Transcript

Good evening everybody and welcome to this evening's meeting. I'm Councillor Clare Holland, Leader of the Council and Chair of this meeting. This meeting is being recorded and is being broadcast live and the recording of tonight's meeting may also be used for quality and training purposes. In the event that technical issues arise that require the meeting to be adjourned and it cannot be restarted within a few minutes. Further updates will be posted on the Councillor's Democracy Twitter account which is at LBL Democracy. Now the fire exits are the doors there and there. We're not expecting a fire alarm so if it goes off you need to leave in a peaceful and orderly fashion and there are toilets out there if you require the toilets. So we have this evening apologies from Councillor Fred Cowell. We also have apologies from Councillor Donatus Anianwu who will only be able to attend or hopes to attend part of the meeting but may not be able to. Job share voting arrangements. As are out on the agenda the portfolio for healthier communities operates under a job share arrangement. The current decision maker for healthier communities is Councillor Jackie Dyer. the portfolio for equalities and corporate resources and corporate resources. The portfolio for equalities and corporate resources also operates under a job share arrangement. The current decision maker for equalities and corporate resources is Councillor Nanda Mandy Brown. So declaration of pecuniary interest. Does any councillor have a disclosable pecuniary interest that they have not already declared? No. OK, thank you colleagues. No one has indicated so we'll move to the next item which is the minutes of the previous meeting. Are the minutes of the meeting held on the 4th of November 2024 agreed as a correct record of proceedings? Thank you colleagues. The minutes are confirmed as a correct record. We'll now move on to the next item which is December finance planning and medium term strategy report 2024 to 2029. A supplementary appendix containing the recommendations from the overview and scrutiny committee held on the 2nd of December 2024 where they discussed the MTFS proposals was published on Friday the 6th of December and we thank the committee for these. This item will now. This item will now. This item will now be introduced by Councillor David Amos and we have the key officers in attendance being Zena Cook, Shadash Kambalat and Greg. Do we have Greg? Yeah. OK, great. Councillor Amos, would you like to introduce? Sure. Thank you very much, Chair. So tonight I'm presenting the Cabinet to Cabinet, the December finance planning and medium term financial strategy 2024 to 2029 and ask that its recommendations be agreed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. You will have heard me speak a lot about local government finances here over the past year. And along with local authorities up and down the country, Lambeth Council faces an extremely challenging, perilous financial position. 14 years of austerity, failure to address long term funding and reforms, and reckless economic mismanagement by conservative-led governments means that Lambeth faces a near £70 million gap over the next four years. With nearly 30 million of that next financial year. And it's worth noting that since 2010, the Council's core government funding has significantly reduced in real terms by 34%. Recent analysis by the Local Government Association has estimated a staggering £2.3 billion budget gap across Council's next financial year, £700 million of that in London alone. In October, we spoke at Cabinet about the housing crisis in London. It was having an enormous impact on the budgets of councils right across London, particularly those in inner London, such as ourselves. The demand for emergency housing for families in the borough alone is costing us more than a quarter of a million pounds a night. This is quite simply unsustainable. We welcome the newly elected Labour government's first budget. And the support this will provide as an essential first step on the road to rebuilding the country's under pressure frontline services. The Labour government's budget showed it's serious about tackling the damage caused by a generation of Tory and Lib Dem-enabled austerity. But no one is under the illusion that it will not take years to repair the damage done. Councils will need to provide further support to protect the services that our residents and all residents depend upon. We will continue to do all we can to protect the services that people rely on, but this will not be easy. This report in front of us this evening provides an update on the scale of the budget challenges that face Lambeth that threaten the future of services in the borough. Outlining around 50 million pounds worth of proposals to be considered, which will meet in part the funding gap that I've already referred to and is set out in the MTFS. These proposals to close the funding gap illustrate the impossible choices Lambeth is having to consider as part of balancing our books, including consulting on changes separately to this council tax support and children's centres provision. We are working to reduce the high cost of temporary accommodation due to the unprecedented pressures and costs of our legal duty to house homeless households and the broken housing market that has been allowed to develop by successive Tory led governments. Like many other councils, Lambeth will explore options around adaptive street lighting and dimming street lighting during the middle of the night whilst making sure everyone is safe. This will allow the council to strengthen its environmental record by tackling light pollution and energy use whilst ensuring our streets and green spaces remain safe. Alongside these savings, Lambeth will identify options for new ways of working to be more efficient, maximise the use of our assets to raise revenue and put forward proposals to generate income over the coming years. This includes renting out office space and vacant buildings. Making efficiencies across all our services. Exploring the use of AI to automate processes and increasing income from parking, fence in parks and council tax on second homes and empty properties. However, despite all these proposals and more, this still leaves the funding gap nearly £20 million over the next four years. Still need to find £9 million in 2025-26. Work is underway and continues on proposals to meet the remaining shortfall in future years, especially for next financial year, which will set a balanced budget. We are proud that we have managed to maintain funding for vital services that support our vulnerable residents. Our major cost of living support package, prevention of free school meal provision, our work tackling the climate crisis and improving transport in local neighbourhoods, and services that support care leavers to refuge beds for women and girls who are victims of violence and domestic abuse. But despite robust action in every area, the council faces having to cut vital services for residents in the next couple of years. The services like to be cut back to legal minimum levels unless there is further government support to councils such as us that are facing unprecedented demand for us. Our aim is to maintain those services, but without more government support, councils face possible choices about their future. Thank you, Jen. Thank you very much, councillor. Is there anything that you wanted to add before I go on to the speakers? Thank you. So we've had four requests to speak on this item. I'm going to take the two members of the public first and then I'll come on to the councillors. So have we got Carla Thomas? Oh, hi, Carla. Would you like to come up to the table? Might need another chair up there, Jen, so someone can assist. Thank you, Matthew. And is it Helen Stanley? Hello. Hi. So, Carla, thank you for attending. I think you're the Managing Director of Healthy Living Platform. Thank you for attending. You have three minutes and I'll let you know when you've got 30 seconds left. Is that between us or is it each? Each. Each, okay. Because I do individual speakers. Yeah. Okay. So good evening councillors. Thank you for letting me speak. I represent Healthy Living Platform and the Lambeth surplus food hub funded by this council since 2020 to distribute surplus food to vulnerable communities in partnership with food charities like Felix Project. Together we've built a food distribution network supporting 40 community groups, including those with disabilities and chronic health issues, families with SEND, sanctuary seekers and isolated elders. Some of Lambeth's most vulnerable residents, but also working people. Without council funding, the hub will close by March 2025, dismantling a service when residents in lit lives and undermining the council's priorities. Funding this service is a false economy. The public health impacts alone will reverberate through Lambeth. In November, we redistributed nearly 20 tons of food, providing 2,155 weekly food provisions, reaching over 8,000 individuals. For many residents, losing access to affordable, nutritious food would mean deteriorating physical and mental health, pushing them closer to crisis. This is food that sustains bodies and minds. Without it, families already on the edge will face worsening health. Children with malnutrition, parents struggling with chronic illnesses and rising mental health services. These pressures will inevitably increase demands and already overstretched council services. Fresh affordable food shields against chronic conditions like diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease. Without the hub service, hospital emissions will climb, mental health issues will escalate and more families will require your costly emergency interventions from housing to children's services. Cutting this lifeline deepens health inequalities and places an unsustainable burden on public systems. This decision will not save money, it will shift costs elsewhere as a greater financial moral and human plus. This isn't just about food. It's about dignity, health and hope. Cutting this service will push families deeper into poverty, leave children hungry and unravel the resilience of our communities. It undermines Lambeth's commitment to tackling health inequalities, reducing climate impacts and building a fairer borough. Our model is nationally recognised. This week, the Royal Borough of Kingston will visit us to learn from your investment in this innovative and sustainable solution. Dismantling this system means losing years of expertise, infrastructure and partnerships and irreplaceable assets in Lambeth. In 2022, we joined Councillor Amos and the Council in lobbying government to enshrine the right to food and law. How will the Council continue in this mission without the facility of hub? About 30 seconds left, Carla. Protecting the hub is an ongoing investment in Lambeth's future. I urge you to explore alternative ways to sustain this critical service. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Helen Stanley and your Community Partnerships Manager of Felix. That's right. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Likewise, Helen, you have three minutes. If you want to start on your own time and I'll tell you when you've got 30 seconds to go. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Thank you everybody for listening to both Carla and myself this evening. As we've said, I'm representing the Felix Project. We are a food redistribution charity. We've worked with the Lambeth Hub since the pandemic, so it's a really long, established relationship. As a charity ourselves, we rely on the hub to carry up the last mile delivery to small but vital organisations across the borough. We don't have the transport infrastructure ourselves to do that. If the hub closes, we estimate that around about eight and a half thousand Lambeth residents will lose access to this food each week, which is supported through the hub. The hub provides a critical role in the community. So through us buying food into the hub, we've been able to distribute 61 tons of food. That's about 291,000 meals and that's the value of £242,000, which we're putting into the borough only because of the partnership with the hub. As I said, we support 8,500 residents. A few of those organisations we work with directly and may still continue to receive food, but 6,500 Lambeth regiments will lose that food provision without the hub. As the Felix project, we have always highlighted Lambeth as being the partnership, the hub model, which yourselves invested in. And we always highlight that as what other boroughs should do. And even in a meeting probably two, three months ago, another borough was saying, oh, we need to see what Lambeth are doing. But that's no longer going to be the case. Additionally, really important to highlight is that the food we distribute is surplus food, but it's in line with each NHS Eatwell guidelines. Over 50% of the food we supply is surplus fruit and vegetables, which obviously promotes healthy eating and the good and ongoing diet health outcomes, which will benefit from that surplus fruit and vegetables. So as I say, we couldn't do it without them. We would really like you to consider that decision in continuing to support the hub so in partnership we can continue to follow to work. Thank you. Thank you very much, Helen. Thank you both. If you don't mind sitting back down, I'm going to take the next two speakers and then I'll turn to officers and the cabinet member. Thank you. So Councillor Scott Ainslie and Councillor Matthew Bryant have both indicated they wish to speak. Would you both like to come to the table, please? Thanks, Scott. You're first on the order paper. So if you'd like to go, as usual, you have three minutes. Okay. I'm Scott Ainslie. I'm a Green leader of the Green Group on Lambeth Council. I've spoken on this report three times now, the Corporate Committee, the Overview and Security Committee and now here. Just wondering if this committee, the cabinet, will take on the recommendations of the scrutiny committee. It's not got a great track record of doing so. Now, austerity has hit our budgets hard. Labour's been able to spend the last 14 years blaming someone else for defunding public services. So it'll be interesting to see what the new government is going to do and we'll find out in next week what plans they might outline. But what you can't get away from is the external auditors report of the lasting impact of your housing policy. Your failed homes for Lambeth will be written down. The loans for that will be written down over the next 40 years. It's still impacting our bottom line, writing down a debt of 500,000 each each year. We have had to spend in August and September last year, 13 and a half million to a firm of solicitors for legal fees. Transparency around that is not being made available yet. And also we've had to take on a lot of staff who are out with the payroll. They're on IR 35 arrangements, effectively consultants. Where's the transparency in these papers around that? Now, I'm afraid that the Lib Dem and Tory coalition before Labour came into power 14 years ago left us with a bit of an elephant around our neck with Phoenix House. It's been empty for so many years, losing money on depreciation and security, costing us money. We should. The Greens have been banging on about sweating the assets in the north of the borough in order to help our frontline services. So. The signs aren't good from the new Labour government, because if it was a Green government, we would have introduced the wealth tax, which would have gone a long way further to easing some of the pain that is about to be felt by our constituents on the front line. The detail on the appendix of the breakdown of where these cuts are going to be made. 30 seconds, Scott. We have asked for meetings with councillor Chowdhury to see how, councillor Dilipour and housing, and councillor Cameron to see how we can do something about green skills and building our resilience as a local economy. But we haven't been able to secure a meeting with those three cabinet members. It'd be good to hear from them on that. The big problem that we have in this, you need to address wealth inequality. Time's up now, Scott. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. I'll turn now to councillor Matthew Bryant. Matthew, as usual, you have three minutes. Thank you. I'm councillor Matthew Bryant, deputy leader of the Liberal Democratic Group on the council. I'd like to welcome Zena Cook to her first meeting here. I think you have an impeccable sense of timing to arrive with the significant financial issues that the council is addressing. And we'd also, our group would recognise the significant work that's been done by all corporate directors in terms of identifying savings to bridge a substantial funding gap the council faces. Whilst this report is mainly focused on the general fund, I think the figure that really stands out for me is actually on the housing revenue account, where HRA reserves are forecast to be zero by March 26. That's the end of the next financial year, and that's obviously not a sustainable position. I know it's this issue other councils across London to face it, but I'd like to hear what lobbying the council is doing and maybe through other councils in London for central government, because there needs to be a complete overhaul of the way housing revenue accounts are funded and the funding arrangements for those. On the savings plans that are set out in Appendix 1, I think we would say as a group we are pleased to see that these include two items that would be included in the Liberal Democrat budget proposals for the last two years. We were told they were not achievable at the time, but nice to see that they are now included. First of all, that's the consolidation of office space across the council and the renting out of circular space. Secondly, maximising income from empty property premium. So obviously the empty property premium, I suppose, is actually sort of a perverse thing because I would actually quite, it would be a good thing if the council failed to achieve that target because I would love to see these empty properties actually occupied. I know we're coming onto that later on the agenda. I would also reiterate the point that Councillor Ainslie made about Phoenix House, which as he's already mentioned, but that continues to cost council taxpayers in Lambeth North of £2 million a year. Now we understand from discussions that an options appraisal has now been completed on this and we'd obviously urge the Cabinet to consider this. That's one of the ways that you're bridging the £9 million savings gap that Councillor Amos has referred to. On the specific proposals, we've not had enough chance at this stage to look at all the quality impact assessments. Obviously you came out at the end of last week with reserve judgment. But there are three schemes that we have concerns about. The first is on the selective licensing. I notice there's an additional £1 million forecast there. I assume that's in addition to the amounts already included in the budget. And I've obviously previously made clear my reservations about the scale of the charges under the selective licensing scheme. And are those going to be increased? And the other two is actually the one was the healthy living platform, which the two speakers have already spoken eloquently about. But that's a serious concern about dropping the funding for that. I remember actually visiting them just over two years ago and seeing the splendid work they do. And the third scheme about which I have concerns and would like some more information is the item 21, which is the review of benefit payments for care leaders. Thank you. Thank you very much, Matthew and Scott, if you want to go back and sit down. Thank you very much for all that. There was a question there from Councillor Bryant about are we lobbying? I can absolutely assure you, Matthew, that we continue to lobby hard as we have done for many, many years around the perilous state of local government finances. That's both within the general fund and the HRA. It's not just about lobbying for more money. It's about lobbying around some of a large part of the damage was done between 2010 and 2015 when there was supposed to be this local government settlement around self finance. But what came was the responsibility and not the power and the resource. And so many changes have been made over the years that have piled more and more burdens onto local authorities, but without the funding. So we will continue to lobby for that. And we're really pleased, as Councillor Amos said, that we've now got a government that's actually engaging with us and looking to see where the difference can be made. And we know, as Councillor Amos said, it won't be fixed overnight. That doesn't mean we'll relent on the ferocity of our lobbying, which we're doing both as a council, but also across London and then across the whole local government family. So I hope that offers you reassurance, Matthew, that we will continue very much so. And if you want to come back on anything, I'm not sure. I can't hear you. Well, I don't want to come back. Yeah, that's why. Selective licensing, Venetia. Yeah, selective licensing, Venetia. Thank you very much. Chair. I think the councillor's concern was around the scale of charges that applies to selective licensing. Since we introduced this as Cabinet approved phase one, we are keeping those charges the same except for inflation. Our charges are not the highest in London or even in the country. They're out of London, causes that have gone up significantly higher than ours. So I think our charges are benchmark over and sits within the normal range at one. Connective licensing. OK, thank you very much. Dina, are there any points that you think that were raised that you should come back and lock them with points? And as was referred to by one of the councillors, therein are actually information in other documents, including our audited accounts, for example. Do you think there were any points to come back on? No, I don't think there was, Dina. OK. OK. Councillor Kai, did you want to come back on the care leavers point? Yeah. Councillor Brian mentioned that this is a positive step for those young people that this affects. It's about helping them with independence and ensuring that what we do is we're able to help them process their social security payments so that the housing portion, the benefit that they could get comes from the DWP rather than our general fund. And by doing that, what we're doing, Matthew, is we're setting them up so they're able to move to their independence as they get older. So it's actually got a neutral to positive impact in terms of outcomes for young people because it's about helping them. Stand on their own two feet rather than it being the council doing all of the sort of the work and making sure that we're looking after them. That's something that young people themselves have advocated for. So this is partly about us listening to young people and being able to help care leavers become more independent of us as their corporate parents. OK, thank you. Thank you. I'm now going to turn. Yeah, I was going to come turn to colleagues now. Yep. Councillor Tim Windor. Yeah, come back. So, yeah, I think I know both of you. Oh, Helen, thank you so much for coming up today. I've come and seen the work of Healthy Living Platform. It is a fantastic resource. And I know I think many councillors and council officers are proud of the work we did to support coming to us since 2020. So I think this is a real example. And again, thank you for coming to our decisions that we are being forced to make here. I think everyone recognizes the fantastic service that you have, but I'm hopeful that this won't result in the closure of Healthy Living Platform in March. I know that some work is ongoing to find grant funding, including some exceptions, City Bridge, and some local fundraising. But also, this isn't the only food provision service in the borough. And I know that we have a network of food providers that come together and I think there was a lot of transport there. But also, I think if this were too sadly closed, then I think there is work that the council does and more that it can do to promote that alternative provision as well. And I think beyond that, also promoting the costability support that the council has and is already offering benefit entitlements, advice, financial literacy and support. As it says in our Food, Poverty and Insecurity Action Plan, I think the ideal that we have is that people are visiting food services, not driven by necessity, by poverty, but directly. These services they provide include reducing waste, promoting health and communities together. But as colleagues have said, and Councillor Ramos in particular, these are hard decisions that we're making. We are agreeing £50 million of cuts over four years here today. But there is a further £20 million that we have to find, including £9 million next year. So we have to balance these finances because if we don't, they'll be able to take them out of our minds. And none of us get into politics to make these decisions, but it is the reality that is before us and it's what we've had to do. So I'm sorry, but I'm hopeful it will find a way forward. Thank you very much, Councillor Wendell. Sorry, I'm just looking at something. Oh, yeah. I already referred to the recommendations of scrutiny already. They came in last week. There's 17 of them. We, of course, will respond to them as we do in the usual course. Some of them we're already doing. Others we need to consider in more depth. So that's to answer that one. I'm sorry, everyone. Yeah. Yeah. So we did say that there'll be a verbal before I come to colleagues. I beg your pardon. So there's one thing I've missed out. So huge apologies that we said that there would be a verbal report on the EIA assessment panel. And I believe Amy Buxton Jennings is going to give us that as an update. Is that right? I think that's from Andy Brown. That's from Andy Brown. And then you'll come in with any questions on it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So the Equalities Impact Assessment convened on Tuesday, the 3rd of December. The review of the consolidated impacts analysis and EIAs of all of the 59 saving proposals under the 2024 budget framework and overall the collective budget proposals were assessed by officers as having on balance a neutral impact on groups with protected characteristics under the Act 2010. The panel concentrated its efforts on five proposals with identified overall negative impacts and four additional proposals assessed as overall neutral, but with potential negative impacts on specific protected characteristics. And in each case, officers presented mitigating measures and the panel and provided recommendations for further mitigation or adjustments where necessary. And the panel also advised officers to enhance the development of certain EIAs to ensure robustness and suggested some proposals to be brought back for reconsideration at a major stage. As they were not yet sufficiently developed to allow for more comprehensive or accurate EIA. And so it's just critical to really highlight that assessing the equalities impact of saving proposals is a dynamic and ongoing process. But updates to the equalities analysis for these proposals will be reflected in the March 2025 budget report as further details continue to emerge. OK, great. Thank you very much for that clarification and report, Councillor. Did you want to add anything, Amy, before I open it out to Cabinet? OK. Thank you, colleagues. Does anyone else wish to contribute? Councillor Danny Adilapour. Thank you, Chair. And also this report details of the challenges we're facing in the minute with the general fund and the savings that are required as a result. I just thought for the meeting it would be appropriate as colleagues are aware to flag the fact that we're facing similar challenges with the housing revenue account at the minute and increasing pressures on that. This is an impact of the previous government's decisions where firstly they made a decision that HRAs would become self-financing. And at every point since then have constrained our ability to raise rents to meet that cost. And at the same time repair costs have soared as well. So to be clear, similar to the tough decisions we're talking about here, tough