Minutes:
NOTED that the following urgent question had been received and accepted by the Mayor in accordance with the criteria set out in the constitution.
From Councillor Uzoanya to Councillor Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing.
“Given the leaked document (Observer newspaper 3 July 2011) from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) which clearly states that up to as many as 40,000 families are threatened with homelessness as a result of the government’s welfare reforms, can Councillor Oykener please explain the potential impact these reforms will have on Enfield.
Can Councillor Oykener also indicate whether he would be willing to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DWP) to inform him of the impact his reforms are already having on the borough and to advise him of the best course of action to mitigate the further difficulties that will undoubtedly arise if the policy is not immediately halted.”
The following response was provided from Councillor Oykener, Cabinet Member for Housing:
“The leaked letter highlights the same real concerns that both myself and this Administration have previously raised in other responses to consultation on housing changes this year. I am also pleased to see that the Minister agrees with me in revealing the truth about the Government’s welfare reform.
I have recently attended the Housing Conference, where I heard Grant Shapps, as the Housing Minister, speak. He maintained that all was well with the proposed reform, but behind the scenes it would appear this is not the case – the letter says it all.
The letter says that 20,000 families will be made homeless as a result of Housing Benefit changes and the movement of families out from central London. The Opposition have claimed I have been scaremongering on this, but in addition the letter highlights that 23,000 families will not be housed because Housing Associations cannot afford to build family sized homes.
By my calculation that is over 40,000 families whose lives will be ruined. Instead of saving money the coalition Government’s own estimates say this will cost more.
I expect the impact of the changes in Enfield to be as follows:
(a) Paragraph 3 of the letter highlights the impact of the changes in relation to additional costs on Councils through increased homelessness and use of temporary accommodation as well as the assessment of additional Housing Benefit/ Local Housing Allowance claims. The impact on Enfield’s services includes:
· an increase in households moving out of inner London to outer London boroughs where rents are cheaper. This will place additional burdens on school places, social and welfare services;
· more rent arrears, debt and acute poverty and then more homelessness;
· an increase in levels of overcrowding leading to a detrimental impact on children’s educational attainment and life chances;
(b) Enfield, along with other London Councils receives a Homelessness Grant from Government to tackle and prevent homelessness. Last year Enfield received extra government grant to fund homelessness prevention services aimed at mitigating the impact of the changes but Inner London Councils got more than us. The result of this was that these authorities still ended up placing their homeless into Enfield.
(c) Paragraph 5 of the letter highlights that an extra 20,000 households are likely to be placed in Temporary Accommodation as a result of the overall benefit cap. The impact on Enfield’s services includes:
· Revenue & Benefits monitor claims, including new claims monthly. Enfield has the second highest private tenant case load in London and the seventh highest in the country. The benefit caseload is at its highest in Enfield with 31,822 claims including 16,422 claims from private tenants;
· Enfield is showing signs of inward migration. In March 2011 30% of new claims were made by residents moving into Enfield. A further increase in benefit caseload is expected as a result.
(d) Paragraph 6 of the letter contains a statement that the changes should have been handled differently with the example of child benefit not being assessed in the overall benefit cap calculation. The Department of Work and Pensions have, however, rejected Eric Pickles proposal and said that child benefit will be taken into account in the calculation from 2013. What does this say about support for families?
The Government should feel really ashamed of these proposals and I can confirm that I will, as requested, be writing to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DWP).”