many people in Town Hamlets as possible. But the reality is, so with 700 extra families coming in, there's this massive demand, we can't accommodate them in London, we can't accommodate them in Town Hamlets, they're going to have to go further out into the home counties and then Zone D, which is everywhere else. I assume everywhere else in the country, you're not going to send people further than that. But that's what I'm trying to get at. Where does Zone D end? Because twice you've implied 100 miles is too far away from people for their social networks. So twice I haven't implied 100 miles is too far away, or it's not far enough, in any case. So we can gather from that 100 miles or from around where... Sorry, Chair, will I be allowed to answer the question, or will I be... Councillor King, can you let him answer, please? So once again, in terms of how much is too far away, for me, I would say outside of Town Hamlets is too far away. However, the constraints we have, we have to operate within those constraints. If we can't procure properties within Town Hamlets, these are Town Hamlets residents, these are people we advocate for, and we will all fight tooth and nail in order to support our residents to remain in Town Hamlets. Yet we have to look at where we can procure properties. Now, I can't set a plan forward. What I will tell officers is try to procure as many properties as possible within Town Hamlets, and that's also part of our buyback scheme as well, that we want to procure as many properties in Town Hamlets, which will also go to temp accommodation, as well as permanent residents as well. So I can't give you definitively, okay, how far out we will go, but the policy allows for it. There's a difference between what's allowed for and what we will be targeting, and ideally we will be focusing on targeting Town Hamlets and surrounding boroughs categorically, but... Okay, I think we've got the answer there. I've got a final question. I think I'll ask it to Karen so we can get some more detail rather than waffle. So as we said, we've identified there's 700 additional families coming online this year for temporary accommodation, and now we're changing the policy to be able to find places for them further afield. Have you modelled how many of the additional families coming online will be outside of what we're now calling zone A and B? If so, how many will be modelled outside? So first of all, the starting point, because the code of guidance says that, is that you should place in borough. We're not departing from that. That will always be the starting point. The policy allows for an annual review, and if there are any adjustments to the local housing allowance through the HP subsidy loss, then obviously we'll reflect that in how we can procure. But it goes back to the point I made earlier around you asked me about the modelling. It's an assessment of individual needs. So if we can't find a unit in the borough for a disabled person who needs level of access, then we will have to go somewhere else. So it's based on the need of the person. It's not based on arbitrary targets, and it's really just about what's available on the day. I would say, and Abel hasn't had a chance to say anything, but Abel's team, one of the strengths of Abel's teams is they are very, very sensitive to making sure that wherever they're procuring, and they do procure in established areas, that there are communities already in those areas so that the people who are moving to those areas are well supported. Those are the fundamental checks that Abel's team do. And what I will say in terms of areas, we have accommodation in Slough. You already know about that. We've procured that with Redbridge as a joint venture. We have accommodation in Lewish, Lewisham, 130 families in Lewisham, which we procured from the, the, the Clear Springs who were working with asylum seekers who didn't need that accommodation anymore. And Abel's, the rest of Abel's work is around Ilford and Romford. So we, we don't think that this policy is going to move us any, any further away than what we're already procuring. It's just making it much clearer and transparent because people tend to focus on the zones in the placement policy, but there's all sorts of other really good improvements. Just to clarify my, to clarify my questions. Is this policy going to be able to find enough households to put our temporary accommodation families in, is basically what I'm asking? I think, I think it will and I think, you know, Abel's team worked really hard with really established providers to, to work in those areas. We have already asked your question. Let him, let her answer the question. I think you understand what the model, what the need of the community, shall we call them, of the three, 3,500 people is, what sort of needs they have. And obviously everyone's different, but I think you understand the broad makeup and you've got to know the procurement, which will now be outside London, is going to be able to meet their needs. It already is outside London because of the 90s. Can you, can you be brief to James and please, this is the final time I'm telling you James. Please answer this question and I'll move on next. Councillor Bozzarell. No, sorry, sorry. Thank you, chair. Not you, sorry. All right, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair. That's a long wait. My question to the lead member is a reality question. Is, I know it's a temporary accommodation, we are coming to the