Agenda item

The Committee received a deputation from Rev. Paul Nicholson on behalf of Northumberland Park Supporters Group.

Rev. Paul Nicholson presented the deputation. NOTED:

a.    There were a significant number of academic studies which showed the impact of low incomes and debt on health outcomes.

b.    Dr Angel Donkin of the Institute of Health Equity argued that "Income impacts on health directly; for instance insufficient money to heat your home or buy a healthy balanced diet. Cold homes increase rates of respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, excess winter deaths and mental illness. Inadequate diets increase the risk of malnutrition, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Debt impacts on health indirectly through increased stress, depression and anxiety."

c.    Job Seekers Allowance has depreciated in value since 1979.  It was argued that a benefit claimant receiving £73.10 a week in JSA was unable to provide themselves with a healthy diet. The benefit system was so inadequate that parents needed their child’s benefits to survive, and the disabled are forced into destitution when they fail the work capability assessment and their disability benefits are stopped. 

d.    Rev. Nicholson advised that low birth weight levels were high in Northumberland Park. Poor maternal nutrition and low birth weight had, since 1972, been described as the strongest predictor of poor learning ability, school performance, behavioural disorders and crime by the Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition.

e.    ?The Committee was advised that money spent on increasingly unaffordable levels of rent competed with food, fuel and water. The result was a record increase in evictions, record admittance to hospital with malnutrition and unprecedented rises in mortality and infant deaths in 2015 at national level.

f.     Northumberland Park was the most deprived ward in the Borough. Rev. Nicholson contended that the Council was required, under the Health and Social Services Act 2012, to improve the health of local population. It was suggested that the Council was already exacerbating the situation by extracting council tax from benefit claimants.

g.    It was anticipated that the HDV would exacerbate problems further. Rev. Nicholson argued that council housing was the only housing whose affordability the Council could ensure as landlords. It was feared that the HDV would result in more tenants being at the mercy of a booming housing market. This would result in an even greater proportion of disposable income being spent on rent at the expense of other necessities, leading to even greater poverty and higher levels of ill-health. 

In response to the deputation, the Committee sought clarification on what, in the deputee’s opinion, effect the HDV would have on housing issues and poverty in the area. In response Rev. Nicholson argued that the biggest effect was that the HDV would break up communities and the local networks that residents relied upon. Rev. Nicholson outlined a recent example where a person was relocated from the Love Lane estate and the pay-off that he received was sequestered by HfH to pay off his rent arrears. In addition, the rent in his new accommodation went up by one band and so he was not offered the exact same terms as he was on previously. Rev. Nicholson advised that this person’s dire financial situation was compounded by high rent levels and ongoing rent and council tax arrears. The health and wellbeing of residents was also seriously undermined by deprivation.

The Committee enquired whether the deputee advocated a process of a wholesale refurbishment of an estate as opposed to a HDV style proposal. Rev. Nicholson acknowledged the need to renovate, but he believed that the Council should ensure that existing networks were maintained and that it continued to provide council housing, as it was the only affordable housing available in the market. The Committee was advised that rent was taking up a huge proportion of disposable income from those on the lowest income and it was affecting people’s ability to pay for other essential goods. A further problem with Council Tax and rents was the severe penalties for non-payment and the worsening effect that this had on people’s ability to meet their food, heating and transport needs etcetera. Rev. Nicholson advocated that poverty levels and the impact on health were so serious that the HDV would only shift the problem elsewhere.

The Committee sought Rev. Nicholson’s views on the Right to Buy scheme and in particular the effects it had on undermining council housing provision, noting that homes built under the HDV would not be eligible for Right to Buy. Rev. Nicholson expressed his opinion that the RTB scheme was a disaster from the beginning but suggested that the disaster would not be solved by the HDV as significant numbers of council housing had already been lost. An exemption from Right to Buy would only affect new homes built by the HDV. Rev. Nicholson welcomed the Council’s decision to cover the benefit cap for single mothers, but was concerned at cuts to councils services in general. He warned that access to relief or support services due to personal financial crises were always required within an immediate timeframe.

The Committee acknowledged that there were significant concerns with rent arrears and council tax arrears and that the report had considered ways to alleviate these issues. The Committee sought Rev Nicholson’s views on the differences between a secure Council tenancy and a private sector tenancy. In response, Rev. Nicholson advised that secure tenancies contained greater safeguards and were nevertheless preferable but also advised that similar problems existed for both. The main issue was the relationship between income levels and rent levels. Rev. Nicholson commented that, for those on a zero hour contract, there was ever-present risk that they may have no income in a particular month and that this could result in eviction. Rev. Nicholson suggested the Council did not have a duty to re-house single adults who were evicted and that they would effectively be made homeless. In this scenario, there was very little difference between a secure Council tenancy and a private sector tenancy.