Transcript

I'm really pleased to join Council Williams and representatives of our unions to lay a tribute to our workers at Hackney Council who go the extra mile and certainly those who worked through the pandemic, we always remember at this time, we did lose people during that period and I think we have to recognise that the staff at Hackney Council, five and a half thousand of them every day dedicate their lives to our services and to making this borough better. I'm going to swiftly move on to the agenda. Apologies for absence, I've got Councillor McKenzie. Any other apologies? Item two, declarations of interest. Do members have any interest they wish to declare? No. Item three, urgent unrestricted business. I don't believe I have any urgent items of business this evening. Item four, notice of intention to conduct business in private representations. No representations have been received and there are no exempt reports or appendices to be considered. Item five, questions and deputations. So one deputations. So one deputation has been received from Soraya Kandoka relating to single sex provision and the deputation text was published at agenda item five in the agenda pack. A maximum of 15 minutes has been set aside for us to hear and discuss the deputation. This will include a brief introduction from Councillor Troughton. Five minutes for the deputation leaders to set up the issues. Five minutes for cabinet if they wish to question the deputy leaders or to seek clarification if required. And then five minutes for the lead cabinet member to respond. A timer will be in operation and I'll let you know when you have one minute left. So don't be put off when I say one minute. I would like to start by inviting councillor Troughton to briefly introduce the deputation leaders. Thank you for hearing this deputation. When I met Soraya several months ago and learned of her concern, I was really struck by her passion for women's and girls safety as a young woman who grew up attending a mixed secondary school in Hackney. Since the deputation was submitted earlier this year, the landscape has changed significantly. Unisex facilities may appear to be a good compromise option, but place of scrutiny shows they would not safeguard women and girls or comply with the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act. They would discriminate against women, be a health and safety risk, be inadequate for schools and fail to adequately provide for those needing unisex facilities. The council's consultation on the plans for King's Hall not only failed to consider the views of women, it dismissed them when they were expressed. I ask you to accept the findings of the Supreme Court and take impartial and specialist advice to ensure the plans for King's Hall and all facilities in the borough are future proofed against legal challenge. And that you consult women such as those here tonight in the gallery and bringing the deputation. The council is best served by acting now rather than being forced to do so when once bricks and mortar have been committed. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if you want to introduce the speaker or just go ahead. Yes. The deputation is brought by Soraya Kandakor. Sorry. That's it. You've got the main button on. Good evening, everyone. My name is Soraya Kandakor and I'm a sex realist. The items I will refer to are on the Twitter account Hackney Realist. Single sex spaces are most favoured by the public and it is possible to have women only spaces plus mixed sex spaces to meet all users needs. Faulkner Browns, the architects of the King's Hall site, hope their mixed sex design sets a new benchmark, but it does not meet all users needs as women are losing access to a women only changing space. The EHRC has published an interim update of the practical implications of the Supreme Court judgment in the four women Scotland versus Scottish ministers and states if the only provision is mixed sex, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women. Hackney has put in a lot of resources to meet trans needs, but not women's schools using leisure centers need facilities that comply with the legal requirements of their own establishments. Mixed facilities don't do this. The initial changing space design idea consulted trans focus groups. Items two and three show the architects state they consulted closely with Project Indigo, which fed into our design. And item one says to remove various participation in sports for the LGBTQ plus community. We have been reinventing what changing facilities look like and shows a drawing of a mixed sex room with cubicles and walls with variable barriers. Items seven and eight state trans specific projects from Sports England linked in the Hackney Equality Plan provided cubicles to help participants feel comfortable. Items 25 and 26 show the council was aiming to heavily involve sex, gender diverse people in the design of leisure center facilities as participants expressed frustration that facilities like Clisold had been fitted with binary facilities. Item 11 shows the King's Hall financial business case and stakeholders in the Equality Impact Assessment did not include women. In the King's Hall site women have had a single sex changing space that was operational throughout pool hours, item six. However, in the redevelopment plan, this is restricted to when one pool is programmed for single sex use with variable barriers splitting the mixed sex room to create a single sex room. I proposed the design could have men only and women only spaces with cubicles, no open plan changing, plus mixed sex spaces. I have included a rough design proposal in item nine. This would enable women to continue to have a woman only space throughout pool hours. In item four, the