bottleneck, but what about... Can you switch off your mic, please? What are families whose children go to schools who have been placed out of time, unless for six weeks, then obviously for six weeks and they've got 90 million journey to bring in, which is 90 million each way, making three hours. Imagine you put in a family of two or three, going to schools, putting in... No, Peter, you know, further away, it could be in Kent, could be in Essex. How do you, if you put yourself in that school, how do you expect the family to come to school and deal, at the same time, how are they going to... Schools and travelling time, they will not be able to bring in time, they have to find alternative schools and so on and so on. So on that sense, I'm thinking, have you thought about any alternative plan or way of accommodation, like buying other properties? Also, a lot of mention about property that private landlord don't want to give it to a council. Is council giving a market rent to the private tenant for entry out of the council? My question, probably not. So there's two questions to it. One is why you can't gain enough private property to come to council, because you're probably not paying a car and market rent. So can you clarify those two questions for me, please? Yeah, I'll start. So, within the policy, we've categorically stated sort of children, they'll be given priority, schooling age, with a particular focus on those who've got exam years, such as year 10, such as going into secondary school, there'll be a particular focus. And again, let me reinforce and reiterate again and again, we want to put people in Tower Hamlets or as close as Tower Hamlets as possible. In relation to rents and stuff like that, we have started getting a bit competitive, but in terms of the wider market rents, well, that's the whole reason, that it's unaffordable. That's the key issue. Now, if the council can't afford it and faces bankruptcy, you know, just on one department, other councils are literally facing bankruptcy as a result of the amount of money that's being spent on temporary accommodation. This is the whole reason behind in supporting the policy. And that's why not only this council, but other councils have gone out wider and wider over the last four or five years. This is a reality of the current market forces in terms of how rents have gone up. Abul, do you want to add anything else in terms of safeguards, particularly around children? Yeah, just in terms of children's schooling, when they're not at GCSE age, we do have the officers that do encourage families to change a children's schooling just so that it's not so much of a journey of bringing them back. Ultimately, it's up to the families whether they change a children's schooling. A lot of them don't want to do it. The same thing as GP. Households moving around multiple areas, but they choose not to change their GP even when they're living somewhere else. But we do try our best to keep people in the borough as close to the borough as possible. In terms of procurement, we are paying above market rents to procure properties. We've reviewed our incentive packages a couple of times already since last year. Just to give you a sort of comparison, just this financial year alone, we've procured 461 TA units, 140 of which have been in our hamlets, in comparison to last financial year where we only procured 41 units into our hamlets. So the revision of our incentive packages are working, and we're trying to make the incentive packages more lucrative so that we can procure more private rented accommodation so that families are put into settled accommodation rather than temporary so that eliminates the need of having to constantly move around. Thank you. I'll move on, Councillor Kelsey. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. To the cabinet member Kabir, I'm just going to touch up on one thing. A lot of things have been said already, especially when homeless people are in bed and breakfast. By law, they're supposed to be there for six weeks. Some people I've dealt with in my capacity as a Romulan South councillor has been there for three months, six months. Some are even there for nine months. So obviously we know the cost of that, and what do you have in place to eradicate that problem? Thank you. Thank you. There's already been work underway initially to reduce the use of commercial hotels, but with the view to ending the breach of the six-week rule. So over the period of the past few weeks, the number of people in commercial hotels has fallen from over 80 to below 40, and that continues to come down. And the number of placements that are breaching the six-week rule, we expect to have ended that before Christmas. So we are definitely going in the right direction in terms of those outcomes. Thank you, Chair. At least I have the opportunity to ask a few questions to the committee member. My question is short and brief. How will you ensure that people you put outside the Tower Hamlets, they are not pressured to move out of Tower Hamlets? How will you ensure that? Second one is how will we ensure that people have local connections, family ties in Tower Hamlets? How will you ensure that they will not be removed unless they want it to go out of Tower Hamlets? Thank you. So, Councillor Khan, the first thing is that, as I've said again and again, we will always try to locate them in Tower Hamlets. However, when they present here, we have to see what is available on that particular day in