decisions lie ahead on the housing revenue account as well that we're going to have to discuss. This is true across other councils because the current funding arrangements for HRAs are broken. And that's the point that I've made politically and also, Chair, you've made as well in your role in the council need to make because the current arrangements around housing revenue accounts are not fit to purpose. And they're going to be a serious problem both for us and councils across the country in the years ahead until that funding arrangement is addressed. Thank you very much, Councillor. Would anyone else like to ask a question, make a comment, contribution? OK, David, did you want to say anything in conclusion? No? OK. Well, thank you very much. And I will then move to the recommendations, which colleagues, you can find on page 13 of your agenda. There are five of them, so I'm not going to read them all out. And we've already have had the verbal report in relation to the EIA panel from Councillor Mandy Brown. So can I ask, are these five recommendations agreed? Agreed. Thank you. I would like to thank the speakers, particularly to Carla and Helen for coming and addressing Cabinet and thank Councillor Windall for his commitment to continue to working with the organisations. And that's really good to hear. So thank you very much. I'm now going to move on to the next item and that is send an alternative revision strategy 2025 to 2030. I'd like to note that a supplementary appendix was published for this item on Monday, the 2nd of December. And the appendix was accepted as it was essential for Cabinet to consider the equalities impact assessment of the proposed strategy in full before making its decision tonight. So this item will be introduced by Councillor Ben Kind cabinet member for children and families. And we have Andrew Carter and Sophie Garner in attendance of the officers. So Councillor Ben Kind. Thank you, Chair. So. I'll refer to to special education needs and disabilities as a cent throughout this, but everyone's clear about what the acronyms are. There are lots of acronyms for this topic, the including as well, alternative provision being referred to as AP shorthand. So just so everybody is aware of that, so that the send an alternative provision strategies that is, I think, a transformative step in our commitment to delivering a high quality, inclusive education system and care for all our children and young people. And it's rooted in the principles of kindness, accountability, equity and ambition that are in our borough plan. So it aligns with that going forward in order to make Lambeth a truly child friendly borough. It's the result of an extensive process of co-production with families, children, young people, carers, education, specialists, health and social care professionals and through family events, feedback from professionals surveys and going through forwards through the Send Youth Forum. And we're going to be able to ensure that the voices of those who use and deliver these services are at the heart of not just this document, but also the delivery of it as we go forward in future years. And I think that's really important shift. I know that a lot of parents and parents and educators have advocated to me to that sense of co-production, bring everybody together as we go forward in the system where it's the council saying this is the only way. So it's aligned with the education and learning strategy in the all age or different strategy, and it's got a number of areas that I think we should be particularly proud about and strengthening inclusion in mainstream schools, building on the high levels we've already got, but also going a bit further and aiming to ensure that mainstream education is a viable option for more families. And obviously there's some good work that's already being done. Particularly, I'd like to pay thanks to the education team in the council for with the other partners around the exceptional needs grant that we provide, which offers schools funding for children with additional needs without requiring a formal diagnosis. And that we've helped 63 young people awaiting autism diagnoses this year access that support, even though they've been waiting in the backlog of assessments from the NHS side of things. Particularly proud of the ambition to become a borough of zero exclusions because we've already got low rates, but we want to go further. And the strategy outlines how we'll provide additional in school and alternative provision to achieve this. Expanding send provision overall and by providing more specialist school places and I'm particularly keen that the government has announced capital money that will be available to be able to increase the amount of mainstream and specialist places just within the last week or so. And the other focus that's in the strategy about preparing young people for adulthood and how we can move to earlier preparation for the transitions to adulthood, including, for instance, focusing on employment opportunities, independent living, building strong partnerships between health and social care providers at the same time to smooth the pathway. So I'm going to leave it there, but we've got officers who can talk through more of the detail as well. Did you want to add anything? Thank you, Councillor. Did you want to add anything before I call the speakers? Thank you, Chair. Sophie did that. Sophie did. OK, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So we had our previous Send in Inclusion Strategy 2020-24, which was reviewed and we published that. And so we were really proud of the progress. But we are aware we're working in a climate of increased demand within Send and identified system by the recent ISOS report as a broken Send system. So the strategy is really crucial for us to continue driving that improvement and continue the improvements that we've already made. As a borough, we have over 3,300 EHCPs, that's children with higher needs, which is 6.3% of our school population, which is above our statistical neighbours. And we have over 5,000 Send support children, young people who need our help. And this is what the strategy is about driving that improvement. The strategy is about joining up education, health and social care. And it's also about making sure that our experiences of our children, young people as they transition to adulthood is positive, and they're able to have their pathway and be successful in their chosen pathway. As Council of Kind has already outlined, we did extensive co-production with over 200 families being consulted through the Lambeth Parents Forum, where we have an extremely strong partnership, also through our events such as a Sensational Fun Day at the Country Fair. Over 50 children, young people were consulted, and we're really pleased to have two young people who are going to speak today about why these priorities are so important to them and talk to us about why it's so personal for them in terms of these priorities driving the improvement. The strategy has the seven priorities, but it will be underpinned by an action plan. And that action plan will be a yearly action plan, which will drive through the improvement, but also hold us accountable as council workers, as officers, to make sure that that improvement is taking place. I include through to our Governance and Strategic Board, which is a partnership board. I'm really pleased to be able to have the speakers for 10. As I said, we have two young people at Lambeth Parents Forum who are going to speak around those strategies. Thank you very much, Sophie. And yeah, I'm going to turn to the speakers now. Yeah, so I believe we have Benjamin Kingsley Scott, who's coming up to speak, and Emilia Cartershu. Apologies if I pronounce that incorrectly. And we have a Baron also and Dania Solomon. Is that right? Lulu Pinky, who is our Send Youth Coordinator. OK, you're going to support. OK. So hello. Welcome, both of you. Thank you for giving up your valuable time to come to this meeting. I really appreciate it. And I don't know who wants to go first. OK. And if you want to stop at any point, that's absolutely fine. If you need time or water or anything, just let us know. OK. And if you speak in your own time and I'll let you finish what you want to say. Thank you. Benjamin. Yeah. Hi, Benjamin. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. My name is Benjamin. I'm currently 17 years old and I'm currently studying A-Level Computer Science job in VTech business. I'm diagnosed with autism, dyslexia, dyslexia and verbal dyspraxia. In my speech, I'm going to focus on the long term need of coherent support, smooth and effective transitions. This is because for many people who are neurodivergent, including myself, change is one of the hardest things to overcome. When I changed from primary school to secondary school, my biggest worries was where was I going to charge my computer that I use in lessons to support with my writing and spelling. To anyone who's never used a computer in lessons, this is not even a consideration. But for me, it was more important than making new friends or learning new lessons. This is why listening to the voice of the young person is so important because they know what they want and how to support them. Having support such as visiting the secondary school I was moving to was so helpful and being able to ask questions to other neurodiverse students who were currently studying there about their experiences made it so much easier to change schools. As often, not knowing is much worse as not knowing is worse than knowing something will not work. Due to long term support such as extra maths interventions, study skill sessions and support in lesson as well as so much more, It's allowed me to increase my learning but it was very difficult. As for example, during Key Stage 3, I was having to learn Key Stage 3 maths in lesson and catch up on Key Stage 2 maths in intervention after school. This was a challenge of time and effort and if I had better long term support in primary school, it would have made this change a lot easier. Due to all the long term support from my secondary school, I went from predicted low grades to passing all my GCSEs at a high grade, apart from one that I don't really know. And that is currently allowing me to go on to study A levels of the subjects I've already said. And this will further allow me to go on to the career I want to do in transport, all because of the long term coherent support in Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4. I know first hand how support has the power to change lives. Thank you. Thank you very much, Benjamin. That was really clearly and articulately put and congratulations on your GCSE results. That's wonderful to hear. So, Amelia, are you going to speak now? And again, if you want to stop at any point, just let us know. Thank you for letting me speak and good evening, everyone. My name is Amelia. I am 14 years old and a student currently taking French geography and art GCSEs. I myself have been diagnosed with this bird, which is commonly known or referred to as autism. I am here to speak about two priorities in particular that speak to me, amplifying the voicing of young people and families, as well as to develop the work for the adequate training. In terms of the workforce, from my own experiences and those of my peers, teachers and staff members don't have enough slash developed information or understanding of SEN or say how to adequately support those types of situations. And it's important for all teachers for them to have the right training and not just those who are specifically under that demographic of children. Of course, there is credit where they can be given credit where it's due since there are devices to help. But it's a very one size fits all type of solution. And everyone may need different support systems to cater to their individual needs. One of the best ways to understand what works for a young person is to listen to their voice of needs. And this point needs to be emphasised when a workforce receives SEN training. And in terms of amplifying the voice of young people and families, it's important to let those voices be heard, considering that they'll be most effective with these priorities. And as far as I've seen, a majority of decisions being made in favour of those on the SEND are typically a result of decisions of the neurotypical mind and not more so of those who are neurodiverse. Therefore, we need to include or ask the young people or families in the decision making process, considering they would understand how that needs need to be met. And it's for these reasons why these priorities speak out to me in particular and need to be taken into consideration. Thank you. OK, thank you very much, Amelia. That was really clear. And I hear that that young people with specific experiences and their families, their voice needs to be at the heart of what we're doing in order that we can meet the needs and aspirations so that everybody has the opportunity to thrive. Thank you very much. I know that Rosemary wants to speak, but am I going to keep the young people safe? So before OK, before I ask Benjamin and Amelia to step back, I didn't know whether Ben or Andrew wanted to come in. I just want to say thank you for coming in because it's not the usual place that younger people come in and find us sitting on the other side of the table being quite stuffy about council decisions. So a big thank you for you giving up your evenings to do that. And absolutely everything you were just saying is everything that I've heard parents and carers tell me as well. And everything that I've heard teachers and other people working in helping some young people say as well. So it absolutely rings true to the vision that we've got going forward, especially what you were just saying at the end about trying to make sure that we hear the voice of young people in the decisions that we're making. Because if we don't do that, then it always becomes an adult making a decision on your behalf and not something that reflects the things that you were saying. Ben, sorry, you were saying about the importance of the things that are there for you when you started in terms of your secondary education. So absolutely, from