architect's video shows the cubicles are open at the top, which could enable voyeurs. There is an epidemic of spy cameras placed in cubicles by men who then upload voyeurism material onto the Internet. Women and girls make up most victims and the perpetrators are disproportionately men. So women need consistent, not variable single sex spaces that men never have access to. The Sunday Times reported that unisex changing rooms put women and girls in danger. Out of 134 reports of sexual assault, 120 took place in unisex compared to 14 in single sex rooms. Women and girls are only safeguarded by having their own cubicles in a women only room. For health and safety reasons, these need to be open at the bottom to allow access in case of emergency. Only by having no men in the room are women and girls safeguarded in cubicles of this kind. The National Audit Office recently reported that the epidemic of violence against women and girls in the UK is getting worse, and that most prevention activities introduced in recent years focused on reducing re-offending rather than avoiding initial offences. Hackney must keep and not erase a woman only pool changing room in all its leisure centres to fill its public sector equality duty to women. The Hackney Equality Plan, 2024-2026, consulted focus groups from every protected characteristic except sex, pregnancy, maternity, item 13. The LGBTQIA plus strategy stated Hackney passed the self ID motion, trans women are women, item 14, which is an unlawful statement for an equality plan as per the recent Supreme Court ruling. So this needs reviewing. A minute. The strategy involved working with Better Leisure, starting with Britannia, item 15. The trans inclusion report in Hackney linked in the equality plan states recommendations to provide training on gender identity for leisure centre staff and ensure they are familiar with legislation that protects gender, sex, diverse people from discrimination and links Stonewall, item 18. Better Leisure updated its DEI statement shortly after the Hackney Equality Plan was passed. Affecting Better Leisure centres nationwide. Hackney must work with Better Leisure to rectify any unlawful policies. Hackney must consider parting ties with Stonewall as its advice has been unlawful, advising to go beyond the law and is not good value for taxpayers. The Supreme Court confirmed that biological sex is real and women's rights matter. The plans for the King's Hall refurbishment and the policies and operations of all the council's leisure centres must be changed so that they comply with the law and Hackney starts to fulfil their statutory duties regarding all protective characteristics, including sex. Thank you. Thank you very much and I'm sorry that I cut you off when I gave you the one minute warning. Well done for keeping going despite the interruption. Can I invite Cabinet members to ask any questions or seek any clarifications? Councillor Fajana Thomas. Thanks. Thanks very much for your deputation and thanks to all the women that are here today to support this deputation. I'm Councillor Susan Fajana Thomas. I'm the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Regulatory Services. So keeping women safe in our public spaces or seek within my portfolio area. I just want to, in your deputation, you refer to grooming, gown, you refer to sexual assault. I just want to ask whether you are aware of the work happening is doing through our domestic abuse intervention service around women's safety as well as through our nighttime economy in public spaces. Thank you. I'm happy to answer that. That we really are aware of the work that this council does in particular on violence against women and girls. What we're less clear on and what this deputation is about is the public sector equality duty and the points that have been made about how services, rather than the existing work that's going on, how that's joined up with the equalities brief and the consultations that are happening to make sure that services avoid violence against women and girls, in addition to all the wonderful things that the council is doing. So what I'd really like to hear from is how the equality strategies line up with that. Thank you. Thank you. If there's no other questions or clarifications, I guess with regard to King's Hall in particular, I'm the lead for leisure. And obviously I will be very keen to ensure that we uphold the law and that we have open dialogue in a way that would be suitable, sensitive and appropriate in order to do that. I'll hand over to the lead member to give the broader response. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for your deputation. And as Councillor for John, as Thomas has said, for everyone who's coming to the chamber today. It will take some time for the council to thoroughly consider all the potential implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling and any associated changes to statutory guidance and codes of practice. But in Hackney, we're clear this is not a place for hate. And we will continue to stand by all of our communities, including trans siblings and against all forms of hate, discrimination and violence. Regarding the points raised in the deputation itself, namely violence against women and girls and Hackney's equality duty and equality strategy. I'll take all of these in turn. We know that sexual abuse harms too many women across our borough and across the country. And Hanger Council is firm in condemning any form of sexual violence. As a point of clarification, I do want to note that the information quoted in the Sunday Times article is not supported by local information. Sadly, the UN report has found that the most violence against women is committed by current or former husbands or intimate partners. It