relation to their needs. Now, if we do not have a property in Tower Hamlets or the immediate neighbouring boroughs that we can secure that particular night, then they will have to go a bit further afield. What we do advise residents is to talk to the council as soon as possible, whenever that section 21 notice is issued. So then we can either do some preventative work, which is talk direct to their current landlords in order to encourage them to keep them there, which also gives us preparation time to try to find suitable accommodation for them. But if somebody presents, out of the blue, at 10 o'clock, 9 o'clock, you know, 3 o'clock in the afternoon, to this town hall, to that resident hub, these officers, under that pressure, still will work till 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock. I've seen them work till 11 o'clock at night in order to secure accommodation, immediate accommodation for those residents. Now, of course we want good quality homes for them, we want it as close as possible, we want it with their kin network. But you and everybody else in this room have to also acknowledge that we have kin networks and support networks all over London and beyond. That is the reality of living. Now, myself, I currently live in Gansill, but I'm hoping within the week to move back to Tower Hamlets. But I have kin networks everywhere. And like that, I'm quite certain that everybody in this chamber has kin networks and support networks all over, not only London but the country as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Can I move to Karima Islam, please? Thank you, Chair. My question is very quick. It's to the officers or even the cabinet member. Will the council be reimbursing additional costs incurred as a result of the residents being moved out of the borough? For example, childcare, travel, in and out of work. Thank you. So already there's 58% of residents under the current policy are already outside of the borough. So we don't reimburse them for any expenses. I mean, if it's an emergency, we will do that. And we do have vouchers that we can give people and we can order Uber taxis and we have done that in emergencies. But we don't reimburse people for if they choose to keep their children in schools in Tower Hamlets, we don't reimburse for the travel costs. Although children travel free on buses anyway. So we won't be offering any reimbursement because it's currently not our policy to do so now. Chair, sorry, can I come back? Quickly, please. I have to move and we have to debate as well. So in terms of the travel, I mean as in the adults travelling to work, because obviously if I'm living in the borough at the moment, I could be possibly working in the borough. And in regards to the childcare, I mean as in family support. So my family support is in Tower Hamlets. And if I'm now being moved to the Midlands and I have no family, I have to look for childcare, which obviously that's an additional cost. Thank you. Do you have to make any comment? Sorry Halima. As Karen said, the current policy and the one going forward doesn't have those reimbursements on a day-to-day basis. I mean, Midlands I would say is quite an extreme example. We hopefully are not envisaging people to go to that afar. But travel is an issue and it's certainly something we can look at but not on a day-to-day basis. As Karen said, in terms of emergencies, yes. In terms of childcare and service provisions, again that's not within the policy. Sorry, I was just going to ask Abel if he could say a little bit about his housing support offices, because each person in temporary accommodation has a support officer. Sorry Karen. So they would be linking them in to benefits and things. Because we have to move to a debate as well. That's fine. Every homeless household placed in temporary accommodation has a dedicated housing officer who they can contact for support and who can signpost into different services that are available. And just to add as well that a lot of the households that I've seen that we've placed in temporary accommodation, even outside the borough and have lived in the borough don't actually work in the borough as well, but I get your point about the travel answers, but a lot of households don't already work in the borough. But the dedicated housing officer does signpost where needed, and if a family's at prices where they've got no benefits and payment, then we do assist with vouchers whether it be Asda or Tesco, or furniture packages if they need furnishings when they move into temporary accommodation. Thank you. Now I move to debate of already over-run company. So you have to be very brief please. I'll give you five minutes for two questions. I'll be really quick. So there's three gaps that I just want to quickly touch on. The first one is about work and disturbance and maybe even shifting more people into unemployment. I know even the 90 minutes was tough with travelling, but it still allowed people to carry on working. What if this ends up putting a lot of people out of work because they could be shifting completely out of London and the kind of work that is available in London. We know the opportunities do exist more here than anywhere else, and eventually they're coming back. So how are we supporting residents to make sure they're always thriving? The second gap that I see is if you're giving priority to children that are in education rightly, then that means that more people with younger children, infants, are going