my perspective, and I know from officers as well, that is the heart of what we want to do is make it more of a responsive service that's developed in partnership. Yeah. OK, thank you, Councillor. So I'm going to call another speaker. You can you're welcome to stay at the table or to sit back, whatever you feel most comfortable with. I was going to ask Rosemary Merricks from the Lamb of Parent Forum to come forward. But if you want to stay at the table, that's up to you. Yeah. OK, Councillor, I'm Rosemary Merricks. I'm the facilitator for Lamb of Parent Forum. We're a voluntary group of parents and carers for children, young people. So sorry. Yeah. Just to let you know that. Yeah. Thank you for being here. And yeah, we have a guidance of three minutes. Thank you. So we're a voluntary group of parents, carers, children, young people aged 0 to 25, with special educational needs and disabilities in Lambeth. And these guys just spoke so well about what we need, what our parents are always saying. You know, listen, listen to those who know and take and take the actions from there. So we're pleased to see that the new strategy builds on the previous one and to see that the feedback from families has been incorporated to define the priorities. We welcome that strategy highlights a need for everyone to understand the needs of children and young people we send to work together to provide the best possible outcomes for our children and young people. And importantly, to communicate the opportunities and support available to our families in Lambeth and that it aims to put in place the means for this to happen. We think our families must be able to see themselves and their children and young people included in the borough's aims for child friendly Lambeth and a borough of equity and justice. It's really important that the aims of this strategy are felt by everybody, by the young people, by the families, by the workforce, by everybody at all levels. And including those those borough values of kindness, accountability, equity and ambition. And as Sophie said, the actions underpinning the strategy are going to be the key to success. We think everybody needs to walk the walk as well as talking the talk. Early intervention must happen, not just in the early years, but across the child's lifetime as needs arise. Everyone working together is crucial for children, young people and their families to be supported, not just in terms of education, which obviously this focuses on, but across all aspects of their life, including social care, health, leisure services, housing, everything that people have been talking about tonight. As acknowledged in the introduction to this strategy, the system is increasingly complex and challenging for all involved, not least us as families. And we welcome the best efforts and endeavours of the local area to support families and children, young people and all who work with us to provide the best possible experiences and outcomes for our children, young people to ascend. And as Lambeth Parent Forum, we look forward to working with the local area partners in the way to achieve the priorities set out in the strategy and seeing the benefits for our families. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Rosemary, really appreciate that. So I don't know if the officers wanted to say anything before I opened up to Cabinet. I don't think there were any specific questions in there. Oh, sorry. I've just been pointed out that actually Councillor Matthew Bryant asked to speak on this issue as well. Sophie, would you mind giving up your seat for Matthew Bryant for three minutes? Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. You know the score. You have three minutes. No, I would say that really we would like as a group just to welcome this strategy. Very supportive of most of the elements in it and particularly pleased to see the element of co-production, and particularly the involvement of the integrated care board in the development of this strategy. Obviously the most notable thing is the context we're facing in Lambeth. So even as pupil numbers are declining, the actual number of pupils with EHC plans are actually increasing. So it's a proportion of our school age population that's gradually increasing. That's obviously putting significant pressure on this service. The two other points I'd like to make is, first of all, is on alternative provision. We're just concerned, obviously, if you're expecting an increase in the number of children with EHC plans, what plans have we got to actually expand the facilities for alternative provision? And I'd be interested to know how many children at the moment who are in alternative provision facilities actually have to go out of borough. And then the second point, the final point, is really I would just want to, and this is now with my house of school governor, I would just really want to call out the key role here played by special education needs coordinators or SENCOs in schools. And it's also about how we can, it's also looking at how we can use that resource more effectively, because obviously one of my concerns is that we've not got a situation where we've got, because of the problems we know we have with pupil number, declining pupil numbers, we've got an increasing number of smaller schools. And actually it's a very skilled resource, this SENCO. And I'm wondering whether actually schools need to be looking at how they actually maybe possibly share it between schools, so they're actually making the best use of it, because actually a lot of schools probably, if they're a one-form entry school, may now be struggling to fund or pay for a full-time SENCO themselves. So I just want to highlight that role, but also it's just picking up the two young people who've spoken. So there's actually a sort of separate role that perhaps needs to be built in, and SENCO effectively is a bridge between parents and carers and the school. And there needs to be some sort of support within the schools for the actual pupils, and it's particularly the ones at the transition stage where they're moving from primary school into secondary school. Probably isn't SENCO, but I'm wondering whether there's some sort of resource issue or some sort of thinking that could be done about how we can beef up the support that actually individual schools provide to those pupils. Thank you. OK, thank you very much, Councillor. And there were a couple of questions in there. Ben, did you want to come back or do you want to go to Andrew? I can cover alternative provision, but I think Andrew or Sophie may want to pick up on SENCO's because there's some more detail that I would want. But just to address the point on alternative provision and numbers, I'd be clear that our intention is actually to drive down the numbers required for alternative provision. We'd actually like to be a borough where we have zero exclusions, and the need for having those services in place is actually reduced rather than increased. And hopefully by the work that is within this strategy, but the Andrew and a brilliant Sophie and the rest of the team have already put in place with the fair access panel. We're already actually driving those numbers down to reduce the need for us to have pupils out of school on a more regular basis, recognising that there may well be a need for a young person to have some respite from from school. But the ambition is there to be zero exclusions, Matthew. And I think on that. Certainly where we are at as an authority is that we are lobbying the government to see a shift in the way that alternative provision has worked and to allow councils and schools to work to better together with parents and carers and with young people themselves to make sure that that system isn't like the broken version that we've had in the recent decade or few. Particularly here in Lambeth where we see high numbers of young people going into those academy settings for alternative provision and not returning to their mainstream settings. So our focus will be on trying to make sure that young people can stay in their school so that you can stay being able to rely on the friends that you've got at school and the environment you're in. Particularly because what we know for young people in the case of those with SEND that actually in an EHCP is that actually, you know, being in that familiar environment is is more important, is more stable for what you need than being disrupted and taken out of education. So hopefully Matthew would try to avoid it more and more and more rather than pumping money into it in order to increase the number of places. Thank you Councillor Andrew. Thank you Chair. Thank you Chair. So just in relation to the issue around SENCOs as previously in terms of pupil place planning, one of the moves is to try and then increase through that the financial resilience of schools, not have schools on low levels of funding that they can't afford the additional support. Yes. So I totally agree the importance of SENCOs and trying to look at ways. I'm not sure that sharing across schools would be viable, but any option we will look at. I just turn to Sophie maybe just to touch that digital one regarding transitions. So we've embedded an area SENCO team and they support all our schools and they support those schools who may have part time SENCOs who are smaller or are bigger secondaries as well. And we've extended that team because actually we got feedback from our SENCOs who are our frontline practitioners. And they said to us in a survey that actually the area SENCO team has made a real positive impact in that support and relevant of the size of the school. We've also extended our autism outreach team and our SEMH. So our social, emotional, mental, emotional outreach team, because we know that that early intervention, as Rosemary was talking about, is so key. So having those outreach teams support our schools to be able to support our young people to remain in mainstream is a big driver for us. We also are really proud that as a borough, compared to our statistical neighbours, we've really invested in resource bases. The resource bases are those specialist units within our mainstream settings. So as Councillor Kine outlined, we are working towards driving down the use of alternative provision, providing resource bases and alternative provision within our mainstream settings. So we're opening up a third wave of high needs capital funding so that we're able to invest in our schools and our mainstream schools so they can be inclusive. And that's reflected in our strategy and that making sure we have sustainable and inclusive provision. And that's what our families want. That's what we've heard from our Lambeth parents from. We've done the co-production and also our young people. They want to be in their local school. They want to be part of the mainstream schools. So those resource bases are a big driver for us. And they'll continue to drive that in terms of our investment in those resource bases to support our young people to be in mainstream. Excellent. Thank you very much, Sophie. Chair, I just wanted Sophie to just touch on the out of borough versus in borough AP because I know our drive is to make sure we've got more young people in borough. So in terms of out of borough, we try to use it as minimally as possible. But there are cases where due to safeguarding, it may be due to postcodes or it may be due to existing cohort because we only have Evolve Academy in borough, which is our only AP alternative provision. However, there are some young people that cannot be in the same alternative provision due to contextual safeguarding risk. So sometimes we do have to use out of borough in those circumstances. But what we are driving for is making sure that that alternative provision is a short, short term. So that's why we introduced the three tier approach. So we're trying to make sure our schools have that early intervention early on. So they contact us and get in touch with us as soon as there's behavioural challenges, as soon as they have concerns. And we use the Exceptional Needs Grant and those outreach teams to support schools so we have early intervention. If they do need alternative provision, then we really are looking at making sure it's a short term. And there's a plan either to reintegrate or to look at a key stage four in that transition into adulthood. So what is the pathway? Is it vocational? Therefore, working with our South Bank colleges to make sure we're looking at a pathway for them. Great. Thank you. That was very clear. Thank you. Sophie. So I'm going to open up to colleagues now. Any questions or comments from other colleagues? Councilor Jackie Dyer. Thanks for this. This is a welcome strategy. I'm keen to understand the makeup of the centre population is really distinct here in this borough. If you speak up, Councillor Dyer, I can't hear you. Wow. That's so lovely. I'm keen to understand from the makeup, the demographic makeup of the centre population. And I know that you've picked up to some degree some of these issues in the equalities impact assessment. But I'm still not clear how we're dealing with what essentially is systemic racism across the life course of people who hold protective characteristics, particularly race and its intersection with disability and how we're attending to that within this context. I think that would be really very helpful considering that this is an area of concern nationally that will be picked up by the Education Select Committee. That Helen is chairs and I believe she's going to. There's a consultation about to take place on send and it will be looking at that particular thread. And the government's interest both by its cabinet office race disparities unit and from the health perspective where they've now set up a group, a team that's paying attention to inequalities, multiple disadvantage and displacement. So I'm really interested to understand how we're grappling with that reality and responding to that reality. And the other point I wanted to ask was about that I hear that there's a social and mental health outreach team within SEND. I wasn't aware of this before, but I think that that's great that I've become aware of that. And actually, when you look at because we're thinking in systems now, aren't we? We're thinking in a very systematic way where each part of what the local council does deals with its interdependencies. So this is very much a crosscutting agenda with health. Yeah, with healthier communities. And I believe that we have the mental health support teams in schools. So I'm keen to understand how we're interfacing there, how that's working together. But additionally, how because the mental health support teams in schools is part of the evidence of what we're doing to meet the needs across the age protected characteristics from a patient and carer race equality framework. Knowing full well that a good proportion of people in this group have mental health challenges. And we see much of that arising in the adult years that people that are in inpatient settings have undiagnosed or sometimes diagnosed learning disabilities or learning difficulties. So I'm just wondering about that. So if I could come to Andrew for that. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Chair. So very briefly, again, we do know and recognise the impact of systemic racism, but it's a twofold impact. I think for children with special education needs and disabilities, what has often happened is under recognition, under diagnosis. From that point of view, our numbers are quite positive. And the fact that we are picking up children from a diverse background early in identifying their needs, where I do think there's an ongoing issue in terms of systemic racism and overrepresentation is the disproportionate number of black boys and particularly black Caribbean boys who are in AP provision. And I think that's where Sophie was quite rightly saying what we want to do is challenge that use of AP. I think that alternative provision should be about a short term focus on reintegrating all children back into school where they need to be to get a proper education and totally agree with the point around PCREF and working with colleagues across health in terms of how we can better integrate and make sure that we're joined up. So I think there's work to be done there. We are not as joined up as we need to be, but that is an ongoing issue for us. OK, thank you very much, Andrew. Any other comments or contributions colleagues? No. OK, so just so we all know what's happening, we've now the papers for this strategy and the decision making paper has been circulated in advance. We've all read it all and it's been published online, so people have had access to it. We are very grateful to have heard from Benjamin and Amelia and from Rosemary. And now we've heard from the officers and this is our opportunity to put questions that we might want to put as cabinet. And now I'm going to ask cabinet if they agree the recommendation in the paper and that there's one recommendation for us as cabinet to look at right now. And that is to approve the send and alternative revision strategy 2025-2030 for publication in January 2025, which is basically I'm asking everyone if they agree that this paper should go forward and this should be our new strategy. Is that agreed? OK. All right. So thank you once again, particularly to Benjamin and Amelia for giving your time. We're really, really grateful. Good luck with all your studies. I hope you get that job in transport. Rosina Chowdhury and I are total transport nerds. So if ever you want to talk transport and speak in a way that we won't get bored, but other people around us might, because that's what we do with each other, feel free to get in contact. But good luck and good luck with your GCSE, Amelia. Thank you both. Thank you. Thank you, Rosemary. OK, so I'm going to move on to the next item. And this is Empty Homes and Boyd's Action Plan. This will be introduced by Council Danny Adilapour, Cabinet Member for Housing, Investment and New Homes. And the officers we have here are Ruth Hart, Venetia Reid, Baptiste, Tom Rihilly and Richard Lebrun. Are you doing an intro, Danny? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. As everybody is aware, housing is in short supply across Lambeth and that's a key priority for us as a council. Our housing waiting list is extensive and the lack of affordable homes puts real pressures in life and our residents and our local communities and also on us financially as a council. Across our council stock, across housing associations and the private sector, we know there are a range of properties that are empty, void or not an informal tenancy for a range of different reasons. So this is why we have here our Empty Homes and Voids Action Plan, which sets out the important steps that we are taking as a council, bringing back more empty homes and voids on our estates into operation and do that quicker than we are at the moment, and also crack down on those empty homes we are seeing in the private rented sector. In our housing strategy we published earlier this year, we set out our first priority of increasing the number of affordable homes in the borough to help tackle the housing crisis. Now, this wasn't just about building new homes as a point that is. It's also all about how we make better use of our existing housing stock, including how we tackle those vacant homes, incentivise efficient occupancy and invest in improvements on our estates. So the appendix to this report lists the key actions we are taking to try and improve the situation. These can be something in three main areas, streamlining void management and increasing contractor accountability to turn around voids quicker, improving our data to have better records, providing additional capacity and resourcing to tackle empty homes and to turn them around. And just finally, we're committed to providing annual updates to residents to show the improvements we only want to go on through this. And of course, we gave the updates to be totally transparent about the impact these measures are having. With that, happy to hand over to the officers and take any contributions. Thank you. Thank you very much, Danny. Ruth, is there anything you want to add before I turn to our speakers? No. OK. All right. Thank you. We've had two councillors who have indicated that they wish to speak on this item. Councillor Scott Ainsley and Councillor Matthew Bryan. Scott name, Scott and Matthew. Sorry. Would you like to come to the table? OK, so Scott, you're on the order paper first. Three minutes when you're ready. Thank you. So I finished my last speech talking about that we need to address wealth inequality in this borough. There's a lot of empty properties that are sat empty in the north of the borough. I think we really need really do need to address that issue. So whilst we welcome this action plan and its intent, we would say that it doesn't go far enough to address the root cause of empty properties. And this is a great opportunity for Lambeth to develop a London leading privately owned empty property strategy. Empty properties are a symptom of increasing wealth inequality in London, and we'd like Lambeth to do everything that they possibly can to take back empty properties for its residents. Now, our concerns about this action plan are that it underestimates the extent of the problem. The ONS data from 2021 suggests that there are 11,420 truly vacant homes and 695 second homes. That's a total of over 12,115 homes on the night of the census on the night of the census with a disproportionate concentration of these in Waterloo, Vauxhall and other north of the borough wards. The true number is probably somewhere between action on empty homes figure of 2024 and the ONS's statistics of 12 over 12,000. There are no smart targets, i.e. targets for conversion to occupancy in this report. There's no additional budget either to support potential grants or increased enforcement sale processes. There's no mention of empty commercial properties. There needs to be a joined up approach across directorates, for example, planning and service delivery, as well as engagement with stakeholders such as registered providers to leverage all opportunities for occupancy occupying these homes. In terms of council voids, we do not see any new actions proposed. And as per our previous presentation representations, we'd like to see voids on region estates retrofitted rather than demolished. Ideally, the private empty properties action plan should be decoupled from council voids and further worked on to be a robust strategic approach with defined objectives and outcomes. So my questions, the questions are 30 seconds. Thank you. We'd like to know is Lambeth planning to do any work to identify the real number of privately owned empty properties in the borough? And how does this action plan seek to address the root cause of privately owned empty properties? Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Hey, Matthew, you have three minutes when you're ready. OK, thank you, Chair. Some of my points actually mirror those already made by Scott. So I won't repeat them as I know you've got a busy agenda. Obviously, it's good to see this action plan, but similarly, I suppose it's good as far as it goes. I think the proof will be in the delivery. And for that end, I think our first concern is it would have been good to see some targets for actually the number of empty properties that the council looks to be able to get back into use per year or over the next five year timeframe. And particularly it's about what are the plans? Is there is there a timescale and a work plan for getting the 454 council void properties? Because those are the ones you've got the most direct control of. And the second point is really a slight concern that the action plan mentions that you're looking to have a sole contractor for repair of the voids. And just as we expressed our concerns last year when the council was putting all the FM contracts in with weights when Fortem pulled out last year, we're concerned about actually being over-reliant on the single contractor there. And particularly that contract is then underperforming such a key area. And then the third one, which is, I won't refer to this point Scott had made, is I suppose what can we be doing more to get these private or private rental properties that are empty back into use? I don't know whether there's also something there that we've done through the planning process. Because obviously it's noticeable that a lot of these new developments, you go along there at night time and there's lights on in 10% of the property. We know that a lot of these properties are being bought up by international purchasers. They're forced as an investment with the view of actually they don't want anybody living in them. And that just seems a crazy situation to be pertaining to what we've got, as we know, a housing crisis in Lambert. But that's a wider, more philosophical point. But I just hope that we can collectively get some action taken there because that's such a key part of solving this problem. Thank you very much. So the questions I had there, before I come to the questions I had, I just want to say, there was some good interesting points made there. I do find it, though, so depressing that the Green Party never has an answer to the housing crisis. I'm just, you've spoken, Scott, and that, you know, it doesn't matter, even if we had the money, which I don't see you lobbying for from central government to retrofit every home in the borough. We still have a housing crisis and we still have thousands of families homeless. We have to build homes. And so I just find it depressing that you can't move beyond that sometimes. However, the other points that I would ask officers and Danny maybe to address is are we underestimating the extent of the problem in terms of numbers? That's what I understood Scott to be saying and that there are no smart targets. And then Matthew made a point about targets as well. And Matthew made a point about sole over-reliance on a sole contractor. That was a question there. But also how do we address the real problem about private sector publishers being empty? So I think ones we're saying beyond those which are within our remit. So am I going to this is a cross organisational issue. So this is us working as one Lambeth to come up with a really good action plan to try and address this. And so I don't know it's between Ruth and Venetia who's going to go first. Let's start with Venetia. Thanks Sam here. So I have a question around underestimating the extent of the problem. I don't believe we are underestimating it. We've done quite a lot of work as part of introducing selective licensing that has given us the awareness of the numbers that we might be dealing with here. Part of the reason when I came to Cabinet, I think in March, Richard will remind me to talk about the first phase of selective licensing and also an increase in the number of licensing officers, 36 officers in particular, was because we understood the number of properties we would need to be targeting here. Part of the MTFS going forward also includes us changing our approach, meet the requirements of the law that now requires us to ensure that empty properties, there's a 100% premium concert tax premium attached to those. And likewise, they made the target of being empty one year earlier than they did previously. For us to be able to identify that to enforce concert tax collection, we needed to have enough officers on board. So I don't think we're underestimating the problem at all. And we're geared up to meet that requirement as it relates to I think the next one was properties that we might need to take back into use and targets within our private sector. Start off and officers will come in within our private sector enforcement teams. We do work to a number of targets, so each officer that we recruit is assigned a target properties that they must visit, must report and support that. And we're quite happy to include that in the publication of this plan going forward. I think taking the ones back to use, I think has referred to maybe Tom. So where's the pick up the voids? Yeah, maybe. Yeah, come in Tom. I think one of them, as Finesha said, we use the plan, use a range of data and the full data that are available to us to understand the picture. But one of the things that the plan is seeking to do is actually how we're improving the