remains committed to women's safety and challenging violence perpetrated by men against women. We have many programs that demonstrate our commitment, including funding single sex refuge provision for women and children fleeing domestic abuse commissioning single sex independent domestic violence advocacy provided by and for black women of African and Caribbean heritage. Single sex provision of trauma recovery support for women through survivors groups. Single sex group interventions with men to create and maintain behaviour change for men who have abused women. Strong messaging in public spaces, including the nighttime economy, deterring men from potentially abusing women. I want to highlight that associating male violence with trans inclusion in any way. I want to avoid doing that because I don't want to imply that there is a casual link. I do not want to that is regarded as transphobic because I know that that can cause psychological harm as well as increasing the risk of threats and violence towards trans people. I also note that transgender people in England and Wales are twice as likely to be victims as crimes as cisgender people. And that's a statistic that is contained in the ONS figures that were published in March 2020. Turning to Hackney Council's equalities duty and equality strategy, Hackney will continue to take its equalities duty seriously, especially how our policies and decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act 2010. The motion supporting the trans community passed by Paul Council in March 2023 aims to ensure that the Council's policies are aligned with its public sector equality duty, guaranteeing trans residents the same access to public services as everyone else. It also helps ensure that Hackney remains a safe, welcoming and inclusive borough for everyone, no matter their gender identity or gender expression. Hackney's Equality Plan 2024-26 does make explicit reference to and considers both sex and gender. Our LGBTQIA plus framework sits alongside our anti-racist and poverty reduction frameworks and should be considered as part of this wider suite of documents that addresses equality issues more broadly. As I mentioned at the outset, the Council is working through all of the implications arising from the Supreme Court judgment, including any updated guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, given that some updated guidance has been issued and more will inevitably follow over time. We are currently refreshing our data collection strategies relating to our qualities data and are seeking to improve the quality of our data collection, considering all protected characteristics. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Williams. As I said, I think this is dialogue that we'll have to continue, particularly as the ruling of the Supreme Court unfolds. So the conversation will end here. It's clearly still a very sensitive topic. I understand the feeling in the room. But thank you very much for bringing the deputation here tonight. It's not the end of the conversation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. I also had a question from a member of the public that was approved for inclusion at this meeting. I think I've got... Is it Councillor Vincent Stops? Oh, sorry. Former Councillor Vincent Stops, I should say. So I invite you to ask your question. Thank you. Madam Mayor. I'm addressing to Sarah, actually, the transport person. Your extant transport strategy details the road safety problems with cycle tracks. Highway authorities would usually undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of road safety interventions like these. The standard is to look at reported casualties three years before and three years afterwards, after implementation. Can the Council publish the details of the casualties before and after the implementation of the Green Lane Cycle Track scheme? Thank you. Councillor Young? Turning on. Oh. Hello. Very happy to do that. Thanks for asking about the Green Lane Cycle Track. The short answer is that there have been fewer accidents involving bikes since the scheme was put in than there were before that. But the data is complicated, so I will take you through it in brief. And I'll also send you the background data that lies underneath that. So in the three years, so it's 36 months, as you mentioned, in the three years before the scheme was introduced, and this is a one scheme cycle track up Green Lanes, there were 13 accidents involving a bike recorded. There were 50 accidents in total involving 56 people, 56 casualties. So one of those was sadly a fatal accident, seven serious accidents, and 42 considered slightly serious. Of these, 13 were bikes, and none of the fatalities were bikes. In the 31 months, so it's a slightly shorter period, we haven't got data yet on 36 months because the data hasn't yet been verified. Of the 31 month period since the cycle lane was put in, there have been eight accidents involving a bike. So 13 before, 8 afterwards. And in this period, there's a total of 29 accidents recorded involving 31 people, and thankfully no fatalities. Five of the accidents were classified as serious, and 24 accidents, 26 casualties as slight. As you know, Green Lanes leads up to Manor House, and together with our neighbouring boroughs of Islington and Haringey, we have been talking to Transport for London to look at how to improve safety and accessibility, as well as traffic flow all around that Manor House junction. As well as the work that Transport for London are planning to, as you well know from your experience on planning committee, to green and narrow Seven Sisters Road, which is part of the Woodbury Down regeneration. So there's quite a lot of work going on around, not just Green Lanes, but Manor House