to be ones that are likely to be outshifted further away. What happens to mums that are at work and they usually have support systems within the borough that they depend on for childcare, how are they going to start increasing more women out of work because of that? And lastly, DV cases. So not all women want to come and tell you that they're domestic violence survivors and they need their support that are locally. How are you going to address that? Before you take your question as well so they can answer both questions together. My one is a factor to the cabinet members. You said that when the people get section 21 notice they should always contact the council. I have been doing a lot of case work. When those residents do contact the council, they've been telling them come to us when you get the eviction notice from the court. So basically, what you're telling here, that's not reflecting on your frontline services. And that's been raised a few times in the past as well. So I know what you as a cabinet member, you say come and say here what it is, but that's not reality. So maybe the families are facing when these last ones are coming, your officers are telling them to come in when you get a court notice eviction on the front row. Thank you. Thank you. Can you make a quick comment on that, please? So let me answer Councillor Mannan's question first. If there is a quality assurance issue, we have the new director there. He will personally look into these issues. If there is inappropriate information given, we will address that seriously with the council. If you can provide names of officers to the director or the residents can come and give testimony to the director, he will personally look into those issues. I am happy also to assist as lead member in relation to this. Now, there are multiple reasons why residents may be upset at the service they're getting. And one of the key reasons is that we had a huge amount of bottlenecking because we simply did not have enough staff to deal with the volume of people that were coming through the doors. As a result of that, we have again, as I said, increased the number of staff within the housing options, the overall housing options team by 35 frontline staff. This will also, and with the appointment of a new director to oversee this, will provide the level of quality assurance that's needed in a service that was drowning. And that is the truth, and I'm being transparent about it. There have been service level gaps, and these are the gaps that we want to bridge. So if there are any cases through any councillors or residents listening in to this, please do contact my office or our director who will look into those cases specifically. Just to address your points, in terms of disturbance to employment, we would always place households as close to, well in the borough, in the first instance, but when it comes to employment as close to their work as possible as well, we wouldn't put someone too far away from the place of employment that would disadvantage them. And in terms of small children being placed out of the borough in terms of child care, again, these are all safeguards already in the placement policy in points 3.1 to 3.5. We always prioritize each case on an individual basis, and that includes obviously cases, victims of domestic abuse as well. Everyone's case is looked at on its own merits, and we do take into account all the information that we have on file, and it's given to us to make a decision on that. Sorry, I just want to highlight, in relation to DV cases specifically, they can actually go to any council they want because of the nature of the issues at hand. And a lot of residents do come from other boroughs to Tower Hamlets because they want to get as far away as possible from the perpetrators, and likewise from Tower Hamlets, a lot of residents do want to go to other local authorities where they have kin networks. Local authorities like Newham and Redbridge and Hackney, other areas where they may have relatives that they can get shelter from and so on and so forth. So, it works both ways. Thank you, Councillor, thank you for your, and thank you, Karen, thank you, offices, for your kind presentation. So, we'll move into discussion now. We need to determine as a committee whether we wish to affirm the cabinet's decision or whether we wish to refer this matter to reconsideration. Can we please discuss, before we conclude the matter, we need to have a brief, you know. So, your comment based on hearing, all the discussion, your comment should be based on the hearing, your view on whether we should confirm the cabinet decision or send back cabinet for reconsideration, what this is based on. So, if you want to, you know, make a recommendation to go back for cabinet for reconsideration, you have to outline your view. Or if you want to, you know, affirm the cabinet decision, you have to affirm your view as well. If you are supporting the decision or send back to cabinet, what specifically you would like the cabinet to reconsider as well. So, please, I'll make it open. Thank you. Yes. Thanks, Chen. I think I'm not, I don't feel like I've had a good enough answer to a couple of the points that were raised. Specifically, why we're not waiting for the autumn statement and the changes that that might make to how this team is funded before making the decision. I think that's reasonable enough grounds to wait before implementing a new policy which might be made. It might not be