kind of information that we get from residents as well. So there's already the ability for residents to report on empty properties that they see. And, you know, that's one of the big drivers behind this is the kind of concern that residents have around empty properties. But through this action, we're seeking the ways in which kind of seeking to improve the ways in which residents can report that. So building up the data or council tax base, plus that reporting for residents so that we're able to take take the action that they need to identify. And just on targets, there are, you'll note, Chair and Member of Cabinet, in relation to our voids, both in terms of the turnaround and also the total number of the law will be some as tenants move between tenancies. And we've set targets in the plan where those things are within our control or within our gifts in relation to council properties. As Vinicius said, there are kind of operational targets for how we manage the work in relation to private sector properties. But we didn't feel it appropriate to set targets for the number brought back in, given how weak some of those levers are. We can place, you know, the incentives there in terms of council tax, but it's not within our gift to completely make that happen. And that's why, you know, actually, we're just setting up kind of unrealistic or kind of targets for the sake of it, which is why they're restricted to council properties, but not targets other than those operational ones, which Vinicius describes in terms of the privately owned properties. OK, great. Thank you, Tom, for that clarification. Ruth. So just to add, as Tom has said, that we have put sort of some provisional to our own HRA stock and we've already seen a huge amount of progress over the last year. So whilst the action plan will be published now, the work has been happening already. And part of that is actually understanding our data better and making sure we have all the right contractor leads in place to make sure our contractor is working with us to turn them around quickly and get people into those properties as soon as we possibly can. And as a result of that, we had identified 124 voids last winter and now 93 of them are complete and allocated. So we continue to turn them around quickly, but there will always be some and there will always be a pipeline of turnaround. OK, thank you. What about the point about the sole contractor? So we've got performance measures in place with weights who are the contractor. At the moment, they are forming and meeting the target of 10 working days to turn around those voids. We've got penalties in place if that doesn't happen or if there is an issue. They are currently a far or wide contractor for our housing contract that has to be working very well at the moment. But we are making sure we've got good contractual measures in place and performance measures in place to ensure that continues. Thank you very much. Danny, I'm going to open it out unless you want to come back on anything. I'll wait for the contributions. OK. All right. Colleagues, questions, comments, anyone to add to what's been said? Councillor Ben Kind. So just two comments. I was trying to thank officers for going to the trouble to outline in the the appendix for this. I think that's the true number of voids that are Lambeth Council housing voids, which is a lot lower than the figures that I think are repeatedly used. I think that's the true explanation that's in there that outlines about how for the process of categorizing voids in total, the chunk of them actually are occupied, for instance, where the disputed tenancies and so on. But because of the way that it's classified as a void is it's recorded as that. And I think it's really important that everybody is honest about what those numbers are when it comes to the debate around this, because sometimes it's so heavily misrepresented as what the true situation is. The other one was I just wanted to pick up on a point that Councillor Ainsley made about the figures from the census. And just to note for everybody that the UNX expressed caution in misinterpreting the figures relating to the 2022 census around the higher occupancy rates, saying that they thought that the unoccupied dwelling figures would be inflated because it was taken during the pandemic and people would be living with parents overseas residents returning home and other lockdown related restrictions were in place at the time. So actually, I'm not so certain as officers, for instance, has pointed out that the figures that are in the census are actually reflective of the reality that we have regarding the voids. Thank you. Absolutely. And that's really helpful to remind us of that. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments or questions? No, I'll come back to you then, Danny. Thank you, Jo. Thank you for the helpful contributions. I'll just reiterate again, this is a really important part of our strategy to make sure that homes are available quickly and are getting homes into use for people. I just really want to highlight again, and it's important, the point that Councillor Klein made, that the data is really important here. The data we have at the minute isn't fit for purpose. It often highlights homes that no longer exist, less that are in occupancy for various reasons and homes that aren't true voids, quite simply. That's why we're really keen to be transparent about this exercise and improving the data. And we're committed to this annual report with more accurate figures and these quarterly updates of the data so that everyone can see for themselves both the true figures we're dealing with and the improvements we're trying to make. And I think by being as transparent as that, we can help to improve that work in the months and years ahead. Thank you. OK, yeah, I just want to echo that and say that I think this is, you know, an excellent piece of work, culmination of a long period of work, bringing different parts of what officers and Danny's been working on. And it's part of that really strong journey we're on around housing improvement generally across the piece. And I think this is a really positive piece of cross cutting work. So I want to thank the officers for their detailed hard work on this and their commitment to the ongoing hard work and transparency around it. So there are two recommendations on page 83 of your agenda, colleagues. And those are to approve the publication of the Empty Homes Invoys Action Plan and to approve that this plan is updated on an annual basis and that relevant data on Empty Homes Invoys is published on a quarterly basis. Are those recommendations agreed? Agreed. OK, thank you very much. Thank you very much, everyone at the table. We're now going to go on to the next item. This is item six, private rented sector officer discharge policy. Bit of a mouthful. So this will be introduced by Councillor Danny Adilapour, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet for Housing Cabinet Member for Housing Investment New Homes. I think we have Rupert and Alex Clark, the officers. Oh, and your team. Welcome, everybody. Hi, Chris. Hi, Danny. OK, Danny, you're going to introduce the site, Tim. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. As colleagues may have noticed, there's a bit of a theme this evening that highlights how important housing is as an issue and the huge amounts of work in one of those different departments and reports to really improve the situation. But I'm really grateful for the opportunity to have such detailed discussions tonight. One of the statutory duties we have as a council and one of the most important duties we have is to provide housing to residents with a priority need. This is a duty that is only ended by an offer of long term accommodation, which is often social housing. And whilst residents are waiting for that longer term offer, we'll often move into temporary accommodation, which is often not an ideal situation for them and also comes at considerable expense to the council. So it's really important that we tackle this area and try and improve the situation both for residents and for long term stability of council finances. What this report is proposing is to review our private sector discharge policy, which will allow us to discharge that main housing duty once an offer of useful and truly affordable private accommodation is made available. This will bring this into line with every other London borough who's already doing this and would help us to really be more flexible in our approach to ensure that we get people out of temporary accommodation into more secure homes as soon as possible. But you recognize the private sector will be appropriate for every household offer would be made following a full incident assessment of each individual's circumstances. What's really crucial that point about affordability is stressed. As we know, demand for housing in Lambeth and across London far outstrip supply and the demand and costs for temporary accommodation have soared in recent years. So we simply have to take action in this area, both for the sake of our residents and to be responsible in how we steward council finances. As we heard earlier this evening, temporary accommodation that presents the most significant driver service within the general fund, we simply have to alleviate this pressure as soon as possible. This report will help us go some way to doing that. Just a bit of context that every successful PRS discharge offer, the general fund will save an average of £14,000. If this report is approved, the service will be targeting 120 successful PRS move ons with avoid costs of around £1.68 million to the general fund. So these are really crucial figures for us as a council. And as I stress, also a better pathway to getting residents out of TA, better, more secure accommodation when that is appropriate for them. That's all I have to say at the minute, but happy to take any further contributions. Thank you very much, Danny. Ruth, if you've got anything to add before I introduce speakers. OK, thank you. So two visiting members have indicated they wish to speak on this item. That's councillor Nicole Griffiths and councillor Matthew Bryant. Do you want to come up to the table, both of you? Good evening, Nicole. So you're on my order paper first. So you have three minutes if you want to start when you're ready. Good evening, everybody. I'm councillor Nicole Griffiths. Let's not forget that families in temporary accommodation are fundamentally homeless until they are placed in more kind of accommodation. So ideally, this would be council-owned homes which are secure and comfortable at council event. I would wager that most of our temporary accommodation families have struggled to afford current market rents, which is why they've ended up in temporary accommodation anyway. So I do think that actually, contrary to 0.1.6, many families in temporary accommodation she wouldn't willingly go into the private sector if the costs were not so high. So if families are being encouraged into the private sector, then we need the new government to overhaul housing benefit so that the local housing allowance matches market rents and the introduction of rent controls to make private renting more affordable is imperative. If the proposal does the opposite of what's said in 1.7, that it's aligned with the borough plan, number 30 and the intention to try and drive the cost is as it proposes to abandon more families to an unaffordable private sector. The claim in 2.2 is also inaccurate as without rent controls, rents will continue to increase. Capped housing benefit won't cover the rent and there's no long-term security in the private sector. In addition, much of the temporary accommodation that our residents will need is privately owned and as you say, it's in often pure quality and this is going to remain the case. It's a relief to read that certain households will be deemed unsuitable for moving into the private rented sector but on what basis will these decisions be made? When you pay privately, when you rent privately, you need to provide a deposit of at least one month's rent. You need to pay a month's rent in advance. You need to prove that you have a regular monthly income that will cover your rent and your bills. And in addition, most landlords won't consider rent to tenants on benefits. What proposal is there to address this? And will the new Moving On team have the powers to provide funding to the families who are expected and being asked to move on? 30 seconds, Nicole. Two questions. So, will funding be provided to the families who are being asked to move into the private sector? And the second, on what basis are decisions made as to whether or not a family is suitable or unsuitable to move? Thank you. Thanks, Nicole. Matthew, when you're ready to start, you have three minutes. Thank you, Chair. I've only got a couple of very small points, I suppose. Generally speaking, I think we're supportive of this approach. Obviously, we know that actually 31 other London boroughs already do this. So actually, my question probably would be actually, why has it taken so long, Lambeth, to adopt this approach? But it's good we got there now. The second point is really, I suppose, reiterating, repeating the point that Councillor Griffiths just made her final comment is how are you actually going to select the families or the households that you believe are eligible for this scheme? And what are the... How's the process work if a family actually refuses to move into or to refuse to accept a private rented sector offer? I assume that means that they then no longer have a due to a care to them. But I'm just worried that that just creates another cycle or vicious cycle of homelessness potentially. But then it's how are those people selected from one of the criteria, but fundamentally agree with the proposal. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn to Alex to answer, and Ruth. So, on what basis, how are families assessed as moving into the sector, Alex? There was a question around funding. I don't know where the funding is going to come from, but will we fund families? And I'd like to make a point about the Local Housing Alliance that Danny and I, both in Lambeth and across London and nationally, have been campaigning for years for it to be uprated. It was frozen at 2011 levels, and we've been campaigning and lobbying for that for a long time. And it would be delightful if colleagues could join in from other parties as well. So, could you answer those? Alex, are you the person to answer? I'm happy to touch those. Thank you. So, in terms of whether funding is available to the families, I think it's important to say that if we're making a private rented discharge to a family, then there is no cost to that family in terms of a deposit or rent in advance. That is covered in full by the Council in our negotiations with the landlord. So, there's no expectation that that family would have to pay for a deposit or a rent in advance. In terms of how we would assess whether people are suitable for the private rented sector. So, we would carry out a full holistic assessment of that family, looking at their income, the needs of every member of the households, including their educational needs, whether there's any social care needs, medical needs, care needs, etc. I think there are, it's important to say that there are some groups that we feel would ordinarily not be suitable for the private rented sector. So, that includes elderly residents whose needs to be better served by sheltered accommodation and people who would require an adapted property, such as a wheelchair adapted property, which is obviously very hard to come by in the private rented sector. Lambeth care leavers as well would be another group we would want to exclude from this. But, in short, we would carry out a full assessment to make sure that all of those different factors have been taken into consideration. And, as Councillor Adilipo said, one of the most important things is ensuring that the accommodation is affordable, which means that it would be at or below the current local housing allowance rate for an offer to be made. Thank you very much, Alex. Anything you wanted to add, Ruth, before I open up the cabinet? Just to say, I guess it's probably helpful to point out that the LHA, the local housing allowance is set at 30% of rents. So, I mean, it's at the bottom end of the rent scale, but there should be afforded properties, 30% of properties should be within that sort of affordable level in theory. Okay, colleagues, I'm going to open it out now to colleagues for any questions or comments. Sorry, Councillor Tim Windle. Yeah, just to say, very happy to support this today. And I think it's good that most families that are able to move on to the private sector, we've got the support to do so. I hope that that seems that we have some recommendations to council perhaps if they're those that, that's the new council housing as well. I just wanted you to confirm about the money that we will give to, you know, to put the deposit and the response around this negotiation with them. And the thing we were just asking about maybe so financial strategy earlier, is that value to the council given the cost of that temporary accommodation to on a monthly arrival basis? Yes, I'm happy to answer that. In terms of is it value for money? Yes. We have reviewed our incentive levels we pay to landlords to make sure that they're competitive, that they are always less than the cost of providing temporary accommodation for 12 months. And given that that sort of staying in temporary accommodation for a number of years, it's very much value for money for the council. Thank you very much for that. Councillor Jackie Dyer. Thanks for this. And of course, this is a great approach. I see that a lot of parent attention has been considered here. I think that the equality impact assessment could have done with more rigor. And I know some of the points that were picked up by the councillor. I know some of the things that were picked up here would have been actually incorporated into the actual equality impact assessment, as opposed to being separate. So I refer to the use of the PRS to discharge homelessness duty, will only be carried out following a thorough and fair suitability assessment of an individual the household's needs. That kind of data that is there in terms of the considerations, and ones that should have been picked up in the equality impact assessment in terms of age, in terms of disability. So you just have to think in a much more. Yeah, using that sort of thinking in terms of the equality impact assessment, and I would recommend that it is an iterative impact assessment so that there's ongoing learning here, and we don't miss the opportunities not to further exacerbate people's situations. Thank you, Cathy. I mean, I think it's a really well-made point, Councillor Darren. I think we will be seeking to understand the impact of all of these policies as we introduce them, to make sure that they both achieve what we're trying to achieve, which is reducing the number of people in TA and the cost of that TA, but also making sure that in terms of the equalities impact that we're really paying attention to that, and making sure that there are groups that are adversely disadvantaged because of those policies. Thank you, Ruth. Any other questions or comments? Councillor Mohamed Hashishu. Just my one question was around suitable office. So if a resident is given a suitable offer, or what the council is brought upon, but they disagree, is there a process that is reviewed? Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. So yes, every offer would carry the right for statutory 202 review. And I think other kind of safeguards from the resident's point of view that are important to point out is that we offer tenancy sustainment for 12 months, or for the life of the tenancy if it's a two-year tenancy. And also, if that individual or household loses the property through no fault of their own within the first two years of the tenancy, then we automatically, under the legislation, have a duty to offer them another property. And I think it's important to say the renters' rights bill that's coming forward takes away that issue of security of tenures. You know, a private renter tenancy has no end date for the implementation of that. Yeah. Great. Thank you very much, Alex. Any other questions or comments? This in conclusion? Yeah. Yeah. I can't see anyone else's hands up, I was going to say. So yeah, go for that. But thank you all for the contributions. Just to come back briefly to Councillor Bronagh's question about why are we only doing this now? And I think it's a fair challenge. All I'd say to his response is that since I took over this part of my portfolio in June, I have been trying to turbocharge our work in this area, looking at the different aspects and ways we can relieve pressures on temporary accommodation and get people into better homes. And thank you to the officers for the work that's gone into all those many reports we've had. And hopefully that is shown just in the very number of detailed reports we're going through tonight, some of which involve difficult decisions, but I believe all of them are the right decisions, both for our residents, and to make sure we've got a sustainable financial future for the Council. Thanks. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you to the officers for all your work on this. And I'm now going to turn to the recommendation colleagues. It's on page 132 of your agenda. And that's to approve the revised private rented sector officer discharge policy. And there's more that goes on, but you've got it there on page 132 of your agenda. Is that recommendation agreed? Agreed. OK. All right. Thank you very much, colleagues. I think you're up for the next item. OK. It's item number seven, isn't it? Yeah. Well, seven. Review of temporary accommodation, rent levels and cost recovery. This will be introduced by Councillor Danny Adilapal, Cabinet Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing Investment New Homes. And I've got down as the relevant officers, Ruth and Chris Flynn, but I think you're all there as part of the team. So, Danny, are you going to do an introduction? Yes, I will. Thank you, Chair. So this report really does go hand in hand with the previous item, and it's about that work I was just talking about, how we reduce the increasing cost of temporary accommodation, which is putting significant pressure on the general fund, and also deliver better outcomes for our residents. Just to go for some of the key figures, over the past financial year, in Lambeth we saw a 16% increase in demand for temporary accommodation, far exceeding the national rise we've seen in demand for this. Over the same period, the rates charged with TA rose by 14%, and the forecast cost of delivering the service is up by a third of this year compared to last year. Therefore, it's vital, as I say, that the Council takes immediate steps to ensure the financial stability and sustainability of TA and reduce those pressures on the Council. Currently, TA rental charges are at 90% of 2011 local housing allowance rates, well below market rates, and this report proposes aligning those TA rental charges with 100% of those 2011 rates, which will help generate the large 3-3 million pounds per year. It's also important to stress that the vast majority of our households' internal accommodation, 84%. This change will have no direct financial impact, as the increase will be covered by the Government through housing benefit. There are about 750 households that do not have housing benefit, and they were supported by the Council's cost of living support team. Many of them are eligible for housing benefit but haven't applied, and they'll be encouraged and supported in doing so, and have support as well from the new Paris move-on team that we discussed in the previous item. As I mentioned at the end of the last item, I fully acknowledge this is a difficult decision for staff to make, and we will have to support a small number of residents with this, but the current costs of TA are unsustainable, they're unprecedented, and we take action to address this. This is why this is the right decision to ensure that we're acting responsibly as a Council, and continue to deliver this service and the other services that our residents rely on. Thank you, Danny. Ruth, did you want to add anything before I call up the speakers? Okay, thank you. I have two visiting members who have indicated they wish to speak on this item, Councillor Nicole Griffiths and Councillor Matthew Bryant. Do you want to come back to the table for you? Thank you. Thank you. Well, first again on my order paper, Nicole, so if you'd like to start in your own time and you have three minutes. Thank you. I've just got a few extra points to make about this. So as we know, the housing allowance is actually around £1,400 a month, and housing benefit is capped to this rate. The average cost of the two bedroom to rent in Lambeth, private sector, private rental sector, sorry, is at least £2,000 a month. So that's well over what the housing benefit is. Universal credit claimants often don't see housing benefit at the full available rate due to factors such as income from work or having a spare room, so on. And the council can't bear for it. You can never ever assume that a household will be in the seat of 100% housing benefit. Usually claimants are already suffering great levels of financial stress, as payments are never sufficient. They differ monthly depending on earnings and in sanctions you might have received and so on. In 1.4, there's a figure of 84% of households, and I'm just wondering where that figure comes from. That comes from data, I think really helpful to know. So housing benefit capped at MHA levels. If families are going into the private sector, how can they possibly afford the rent, especially if they don't qualify for the full housing benefit? And I'm still worried that the NASS don't quite add up. And what support will be made available to these households to either apply for the housing benefit or manage the increased rent? Again, over that long term rental, is there going to be financial support given to those families? Well, I just say, you know, it makes more sense for council to buy property and rent and council rate rent and receive the housing benefit themselves. Indeed, this proposal makes no sense really based on the current realities of the private rental sector. And it really is only feasible if rent controls are in place to keep rents low, and that housing benefit can then meet the cost of those rents that people are expected to pay. I've got two questions to those before. It's what financial support is made available for families to continue to be able to stay in the private rental sector? And where does that figure 84% come from? Thank you. OK, thank you, Nicole. Matthew, Councillor Matthew Bryant, sorry, you have three minutes. I was about to say 30 seconds, but I'll give you three minutes. Sorry, three minutes if you want to say the same time. Thank you, Chet. And I've really got one point I want to make and actually relates both to this item and to the next item eight. So the two subjects I think are very interlinked. So I thought I'd just make them now and save time because you've heard enough from me this evening. And that's really it's about looking at the how you communicate this. And it's the amount of warning and notice you actually give to the residents affected. So it seems to be quite clear that for this proposal, it's only about 16%, about one in six of people in TA are actually affected by it. And the next item we're going to about utilities, 10% of people. And the utilities one is a no brainer to me because why should some people not be, even though they're in temporary accommodation, they're not paying their utility costs because it's absorbed within the rent. But 90% of people are. But the thing I look back, I just remember going back two years ago when we had this big issue around a very big hike in cost of communal heating costs in a number of council blocks. And I know Councillor Windle was, in addition, wearing a different hat then. And one of the problems there was actually, it was a very steep increase, but residents were given only four weeks notice of it. I know that's a statutory provision. You're talking here at the moment about giving people eight weeks notice. But in some cases, it may be less than that because there's some things about identifying who the relevant people are. You're looking at everything to come in from April. All I'd say is, well, it's a plea, I suppose, can we at least give people three months notice of these changes? Because a lot of these families in temporary accommodation, they're there because they've got straight finances. Some of these might be seen for quite small sums, but actually for those family budgets, that's quite an amount to absorb. They need to give them warning. They need to give time to sort out family finances to be able to actually accommodate these charges, whether it's having to pay for more of their rent or it's a utility cost or probably both. All I'd say is, communication is such a key bit of it. Let's give as much notice to explain this to people and give them time to adapt to the situation. Thank you. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you both. So there were questions there around where the figure of 84% comes from in paragraph 1.4. What financial support will be available and how are we going to communicate this? Can we give people as much notice as possible? There are three points I had down. Who wants to come back on those? So I think just to say, I assure people, I think making sure people have access to housing benefit is absolutely a priority. So there's a lot of work across the council on living support more broadly, specifically within the housing team around housing benefit. But that is something we actively promote. So I suppose just to be for people that actually that work is in train already. I think just to be very clear as well, this is about temporary accommodation. This isn't private rented long term properties. It's very specifically temporary accommodation that we have lost for individuals who we have a housing, a homeless duty to, and that is why they're in temporary accommodation. So it's slightly different to the private rent sector discussed in the previous paper in relation to how we're communicating and letting them know. Alex, do you want to just pick up how we're doing that? Yes. So the reason that we're bringing this forward to this cabinet so that we can make sure we get the messaging out as soon as possible. We want to give at least three months notice to residents of this. We are drawing up a comms plan to sit alongside this. So we give people plenty of advance notice and where people need support, we can talk about support in advance of the change. Great. Thank you. Did she answer anything? Where the 84% comes from? I think that comes from obviously the data that comes over from there. The what? The data that comes from the housing benefit team. It comes into NEC side so it's recorded that way so we can report on exactly who's on full housing benefit, partial housing benefit and so forth. Okay, great. That's really clear. Thank you guys. Okay, I think those were all the points that I had written down. Yeah, thank you. Any questions, comments, contributions? And we have discussed. Nope. Okay. Danny, did you want to say anything in conclusion? Just briefly. I do welcome the contributions of it. They're important questions to ask and points to clarify. As I said before, I fully acknowledge it's a difficult decision and we need to support residents through this. But as has been alluded to, we are going to take the time to communicate the decision and provide that support and make sure that nobody falls through the gaps. And the role of the new PRS move on team will be important part of that for those residents that need that as part of that. As has been discussed, 84% won't be affected. And for those such households that will be, we'll make sure they get the support they need and the time to adjust to make sure functions as smooth as possible. I fully recognise the challenges as opposed for some. Thank you, Danny. So, colleagues, with that, there are three recommendations for Cabinet on this paper this evening and they're on page 152 of your agenda. Are those recommendations agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody. And before I go on to the final item, I need to say that we are reaching our guillotine, which is 7pm. We have one more item. We have to agree to, what's it called? Extend the guillotine. Is that the phrase? Extend the guillotine before this next item in order that we complete it or not agree, in which case we go straight to revoke on that. But do we agree to extend the guillotine? We're allowed to extend it up to 7.30. I'm not suggesting it will take that long, but we need to agree to extend if we want to go past 7. Agreed. Okay. Thank you, colleagues. All right. So, final item. Review of temporary accommodation, rental structures and associated costs. That's correct, isn't it? We're on item A. Yeah. So, again, this is going to be introduced by Councillor Danny Adilapour, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing Investment New Homes. Same officer team, Ruth Hartford, Chris Flynn and Alexson team in Dami. So, Danny, you can introduce it for us. Thank you. I'll try and keep this one relatively brief because the arguments are the same arguments for the previous two papers. Essentially, this report is about reviewing TA rental structures and associated costs with them to help mitigate those growing costs in TA was mentioned previously. So, this report specifically is looking at a fixed utilities charge for the 10% of TA households where utilities are currently absorbed in their rental costs. This makes sense as it brings them in line with the 90% of TA households who already pay for their utilities directly. Again, I think this is a fairness measure as well as the right thing to do financially and having that consistency across all of our residents in TA is the right thing to do. And as a council, we will ensure that support is available to residents to help manage this change with budgeting and income assistance where needed. But in short, just to conclude, this is the right thing to do as part of this package of mess this evening to help make sure we tackle the increased costs in TA. This specific measure will generate around £350,000 to £200,000 a year for the council. And it's a necessary step as part of this package tonight to stabilise our general fund, but also ensure we safeguard our services from residents and have consistency and fairness for our residents in TA. Thank you. Thank you, Danny. We've had one councillor indicate they wish to speak and that's councillor Nicole Griffiths. Thank you, Nicole. If you want to start on your own time, you have three minutes. Thank you, Claire. So each of these patos reminds us that there has been an 8% rise in families in TA is younger, yet in Lambeth we've seen 16% rise. It became clear at last Monday's Overview Scrutiny Committee meeting that past failures within the Housing Department have actually contributed to the high numbers of families in central organisation. This council wasted millions on post for Lambeth. There's only a handful of council homes to show that we've understood, and now we are witnessing policy proposals that hit the poorest hardest to try and re-cook funds. There is nothing right or just about this. There's a new team in place now, and in turn this creates the opportunity to improve the lives of our most vulnerable residents. Yet these temporary accommodation related policies are proposing cuts that will impact the poorest and most vulnerable families. Your own equalities data is clear. Loan mums will be hit the hardest. There is a strategy being prepared to tackle child poverty, whilst policy is being introduced that will only exacerbate it. This council's role is to protect the most vulnerable, not make life even harder than it already is. So charging additional money for utilities is going to see more families struggling financially. We know that 90% of families already pay their own utilities, and we're saying it's the remaining 10%. And the paper says it's approximately 350, but we have 4,700 families in temporary accommodation. 10% is actually 470 families. Elsewhere, it's admitted that only 120 households are actually known to the council. So if they do pay, if they do pay, then I think it will raise 156,000 pounds. And therefore, my question is, is it a cost effective exercise? If actually you're only going to pull in 156,000 pounds in the first year is possibly opposite time spent better elsewhere. It's not a large number of households, if we're looking at that 120. And yet the equalities report tells us that given a demographic makeup, women, black, Asian, multi-ethnic communities and households with disabilities are disproportionately represented amongst those impacted. So the report actually tells us that this is knowingly introducing a scheme that will negatively impact some of the most vulnerable families. Officers acknowledge there is a high risk of non-payment, as this has been observed in other areas where utility charges have been introduced. Just to say, so to build on what Matthew said about communication, my suggestion would be that if actually this is going ahead, that every single one of those families is contacted personally by an officer to explain the changes that are going to be introduced. So there's no failure in communication. At the moment, the paper just looks like it's going to be sent via a letter or an email. But actually, I think personal contact could make a massive difference. Thank you. Time's up. Thank you. OK, so I think what I heard in the roofing team, a question was, is it cost effective? Is it cost effective because of the percentage being impacted? I'm sorry to respond. Yeah. So I think for us it is, it will be cost effective, but also I think the principle of understanding when people move out for TA, which we're hoping they will do much, much more quickly than they currently do. They will be liable to pay those bills that they do. So it creates, you know, it's the same for everybody. I think the issue around the equality bit is that was about the cohort in TA in its entirety. It's not that that 10% are treated differently in any way. The cohort of people in TA tend to be a cohort of people that are likely to have technical characteristics more broadly. So we know that there is overrepresentation of single parent families, for example, within our TA cohort. But and I think that point about how we work with families in TA to deal with all of the transitions is heard and we will be in our interest to make that work for both us and for them. Which is the plan, which anyway. Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Councillor Ben Kind. I just wanted to check in and perhaps Andrew can elaborate on some detail in this around care leavers who may be in this situation and the role of EAs and personal advisors in supporting them in this transition. Because obviously this is about the housing needs team who provides it with that support all broadly, but also that there's the additional mechanisms that are there. And I wondered if you could just perhaps elaborate on that to give us some reassurance about the wider support recognising obviously what Ruth was just saying about the numbers in the smaller, because we're talking about the smaller end of the of the group in temporary accommodation. Andrew, go for it. So again, we try and avoid using temporary accommodation for any of our care leavers. We'd make sure that care leavers have appropriate accommodation, as in the other item that might be supportive living accommodation. We work very closely with housing to identify our care leavers who are at risk. And we try and maintain their tenancy or their coven accommodation. We have allocated an assistant director to work directly with the housing department and tracking data in terms of what we know around vulnerable families and care leavers to ensure they get the support they need. I think the issue will be less young people who are young people who are care experienced, who do not have that statutory care leaving entitlement. And again, they will be impacted by this. But it is working through with housing colleagues again to make sure they're getting new advice and support they need and ability to access benefits of refriending. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments from Colin? No. Okay, did you want to say anything in conclusion, Danny? Just very briefly. Again, I recognise the challenges around this decision as well as needed for financial reasons. It is the right thing to do in terms of fairness and consistency that 90% of these tier residents are already paying for the utility bills, yet 10%. That's inconsistent and needs to be removed from the system. And also the point that Ruth made about getting people ready to move into longer term, better, more secure accommodation, adapting to a system where they are paying for their utility bills helps with that transition and creates less of a cliff edge when they do move on as well. I'm conscious we need to support these people. That's where we're going to have lots of support, both from the PRMS move on team and also budgeting and support available where necessary. But in terms of the financial saving for the council, we'll give reports this evening. These all deliver better outcomes for residents and better consistency across TA, which is what we need for our residents as well. Thank you. Thank you very much, Danny. So colleagues, there are five recommendations for cabinet this evening on page 170 of the agenda. They're there in front of you. I'm not going to read them out. Can I just ask, are these five recommendations agreed? Agreed. OK, I'd like to thank the housing team tonight. This is a huge amount of work and it's ongoing. And I really want to thank you for the care and attention that all of you have put into this. And to you, Danny, that concludes tonight's business colleagues. The next cabinet meeting is scheduled to take place on Monday, the 27th of January 2025. Have a good evening. All right. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good morning. THANK YOU, Danny. I'm going to give you a moment. I can ask, Hi. Good night. Ready? Hello. Good night. You? Thank you. Thank you. Really? I can't stand here as two of you.