and Seven Sisters Road, including the proposals to extend the cycleway 50 around Manor House. Do you have a supplementary? Thank you very much for that. I'd like to see the figures, because I make it 10 slights before, 3 serious and 13 at slights afterwards. So I think you're wrong. Please prove me right by publishing the report so that we can look at the public data. Always happy to prove you wrong, Vincent. Thank you very much. Those 3 serious collisions are really, you know, they're life changing. So I'm very happy to give you the data. I'm very happy to discuss it. And as I say, the data for the period afterwards is only 31 months, because it's not verified data, but very happy to talk about it. Questions were also received from councillors, and these will be considered at the relevant gender items. Moving to item six, unrestricted minutes of the previous meeting of the cabinet. Do the cabinet have any comments on the minutes? Can we approve the minutes? Item seven, unrestricted minutes of the cabinet procurement and insourcing committee. Council Chapman, can you share some observations from the committee? Thank you, Mayor. I was pleased to talk about the work of CPIC. At this particular meeting in February, we dealt with a whole range of important issues, including a number of important services for residents, protection and reproductive health services, strategies for purported living and residential services, as well as early years catering. I'm also very pleased to announce that we let the contract for improvements to facilities at the West Reservoir, including for better accessibility and a new cap. Thank you. Can I ask the cabinet to agree the minutes? To note them, I apologise. Moving to item eight, the overall financial position report. Can I hand back to Councillor Chapman to introduce the report? Thank you. Thank you. This is the report on our almost financial position for the financial year 24-25, and I regret that it does an increase in our overspend by about 600,000 to about approximately 37 and a half million, which is unfortunate. This is all as a result of the continuing demand pressure the Council faces on adult and children's social care and homelessness prevention. This will require substantial use of reserves to balance the budget for 24-5, and so work is continuing in the Council to take forward the measures necessary to implement our financial strategy for both the current year and to address the issues in our medium-term financial plan for 26-7 to 28-9. The report also recommends an increase in the children's centre fees by withdrawing the subsidy for the fee bands 3 and 4 and uplifting fees for band 1 and 2. These changes fully recognise the national expansion of the 30 hours funded childcare entitlement that comes in in September. Finally, I'm pleased to announce the acceptance of 6 million grant for funding of the Connect to Work scheme to support people, for all sorts of reasons, economically and active, and get them back into work, helping them back into work. It also helps individuals at risk of job loss due to health conditions, and it helps them remain at work. The Mayor is a brilliant example of a Labour government working with the Labour Council to support over 1,400 disadvantaged residents and keep them in good jobs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I understand. I've got a question from Councillor Garbutt, and she's maybe, is she online? Yep. Okay. Would you like to, sorry, I can't see you Councillor Garbutt, but I should hear your voice. Hello. Booming down. Thank you. So it's just a question about how much savings do changes to the children's centre subsidy actually make of the 4 million budgeted? Is the Council still pushing for closures of children's centres, or does this stabilise things for the time being, as staff need reassurance that their jobs are safe for the time being as soon as possible? Thanks. Thank you for your question. I'll pick that up then. Clearly, we recognise how impactful any changes to children's centres, whether fees and charges or proposed closures are for children, parents and staff. The proposal contained in the report is set out, is forecast to achieve up to 1.1 million additional income by removing the subsidy to families, where they have an income over 55,000, with the view that this will be mitigated by the full rollout of the free entitlement scheme for children from nine months old and upwards. This is in addition to the savings within the medium-term financial plan. And the realisation of these savings will be actively monitored and reported through the Council's overall financial position reporting process. Also contained within the medium-term financial plan are the savings that were related to the reconfiguration or closure, or indeed bringing alternative provision for some of our children's centres. So that was, we were seeking around 1.9 million savings from that. As you know, the next steps in terms of what we decide to do with the children's centres will be informed by the outcome of a learning review that we're undertaking. And that learning review will be published in due course and no doubt presented to our Scrutiny Commission for further discussion. So we will come back to you in more detail, Councillor Garbett. Sorry, you have a supplementary. Thank you. That's really helpful to understand. So yeah, this was a question put forward by Councillor Billy Lubbock as a member of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission, who was just implored, like wondered if the advice from the Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission, which is to wait until it's clear what the impact of the increased childcare entitlement is before, yeah, and giving a kind of resounding reassurance to