more, it might go out of date again, as soon as the autumn statement is published. And then the, I think the team are operating in a difficult circumstance and I do want to acknowledge the work that has been done to improve the staffing. I am not convinced that they properly answered the issues that were highlighted to us by the campaigner, George Bleakley, and the fact that, okay, so the team needs to take individual circumstances into consideration, and they were very clear that they do take individual circumstances into consideration, but the case that George showed us suggests that maybe that isn't always the case. And I think that I wasn't convinced enough that the reality on the ground is actually being, is the picture that we're being presented here. My question is, as I said, is a 50/50 chance, I can see their point of view, I also can see outside the post where the resident is, where children going out with their family, going out of the borough, coming back, 90 minutes is a long time, three hours every day. Not only that, if they put them in, say, in Liverpool, some of the boroughs did put them in Liverpool, chief recommendations and things like that, they were totally gone. And how can we ensure that they're going for six weeks or eight weeks, they don't put them in permanently, they didn't answer the question. My question is, there's still a lot of unanswered questions being left by the members, and I'm not too keen on some of the answers I've received. I know the government statement which I've asked them, my first question was about the government statement, and the buffer as well on that, so I'm not too sure which way the table is turning. I wasn't particularly convinced by any of that, to be honest, because I think it started in a bit of an odd way, which is that the cabinet members seem to be talking about lovely spacious houses with gardens, which is not what temporary accommodation is, unfortunately, so I'm not sure, maybe, I don't know, I don't know where he got that from, but that's not what we're talking about in this meeting, we're talking about temporary accommodation, so I thought that was quite bizarre, to be honest, but I think we've just hit some nails on the head there. What's written here isn't particularly what we see on the ground, which, look, you're always going to have some of that, and also let's be, you know, it would be silly of us all to sit here and pretend that temporary accommodation isn't a colossal problem, because it is, for everybody, but I was not convinced by that, that this is the answer, and I just, I thought some of the questions were not answered particularly well, it took half an hour to even get the name of a place that we might be sending people, and the key word there to me is 'might', it was a lot of 'oh well we'll try', or 'well we will aim', that isn't good enough for homeless families, because the question that wasn't answered was that they'd already all received letters telling them that this was going to be happening, nobody addressed that, which I think was wrong, to be honest, because you will have people scared, he chose to call it scaremongering, that's fine, that's his word, but if people are scared, then there's an issue, so I wasn't particularly convinced by those answers to be honest. So I think I'm minded to support the calling, for two reasons, firstly, as a counsellor for the last six years, I have seen first hand the experience of residents with the 90 minute policy in place, and there's not a single atom in my body that's going to allow for that cap to be taken out, and now it's anywhere in the country, that's just not going to happen, I know what problems, even the 90 minute is a problem, and for now to take that out and allow them to put them anywhere, I see where the policy is, trying to put some safeguarding, it's just not good enough, it's not clear enough, and also the timing of this, like Counsellor Natalie said, it makes no sense, why would we not wait to see what the autumn statement says, number one, and secondly I think it's political ruthlessness for us to be in this situation after 14 years of conservative government, and you can't even wait a few months for the statement to see what happens, and then for you to go for the worst case scenario with the temporary accommodation options that's available, I just have not heard that they've explored everything else before they've done this, and for that reason I think, and also today, the cabinet member didn't convince me, neither did the officers. Can I just ask the member, don't you believe when the lead member is safeguarded, that they are not going to send any kids or children with exams, or family connections in the hundreds of hours, do you believe this safeguarding of this issue? The threshold for us to have duty of care towards anyone for homelessness is not what it was 10, 15, 20 years ago, it has changed, it's a lot stricter, so when you take out that group of people, families, with kids that are in primary and secondary school, think about who else is on there, and why they're on there, that should tell you the answer to that question, and also, they said that it's not going to be applied to everyone, where does it say in the paper? That's my thing, that officers have the ability to do that, and do you know why? The reason that they were using the grounds that they were using is because it's council policy. How many times have we heard this when we've been trying to get to the bottom