Agenda item

Deputation 1 – Rev Paul Nicholson – speaking in objection to the recommendations contained in the 2018/19 Council Tax Reduction Scheme – item 9

Rev Nicolson was invited by the Chair to put forward his deputation to the Cabinet.

He spoke about the severe detrimental impact of local authorities and Government, charging of Council Tax on social security incomes and how he felt that this affected the most deprived communities in the borough. Rev Nicholson spoke about the consequential mental and physical health impacts this had on generations of families. He asserted that low income and social security households did not have the means to pay Council Tax, at a time when existing social security benefits were already being reduced. He contended that once families fell behind with Council tax payments, they were facing further court costs and collection fees causing more insolvency and anxiety.

Rev Nicholson spoke about the Council’s, Council Tax, collection figures with £5m listed as unlikely to be collected. Mr Nicolson felt that, despite knowing the cause of non- payment, the Council, in his opinion, were unfairly enforcing this payment and sending residents to court and causing increased costs for low income residents.

Rev Nicholson talked about the number of households sent court notices for late and non-payment of Council Tax and the number which had been referred to bailiffs. In his view, this charge affected the poorest and vulnerable in the borough, who he felt were being unfairly targeted for Council Tax collection by the use of debt collection agencies.

Rev Nicolson continued to emphasize that debt and low income creates mental and physical health issues for people on low incomes. He spoke about the effect of deprivation and low income on the development of babies with mothers often needing to reduce food costs to ensure they were able to pay for housing and utilities. He considered that this poor health in pregnancy and early years resulted in intergenerational health issues.

Rev Nicholson appealed to the Cabinet to consider the faith led principles of support and consideration for fellow neighbours, and stop the tax being collected from social security incomes in Haringey.

Questions from the Cabinet to the Deputation

The Leader reminded the deputation of the circumstances around the implementation of the Council Tax Benefit scheme in 2013 as the tone of the deputation incorrectly indicated that the Council had chosen to take this scheme forward. The Council Tax benefit scheme had previously been Government run and had meant that one in three households in Haringey did not pay Council Tax as they did not have the means to pay. However, in 2012 as part of the government budget cuts, Council Tax benefit was abolished and all local authorities had received responsibility for the Council Tax policy scheme but with a significant top slice reduction and also having to exclude pensioners. The Council were put in an invidious position of having to exempt pensioners from the scheme and having a choice of whether to absorb this cost or to charge households, to make up the top slice for this substantial part of the budget which provided income for Children’s and Adults services.

In response, Rev Nicolson referred to the decision making in 2012 and consultation on Council Tax scheme. He had asked a question in the consultation meeting on how much it would cost to avoid the necessity of taxing unemployment benefit and was advised that this would cost 86 pence a week on Band D Council Tax. He felt that there had been the option to run referendum on increasing Council Tax which had not been taken. Rev Nicolson felt that it was important to defend the poorest in the borough especially at time when it was known that further benefit changes were coming forward. Therefore, in his view, an alternative could have been offered in the form of a Council Tax increase through consultation on a referendum.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Health responded to the deputation and re-iterated the difficult situation by which the Council had had to introduce this scheme. He recognised the legitimate anger of the deputation at the circumstances facing low income families, but this should be directed at the Government and not the Council. Cabinet supported the view that the most vulnerable residents required support and ideally there should be no payment. However, if the Council did not implement this type of scheme, which was line with London local authority schemes, it would have to take other far reaching detrimental actions. This would include: use reserves, raising Council Tax, or cutting more services, at a time when existing service cuts were already challenging. The Council were committed to helping residents to be able to pay their Council Tax. This was through: offering flexible payment options, sign posting to advice services and third sector support. Cabinet were also looking for opportunities to support the poorest residents. This was reflected in the support to care leavers who were now exempted from Council Tax payments until the age of 25. The Council was right with the current scheme to consider balancing support given with the broader financial challenges of the borough.

Deputation 2 – Fran Hargrove – Head teacher St Mary’s Primary CE school - Support for the establishment of the Haringey Education Partnership – item 10

Mrs Hargrove expressed that Haringey schools have been on a rapid upward trajectory for achieving outcomes for children. This was attributed to the joint working between schools and the Council’s school’s improvement team.

Mrs Hargrove outlined that the Government did not see a great role for local authorities in school improvement. However, there was a need to maintain the collective success and the collegiality developed between schools in Haringey.

Head teachers of Haringey schools had come together, over the last 18 months, to discuss how they could maintain the drive and strive for excellence, whilst maintaining the successful links with the Local Authority.

Head teachers and the Council had developed the idea of a school’s partnership owned by a majority of schools. This was a working model which was being considered by local authorities but rolled out in different forms. Schools in Haringey did not want to be part of a fractured system with services sold in different forms and therefore had spent the last year co – designing a delivery model with the local authority based on what schools need and what is needed to support the continuation of improvements and outcomes for children. The focus was also on excellence and running the best system locally.

There had been consultation with a full range of schools and education providers on the partnership and everyone was supporting the formal establishment of the partnership.

This vehicle would be able to trade and run statutory services as set out in the report, and keep Haringey schools together with pupil’s welfare and learning at the centre of this.

The Leader asked what the consequences could be for not taking this partnership forward. Mrs Hargrove discussed the challenges of schools working separately in silos and potentially accessing services that may not be to a high quality.

All head teachers and teachers were concerned with the welfare of all children in Haringey. There was a real collective responsibility for achieving outcomes for all children in Haringey, not just in one school.

The Leader further welcomed the collective responsibility developed and felt by schools for all children in the borough, which would be important to maintain and enshrine in the partnership agreement as a safeguard for the children in the borough.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families responded to the deputation and highlighted education in Haringey was a success story with 99% of schools rated Good or Outstanding and 90% of early years’ settings now rated Good or Outstanding. Part of the ambition, for the children of the borough, was about maintaining these achievements and moving to a system of excellence.

Government was making it difficult for local authorities to have a role in school improvements. This was demonstrated by the policy choices being made by the Government with the borough’s education services grant reduced from £2.7m to £130K.

The report at item 10 was the Council’s response to a challenging background and the product of true partnership in schools. The Cabinet Member thanked all schools, head teachers and staff that had been involved in the process. The proposals before Cabinet were a product of these joint discussions and ambition to maintaining the journey to excellence.