staff who are currently being left in limbo. So I just wondered if that's being considered. Thank you. And the feedback that we had during that consultation from the Children and Young People Scrutiny Commission, and all aspects of impact of the process we underwent will all be coming into the learning review for comments. So we'll be able to feed that back to you as swiftly as possible, because I do understand that it's not great for staff to be in limbo whilst we decide how to shore up our system and make it resilient and fit for the future. Thanks very much. I'd like to invite Councillor Reid to ask the first question. Thank you very much, Mayor Woodley. As Councillor Chapman said, Hackney Council is set to receive up to £6 million over five years to fund a Connect to Work programme targeting 1,400 residents who have disabilities, long-term health conditions, or who are disadvantaged young people. How many people currently receive PIP payments in Hackney? And isn't the number likely to lose benefit under the government's proposed changes to PIP significantly higher than 1,400? Thank you. I understand. Councillor Williams is responding to this one. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Thank you for your question. For background, as of January 2022, 2025, Hackney has a total of 17,095 residents in receipt of personal independence payments. Our understanding is that these changes won't impact existing payments until their rewards are reviewed in November 26 onwards. As for how many of these will lose their benefit, this will depend on how someone's condition impacts their daily living and mobility capabilities. If this advice changes, we'll communicate directly with residents affected. I do think that it's important to touch on the Connect to Work programme for the benefit of members in the Chamber and those listening online. The programme will be delivered focusing on placing participants in jobs quickly and providing ongoing support, and it will target economically inactive residents with disabilities or health issues, both unemployed and at risk of losing employment. As Central London Forward will allocate funds to the London Borough of Hackney employment and skills and adult learning for direct delivery of the programme, allowing the Council to expand existing successful employment support models integrated with current programmes and leveraging local knowledge and multi-year funding to support the Economic Development Plan. We are therefore well placed to build on the Government's drive to support all of our residents into work. We have a strong track record of supporting internships, supporting employment and apprenticeships. This month has already seen the launch of the Green Skills Hub, an exciting partnership between the London Legacy Development Corporation and Build East Skills Centre, which will support local people from diverse backgrounds to develop skills in retrofitting and sustainable construction, helping them secure long-term sustainable jobs. Hackney also offers a range of alternative support services for residents with disabilities beyond Connect to Work, such as the Hackney Disability and Social Inclusion Service, which offers advice, advocacy and help with accessing benefits and services. Additionally, there are many community groups and social enterprises in Hackney that support people with different needs, from mobility aids to home adaptations to mental health support. And we also provide accessible transport options and tailored employment schemes that encourage inclusivity, allowing residents with long-term health conditions or disabilities to live more independently. Through these services, Hackney works to ensure that all individuals can access the support that they need to live fulfilling lives regardless of their physical and mental challenges. Thank you. Did you have a supplementary or do you want to move to your next question? Thank you. I'm sorry that there is concern about the position that we're taking. We do our absolute utmost to be an inclusive borough. I do need to take questions from the floor as organised. Councillor Root is here as your representative to raise questions on your behalf. I can't take them from the gallery, I'm afraid. Councillor Root? Our research that we've been talking about do not actually exist, and you can't afford people to work when they're living in housing conditions, which is literally almost illegal. Councillor Root, can you ask your supplementary, please? I do have a supplementary, which is that based on the figures that Councillor Williams has just given us, which is that around 17,000 people in Hackney currently in receipt of PIP, it's been quite widely publicised that at least a third of people who are in receipt of PIP are expected to lose money as a result of the Labour government's changes to... Can I ask a question? Sorry. Sorry, if my mic's shut up, I can't ask the question. So, on those figures, we would be looking at something in the region of 5,500 people, that we can expect to be losing PIP in Hackney, when we're looking at providing the Connect to Work services for only 1,400. So, what's going to happen to the 4,000 or so people who won't be covered by Connect to Work, who are going to lose their PIP payments in Hackney as a result of the government changes? I'm not sure if you want to take that one, Councillor Chapman, or back to you, Councillor Williams. Chair, what I did want to say is that primarily we are expecting self-referrals to the Connect to Work programme, and the Employment and Skills team has an excellent track record of pastoral support, wraparound support, and not forcing anyone into work, but working with those who are in work and those who are out of work, who want to get into work. Thank