of a case for residents, and I want you all to think about that tonight when you vote. I mean, based on the presentation from the council, it was disingenuous, and it was deceitful, frankly, at some of the ways they're presenting what the homelessness and housing options service and secondary accommodation is, and can be, do you guys not do casework? Do you guys not do your surgeries? Yeah, because in the last two years, I've seen a massive uptick, and I don't get the worst casework in the borough, as you can imagine where my ward is, but I've seen significant uptick in temporary accommodation issues, and I can understand why the council's got a massive problem, there's so many more cases coming forward, but this policy will actively get worse, and they haven't even described transparently the processes that will be put in place that will mean that people will be put into homes, and the suggestion, I'm astounded you're even entertaining the fact it might be real that there might be some consideration put in place for people's individual circumstances, for kids going through exams, that sort of stuff. That does not happen in the temporary accommodation service at the moment, why will it in the future? Just because he says it here. I mean, it was just disgraceful, and I think there was also no real attempt, again, the argument, the counter-argument put forward by the council, primarily by the cabinet member, that oh, this isn't really a change, this isn't a substantial change in the policy, but why are they doing it then? It must be, and they could not say why and how they would be addressing the increase in temporary accommodation families being presented to us, and they certainly did not assure me, or anyone of the committee, that they would be looking at solutions in terror hamlets, they didn't talk much about working with the existing private sector, because they'd be working with the private sector elsewhere, in places where it's cheaper to put people, so why can't they work with people in the private sector here? Just talking rubbish. And similarly, procuring existing accommodation, the councils, they've not looked at, for all they're saying, we want to put people into our hamlets, they have not satisfied us, that they have not done that already, and this policy is a necessity. So, frankly, if any of you are thinking of nodding this through, look at yourselves, what are you doing here? If it's not to help people, give your heads a wobble, seriously. I can give some positive examples about terror hamlets, as well. I had a decision from New York, who moved to a temporary accommodation by the New York council to consider Basul a reward, and he came to me, as soon as his three-year period lapsed, they didn't take back him, he became homeless, but terror hamlets had to accept him. But in the Tower Hamlets case, I had a resident who moved from Tower Hamlets, he was housed by homeless in Chipwood, and after four years, she was kicked out from our property. He was privated on the property, he was provided by council as well, so I had to talk to the officials and directors, Tower Hamlets council accepted her, but Newham didn't. So, we have a both positive and negative argument about the council. I'm just saying, you know, well enough, the lead member is saying that people in year 10, 11, who's coming to the GCSE exam, or A-DOL exam, go to 13, those are the people who wouldn't be putting outside the bar if there is a big, good 90 minutes, but nothing is written on the report on that sense. Can we be able to put something, I'm speaking, please, can we be able to put clothes on our vote, saying we want to see this, what you have said, are we allowed to do things like that? That is the basic notion of the call in, is that you send it back to the camp, look at it, including the thing you want to look at, so yes, that is exactly what you would do. As Mark said, probably when he was answering the questions or presenting, I'm not sure, but I did mention that people, parents with two children living in a two bedroom flat with an open kitchen is unacceptable. I'm with Mark, yes, it's very, very unacceptable, because even we can see people with six children living in a two bedroom flat with open kitchens, this is also unacceptable. So these homeless things is a very serious issue, not only for the whole country, every council is struggling to deal with these homeless issues, as well as the Tor Hamlets. So we have to make sure, as I have asked the question, make sure the local connection is maintained when they make the decision to move people out of the Tor Hamlets. Also ensure that they are not forced to move, or they are not forced to move, if they choose to move, that's what I have asked. I'm happy with the answer from the cabinet member, so I think this homeless issue will carry on, and until and unless the central government comes with a lot of money and building a lot of houses, this issue will carry on. I know, it's a very difficult issue for all the councillors, because all the members in Kerry will see, especially in my surgery, 90% or 95% of this regarding the housing issues. I've seen lots of people who are, I've seen in Mike, lots of people who have moved out of the bar, after four years, five years, some of the families living in Shukil for five years. Now the council are saying we don't have any responsibility for you because it's serious, your residency period has gone. For some of them we have to fight for the council as