To debate any Motions submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.
Minutes:
The item began with the Administration motion which read:
“In light of the cruelty and hardship the government’s universal credit program is inflicting on many people, both in Croydon and across the country, this council calls for an immediate halt and review of the policy. Any review should also have direct input from local authorities who have experience of how this is affecting people on the ground and the implications for social landlords.”
Councillor Butler, proposing the motion, stated that the roll out of universal credit in Croydon had had a hugely detrimental impact to the residents of the borough. Since it was launched as a pilot roll out, the scheme should be reviewed and if necessary should be stopped so as to listen to those who have been negatively affected.
Over 2,500 Croydon council tenants were claiming universal credit, and the number in rent arrears was nearly 2,000, amounting to approximately £2million owed to the Council. This was due to the position claimants had been put in by the universal credit scheme. The same issues had been experienced across the country where it had been rolled out, and thus there was something fundamentally wrong with the system. These problems were causing landlords to become less likely to take on tenants who were claimants, further pushing these people into the risk of homelessness. The motion called for the government to stop and listen to those residents negatively affected by Universal Credit.
Councillor Ali seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.
Councillor Jason Cummings, opposing the motion, stated that this was a national issue that the local authority could not change, and was another example of the administration blaming other people for issues in the borough. The universal credit scheme was not perfect and problems had been identified and changes made. The motion was not a call for improvement of the scheme but to halt it altogether. It was stated that under the Labour government people were worse of in work than benefits, and universal credit sought to address this. It would result in thousands of people getting off benefits and into employment. Whilst improvements were needed to the scheme, the motion was worded so as to leave the Opposition no choice but to oppose it.
Councillor Hale, speaking against the motion, stated that universal credit was launched to address the flawed system left by the previous Labour government. There was cross party support for the merging of benefits into one system which mirrored the reality of work. Croydon was a pilot borough for the scheme and the high rate of rent arears was worrying. However, it was stated, the issue was complex and rent arrears were caused by many issues – an example was given of a claimant who was withholding his rent until urgent repairs were made to the property. Many tenants had been in arrears prior to the roll out of universal credit. Mark Fowler and the Gateway service were commended for their work in supporting residents who were in arrears. The message to residents struggling with rent and debt was that help was there to support them; as much communication as possible to residents was needed to ensure they knew where to go for help. Landlords with tenants claiming universal credit could also access support, such as the Alternative Payment Arrangement and Discretionary Housing Payments from the Council. All these issues raised the question of whether Universal Credit really was the root of tenancy arrears in Croydon.
Councillor Ali, speaking in favour of the motion, stated that the United Nations had described the Universal Credit roll out as a human catastrophe, yet the Prime Minister stated it was working. The Citizens Advice Bureau, Trussell Trust, and even some Conservative MPs had all spoken out against the scheme. Councillor Ali stated that the objectives of Universal Credit were not being met. The scheme was pushing residents into debt, and tribute was paid to the Gateway service officers supporting those people. In Croydon, there had been cases where claimants were waiting 12 weeks for their first payment. It was stated that the inclusion of emergency and temporary accommodation within Universal Credit made no sense and urgently needed to be reversed. The scheme was causing human misery for residents and financial difficulties for local authorities dealing with rent arrears.
At the request of Councillor Butler, the motion was re-read to the Chamber by the Chief Executive to clarify the wording.
The motion was put to the vote and carried.
The Mayor then moved to the Opposition motion which read:
“Croydon's incredible carers make considerable sacrifices to care for loved ones within their home. That’s why the Conservative manifesto for the 2018 election will contain a pledge to use council tax discounts to support many carers and specifically to introduce a scheme similar to that run in Bournemouth (and other councils) which exempts some carers from council tax entirely. This Council commits to endorsing this Croydon Conservative manifesto pledge and the introduction of such a scheme.”
Councillor Hopley, proposing the motion, stated that being a carer was difficult and in many cases a full time job with no respite. The care centre in Croydon estimated that millions of pounds were saved by carers and the Council should support those residents. The joint-commissioning work undertaken by Councillor Margaret Mead was beginning to bear fruit and linking with the voluntary sector was an important part of this. To this end, it was stated that it was disappointing that the Health and Wellbeing Board had been brought to a standstill. The motion presented a small way in which the Council could support the many carers in the borough whom undertook such difficult work.
Councillor Stranack seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Hall paid tribute to the thousands of carers in Croydon, many of whom went unnoticed. The administration, it was claimed, had a tradition of supporting carers through protecting services for the most vulnerable and had recently included the extension of the Council Tax waiver to carers. It was stated that the policy proposed in the motion had many deficiencies, with many carers being unable to benefit from it. It was further stated that the motion was hypocritical as the opposition had voted again the adult social care precept and had supported the government’s 70% cuts to Croydon’s funding that have caused a huge national gap in adult care funding.
Councillor Henson stated that carers were extraordinary people that undertook emotionally and physically draining work. It was stated that carers were a high percentage of the Councillor’s work load and examples were given of such cases. The cases were proffered as in those examples the carers would not qualify for the scheme proposed in the motion. It was stated that the scheme was ill-thought out and did not help many carers who needed the support. The administration had done a huge amount of work to support carers before crisis hit; it was claimed that no such support had existed under the previous administration.
Councillor Stranack stated that Councillor Margaret Mead, under the previous administration, had set out a vision to unite the myriad partnerships to serve residents over 65s, which eventually became what is now the Outcome Based Commissioning. It was claimed that the new administration had slowed this process to a standstill, like had happened on other scheme like the Fairfield Halls development and Westfield Hammerson. The Alliance contract was forging a community-focussed approach to care provision, and discarding the old mentality. A vision was required for creative ways to support the army of carers in the borough, that prevent elderly people from becoming lonely and isolated; there was a real financial and emotional cost to this care. The motion was another example of building on this vision and supporting those who volunteer to help elderly residents.
The motion was put to the vote. The Minority Group voted in favour en bloc. The Majority Group abstained en bloc.
The Motion was carried.