you. Councillor Ruth, would you like to move to your next question? Thank you. I'm now referring to a different item with regard to the Housing Revenue Account in Para 14, and from the figures produced there, the Housing Revenue Account appears to be in crisis, with every single finance area projecting an overspend, bringing the total to nearly £14 million. We know that further investment is required to meet the Housing Regulator's ruling on bringing Hackney Housing up to scratch, and it's alarming to see projected savings on housing disrepair are also flagged as red in the Council's savings plan, implying yet more cost. So the question is, what state are the Housing Revenue Account reserves currently in, and how can the Council meet its promises to improve Council stock and Council housing repairs, given the deficit it's currently running? Councillor Chapman? Thank you. Thank you for your question. The demand pressures bearing down on the Borough's Housing Revenue Account are having a dramatic real-time impact on the financial position of the Housing Revenue Account, as you say. The Council has been and is responding to the challenge, which the challenge has not come about because of any one factor. There's lots of issues involved there. The Council is trying to absorb as much of the impact on Council tenants as it can by managing increased costs while prudently managing, as best it can, the rent paid by tenants. We will be addressing the current situation by re-evaluating our spending priorities and setting up a new HRA Finance Improvement Board. The Board will oversee and streamline financial operations, ensuring that our strategies are effectively implemented and that our financial health is restored. We will also enhance our financial monitoring, implementing more robust financial monitoring systems, which will help us identify and address overspend issues promptly. This will include regular reviews and adjustment to our financial plans to stay aligned with our budget constraints. Hackney is not the only international landlord to find itself in this position. It is a sector-wide challenge driven by many things, including increased demand, additional responsibilities placed on social landlords with no additional funding, as well as changing to the self-funding regime implemented by the previous government, which has made the situation worse. Meeting the Council's promises to improve Council stock remains our top priority on the other part of your question. I can reassure the Cabinet that the capital programme remains intact. Our re-evaluation of priorities for the HRA Budget will ensure that this remains our central focus. We will, of course, provide regular updates to keep all parties informed on the financial position and the progress and outcomes of our initiatives. Do you have a supplementary? I'm afraid I do. Could you give Council tenants a reassurance that you won't consider uplifting service charges above any rate of inflation to try to make up for the deficit on the HRA? I think, obviously, we would not wish to do that. And I think our strategy there, which is to try and contain costs and bring costs back into budget, with implementing the measures we have to. I don't think we would never look at service charges as a cash cow. It's something to be considered really, really carefully. And I think we would only increase service charges where they could be fairly justified. Thank you. Can I ask Cabinet to move the recommendations as set out in the report? A show of hands and verbal affirmation, please. Item nine, capital update and property disposals and acquisitions report. Again, can I turn to Councillor Chapman to introduce the report? Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, this report's got some good news in it. And again, shows a number of examples of the Council working with the new government to bring about big improvements in services to the borough. Firstly, he asked to approve the acceptance of grants from the Department of Energy Security and the net zero sector decarbonisation scheme, and also to approve the subsequent associated match funding, which will bring about a number of green initiatives across our portfolio and will be a major step in towards implementing our climate action plan. We're also asking for the approval of additional funding from the local authority housing fund round three to this with the costs of accommodating the homeless to the borough, which is another great initiative there. We've already had substantial sums for that included in our budgets for this year. There are also a couple of, I suppose, tidying up points in the report. One of them is to authorise the acceptance of part surrender from issue of, I think it's a bit of car park land, to tidy up the arrangements around the work that's happening there that will support the provision of public sector housing. And the other is to approve a letter of indemnancy to the current provider of services at the PFI, library and the building next door, to cover them in case of damage during the works that we're undertaking at the library. It's hopefully that won't happen. Anyway, so move those items of approval by a cabinet. Thank you. And I do want to congratulate the team for the success with the bid for the 6.6 million. It's not the first decarbonisation grant that we've succeeded in securing. I'm sure it won't be the last. And it does make a real difference, doesn't it? Particularly in the work described around decarbonising and making bills cheaper in a number of our schools. Did anyone want to comment or ask questions on the wider report? No? And I apologise, there are in fact exempt dependencies. Did anybody want to discuss the exempt dependencies? No? In that case, can we move to, move the