well. I've fought for two decisions. I'll give you an example as well. I'll come to you from the council. Thank you chair, I just touched on something, I just wanted to make a comment. This is not an easy issue we've been facing for a long time. I remember a few years back, the previous administration wanted to implement something which was to your policy, if you were living in other boroughs for three years, then you'd lose your right to come back to town homeless. And I remember we had to fight for it to implement that policy as well. So my comments will be, we want to, we should try hard to keep our residents as much as possible within the borough. Especially those, because I've got a lot of residents who came to me, I mean I'm dealing with a couple of weeks ago, she's a six year old child, she needs to travel from Dagenham to here every morning. Secondly, I think a lot of the issues that have been mentioned, but one of the key issues I already mentioned because I know a lot of landlords within my ward and the borough, that they are not willing to let the property to the council because of such policies. So we need to look into that as well. Thank you. Just to briefly reiterate what Councillor Islam and Councillor Manant just said, is that this call-in is simply a refer back to reconsider, part of the main thing of the request of the call-in is, sorry. I'm just making the point is we're just asking the council and the cabinet to reconsider, and indeed with only there being a few weeks away from the comprehensive spending review, that reconsideration might mean that something changes that means that a new solution comes to light that is better for residents. So I think we should bear that in mind. This is not just like a condemnation of the policy altogether, but just a reconsideration. Thank you. I want clarification because there's been conversations back and forward about choice here. As far as I understand it, when you are offered, if we've got a duty, if the council has a duty for homelessness in this council, and you are offered a placement, you have no choice to say no. Because if you say no, then they have no duty towards you. So this conversation that just happened in this committee about if they don't want to go further away outside of London, they don't have to. Who says that's not going to happen? Because that's the one thing that residents call us about last minute is the fact that they're forced to go somewhere they don't want to go because it's their one and only offer they get. I think what the officers or lead members say is that they'll make a choice if the residents have a certain criteria, they will not be moved from the council. That doesn't even happen now. And there's nothing that actually says in the paper that that's not going to happen, that they're going to have two choices or three choices. That's not how homelessness works. No, they don't have any choices. But after the council, the officers will make the decision based on the mitigation and if they have a link, or if they have their kids in school or GCSE exam, they will not be moved. That's what the issue is. My question is, do you believe in that issue? That's what you have. The paper gives officers the power to face them. I know you don't have any options if you become homeless. That's what I was told, that you don't have any options. Can I just say really quickly, even if it was the case, they don't move families with kids doing GCSEs, they're not the only vulnerable homeless people. I think we're talking a lot about homeless families, absolutely, and that's really important. Why is it that everybody else, it's okay for them to be moved halfway across the country, halfway across the city? It's not okay for them either. It doesn't matter whether they're doing GCSEs or not. It isn't okay. And regardless, we don't have that guarantee. Let's be clear, it isn't in there. And that's the point of the call in, is why don't we go back and say, can you actually give us some more information on this point? Can you confirm? Because the point I made, if you remember, was that all they said, can I just finish? All they said was, try, we will aim to, we will try. Why don't we go back and ask them, well can you confirm? That's the point of this committee, that's why we're here. We can rewrite the call in if we wanted to, if we've found it. [No audio] So I have to, if anybody wants to... [No audio] What are you making? [No audio] Okay, I'd like to propose that we can vote on whether we are sending the decision back to cabinet for reconsideration or confirm the original cabinet decision. So for members in favour of sending the decision back to cabinet for reconsideration, please raise your hand. [No audio] For members in the original cabinet decision, please raise your hand. [No audio] My question is, in what capacity are we doing that? Because they've just rejected the call in, the call in was the way to do that, so how are we presenting concerns? You can't do that, because that was what the call in was for. [No audio] The Councillor has a slot at cabinet next week, which he can speak to, and I think as a committee what you've requested is a written submission, although the call in hasn't been back to cabinet, but you've asked for written submission to cabinet for written response. [No audio] Sorry, but sorry Chet, you can't say all these things in the committee and not utilise the one leverage that you have to make a change. You can't do that. [No audio]