Agenda item

To consider the following motions referred from council assembly held on 29 November 2011:

• Motion on themed debate – housing
• Retention of school crossing patrols in Dulwich
• Safer neighbourhood team sergeants
• Local government pension scheme

RESOLVED:

Motion on Themed Debate - Housing

That the motion referred from council assembly as a recommendation to cabinet, set out below in italics be noted and agreed.

(1)  That council assembly believes Southwark faces immense challenges in relation to its housing stock over the next 30 years that can only be resolved by taking a long-term, strategic approach.

(2)  That council assembly notes that Southwark Council still owns 31% of Southwark’s housing stock (down from 70% in 1981) – around 40,000 homes. Despite this reduction in local authority control, there are nearly 17,000 people on the council’s waiting list.

(3)  That council assembly believes that decent housing – where communities are mixed – is key to securing a better future for our young people, developing stable and vibrant communities, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour and improving public health.

(4)  That council assembly notes the immediate challenge faced on estates with high investment needs including Abbeyfield Estate, Four Squares Estate and Hawkstone low rise and calls for dialogue between council and tenants and leaseholders to continue.

(5)  That council assembly notes the uncertainty many tenants and leaseholders faced under the last housing investment programme, and welcomes the new £326 million, five year programme which will ensure every council home is warm, dry and safe by 2015/16.

(6)  That council assembly also welcomes the review of leaseholder charges to ensure Southwark has an accurate, fair and transparent system of charging leaseholders for the services they receive.

(7)  That council assembly notes the focus of the debate as outlined to all councillors in advance:

·  How do we balance the increasing demand for the council to supply housing with the need to maintain existing stock and with the limited geographical and financial resources available?

·  The proportion of housing stock in the private rented sector has ballooned in the last 30 years to a point where the numbers of private rented, privately owned and council homes are roughly equal.  How do we ensure tenants rights and responsibilities are guaranteed in a sector over which the council has less control?

·  What role can other social landlords play in helping to ensure we deliver the housing which Southwark needs?

(8)  That council assembly welcomes the council’s decision to set up an independent housing commission to investigate these issues outlined above and calls on members and residents to contribute their views.

Retention of School Crossing Patrols in Dulwich

RESOLVED:

That the motion referred from council assembly as a recommendation to cabinet, set out below in italics be noted and agreed.

(1)  That council assembly;

·  Notes the unprecedented financial situation the council must deal with following estimated Tory/Liberal Democrat government cuts over three years of £90 million to the council’s non-housing budget.

·  Notes that as part of looking for all possible sources of funding or ways of continuing to run school crossing patrols, senior council officers are currently in discussions with local schools; both private and community and local residents across the borough.

(2)  That council assembly further notes following the deliberations of the Democracy Commission, the cabinet intends to propose as part of the forthcoming budget process the introduction of a cleaner, greener, safer revenue budget, equating to £10,000 per ward, for community councils to determine from 1 April 2012.

(3)  That, therefore, council assembly invites Dulwich and those community councils affected by previously agreed budget savings to school crossing patrols to consider whether they wish to prioritise the continued funding of those crossing patrols as part of this cleaner, greener safer revenue spend from 2012/13 onwards.

Safer Neighbourhood Team Sergeants

RESOLVED:

That the motion referred from council assembly as a recommendation to cabinet, set out below in italics be noted and agreed.

(1)  That council assembly regrets the loss of five safer neighbourhood team sergeants in Southwark which is a direct result of the government’s 20% cut in the police grant.  Council assembly further regrets the decision by the Mayor for London to make these cuts irrespective of the level of crime in any borough.

(2)  That council assembly notes that MPs from all parties had an opportunity to vote against this 20% cut in funding if they wanted to preserve police numbers in Southwark.  It welcomes the fact Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell voted against this cut, but regrets that Simon Hughes, once again, abstained.

(3)  That council assembly notes that the council’s budget allocated £5.5 million in contingency funds and that the figure of £9.5 million is incorrectly calculated.  Council assembly further notes that the quarter 2 revenue monitoring report considered by cabinet on 22 November indicates that £2.6 million of this contingency fund may need to be used to offset pressures in departmental budgets this year.

(4)  That council assembly believes the council has demonstrated its ability to protect people from the worst excesses of the government; for instance, by introducing a £3 million youth fund as a direct response to the cut to educational maintenance allowances and the trebling of tuition fees.

(5)  That in the circumstances, council assembly urges the government to reverse its reckless cut to the Metropolitan Police’s budget and calls on Mayor Boris Johnson to maintain police numbers in Southwark.

Local Government Pension Scheme

That the motion referred from council assembly as a recommendation to cabinet, set out below in italics be noted and agreed.

(1)  That council assembly notes that the local government pension scheme is a sustainable, good quality pension scheme that benefits from being funded and locally managed.  It is valuable to employers and employees alike.

(2)  That council assembly is concerned by proposals announced by the Chancellor in the last comprehensive spending review to impose an extra 3.2% contribution tax on scheme members, increasing scheme average member contributions from 6.6% to 9.8%.

(3)  That council assembly also notes that none of the additional revenue raised from this increase will go towards improving the financial security of the scheme and risks the sustainability of public sector pension schemes in the long term by encouraging people to opt out of occupational schemes because they cannot afford to pay this increase; ultimately costing the tax payer more in the future.

(4)  That council assembly welcomes the recent but limited change in position from the government and hopes that this indicates, after months of grandstanding, a willingness to finally enter into proper negotiations with trade unions.

(5)  That council assembly believes that both private and public service workers have suffered as a result of the austerity measures of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government and regrets the impact any industrial action will have on people in Southwark who rely on council services.  We urge both the government and unions to explore every other possible course of action