recommendations as set out? Herbie and by hand, please. I'm not seeing hands go up, guys. Thanks. Moving to item 10 then, the public consultation on the proposal to introduce a renewed selective licensing scheme and an additional licensing scheme. It's incredibly important to us that our private renters have safe, secure homes. We've been really pleased to see movement in terms of ending section 21, unfair evictions, is something that both Councillor Moem and I campaigned on for years. And now to see the opportunity to expand out the selective licensing scheme that we've had, myself and Councillor Pallis in my ward, I think Stoke Newton ward, Councillor John Thomas, and Branswood, is it the third ward? Yeah. So to have an opportunity to expand that out is very, very welcome indeed. But I shall hand over to Councillor Moem to talk us through the report. Thank you. So it's a real pleasure to be presenting this paper at today's Cabinet. Just for clarity for those watching at home and for those who have joined us in the gallery, this item seeks approval from Cabinet to approve a statutory consultation to introduce first a selective licensing scheme, covering all wards in the borough, with the exception of Agustin, Hoxton East and Shoreditch, Hoxton West and Woodbury Down. I'll come to those. The Crotin is based on the basis of poor housing conditions and privately rented accommodation. And secondly, an additional licensing scheme for houses and multiple occupation, HMOs, which covers all wards of the borough, and applies to HMO dwellings that are not covered by the national HMO mandatory licensing scheme. And it's important, as I take us through this, that there were 11 iterations of proposals considered by officers independently through the evidence base as well. So just to pick up where you have left off, Mayor Woodley, this administration and the Council has long campaigned for better housing standards in the private rented sector, and we are committed to ensuring that everyone renting privately in Hackney has access to a home that is safe, secure, affordable and of good quality. We have around eight and a half thousand households currently on our waiting, social housing waiting list, and house prices in Hackney have increased more than seven fold in the last 20 years. And so with that, more and more residents are being forced to turn to the private rented sector to find a home. The number of privately rented homes in our borough has doubled over the last decade and is now around 32% of all households. And private rented is making up 40% in some wards, which you can see in Appendix 1, which is the evidence base and includes maps of the borough. And so it highlights, really importantly, how big of a role the sector has to play in providing homes to our residents. The increase in demand is leaving too many residents, however, feeling that they've got no choice but to stay in substandard accommodation, and some of that is a function of the cost of living crisis as well. A comprehensive, independent review of our private rented sector has revealed the scale of the challenge, and has found that a significant proportion of privately rented homes in Hackney, well above the national average, may contain at least one serious hazard. And we all know that this is not acceptable. And to reiterate that point about wanting everyone here to have a safe and decent home, and we as a borough are committed to making sure that we do everything that we can to achieve that. As I've mentioned, the 11 scheme options that were outlined, ranging from using a single designation based on one criterion, poor housing, two more complex schemes using up to three designations based on multiple criteria, including poor housing conditions, ASB and deprivation. And Appendix 3 outlines some examples of where boroughs have listed alternative designations, and there is comprehensive evidence of our near and statistical neighbours. So having carefully considered the evidence and the strengths and weaknesses of the options, it's recommended that the Council consults residents and stakeholders on a scheme consisting of one designation. So this proposal will include selective licensing across 17 wards, where private rented housing conditions are of greatest concern, targeting non-HMO properties, and additional licensing borough-wide for all HMOs not currently covered by the mandatory licensing scheme. The wards not included in the 17 are Haggerston, Hoxton East, Shoreditch, Hoxton West, and Wibber Down, as I have mentioned. And that's because the evidence base as it stands does not currently support a scheme covering these wards. But obviously, as and when standards do change in those wards and they meet that threshold, that independent evidence base, we will consider them for inclusion. And so we will continue to use our existing licensing powers to make sure that those wards also benefit from licensing across their private rented stock. And I know that colleagues in those wards have been informed of that. So we also want to put on record the fact that we are here to recognise as well that landlords, many of whom are really, really key to providing homes in the borough, provide well-maintained and responsibly managed homes. However, we also know that there are serious weaknesses in a poorly regulated sector. And we know that there are landlords that exploit the situation, which is evidenced in the report attached, which is forcing far too many tenants to accept poor and unsafe living conditions. And we remain committed to supporting those good landlords who do provide a good service to their tenants. But we are equally determined where we'd need to tackle poor practices in the sector. So by launching this consultation, we will invite all stakeholders to have their say on the proposals. And I invite those in the gallery and online, whether you're a landlord or a tenant, to participate in that. Feedback will be vital in shaping an approach that is fair, effective and delivered safe homes in our private rental sector. And Mayor Woodley, I know that together we can raise standards across the borough and ensure that the sector plays its part in providing safe, decent housing that Hackney's residents deserve. So subject to Cabinet approval of the consultation proposals, we will move forward the service with launching the consultation this summer. And then following consultation, we will carefully analyse the responses and refine the proposals as needed. And if the feedback supports the introduction of discretionary landlord licensing, we will then bring the finalised proposals back to Cabinet for approval. Should Cabinet approve the final scheme, we will prepare for an implementation phase. Are there any questions or comments from Cabinet? I'd like to invite Councillor Garbutt to ask her question. Thank you. And it's really great to see this making its way to Cabinet, because we've just got to do as much as possible to be on the side of renters and support improvement in the quality of private rented homes. And my question is all about enforcement, because obviously the enforcement behind this is really key. So asking if you commit to issuing improvement notices as soon as a hazard is identified. And this is a key part of ACORN's work locally representing renters. Thank you, Councillor Morena. Thank you. Yes, I am happy to take that. I just wanted to say that in this is a Cabinet report and the Cabinet report outlines a timeline for all of these steps. I should definitely stress that this is a process where we need to hear from all sides and we will take decisions based on the evidence at the appropriate time. And I want to reassure it's at 4.35 in the Cabinet report I found at May Woodley. And so it outlines very clearly what we're working towards. And I want to reassure everybody that we are on track, which is why this report is here today. But in response to Councillor Garbutt, under the current scheme, where this scheme is not in place, we're just here to discuss the proposals for consultation. But under the current powers that we have, we, as you know, work in accordance with our legal duties and we do issue improvement notices for Category 1 hazards, which present serious risks to health and safety. For Category 2, which are at lower risk, there is discretion. And in line with the current policy, we issue improvement notices for Category 2 hazards, where we consider it necessary to protect occupants' health and wellbeing. I should repeat, as I have said many times in this chamber before, and I'm grateful for your question, Councillor Garbutt, that we want to, the last thing that we would want to do is to see people in the private rented sector be made homeless. It's in the interest of everybody that homes are brought up to an acceptable standard, which, as I said before, is safe and secure. And so that is something that we do use our discretion. Officers do do that. And in the vast majority of cases, it's a positive outcome. We are required to work in a constructive manner with landlords and residents in order to resolve problems and to provide solutions. And it goes up, most of our work, as I've said, is about prevention and notices are served as a last resort where the tenant is already suffering. Unfortunately, the system that we have in place right now is on a self-referral basis. And so we work within the limits of what we have in place, but within the limits of the powers that the Council has right now, our aim is always to try and prevent a problem from arising for the tenant in the first place. Thank you. I'm mindful of time. Councillor Garbutt, do you have a supplementary for clarification? Yes, thank you for that. I think obviously this is going to continue conversation through the consultation. Just a quick one on how quickly you think that the Council can get the enforcement staff needed to fully deliver the enforcement of the licensing scheme? Can I just ask the point of clarification, do you mean what is being proposed or the current scheme? What is being proposed? To get how realistic the delivery is of the proposal. OK, so the proposals in totality and what's been presented here today is to consult on the two schemes that I outlined. And as part of that, we will have thoughts about how a scheme might work. I think if there are particular, obviously subject to approval, but if there are particular areas of the consultation where you and others have recommendations about what is a good complement, then I would encourage you to do that. We have had, as you know, Councillor Garbutt, a pilot scheme which was in place, and so we have kind of a baseline. The independent evidence base that we have commissioned and developed, however, really gives us some numbers around how many homes, the types of hazards, the locations of where the most egregious cases are. And everything that may be that may happen or may not happen will be evidence led. But we need to make sure that we hear from all sides before making any decision or jumping to conclusions. Thank you very much. I don't think there's any items for urgent business, so this is our final item. So if we can move to the record, please. I think this is a real verbal affirmation, a show of hands, please. I think this is a really great piece of work, and I really thank you for bringing it forward. It's taking persistence and patience, and we'll all move ahead with implementation. We do have a meeting, so if you could kindly leave the gallery. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Transcript