No Jobseekers, No Sickies, No Dogs. Economic Cleansing at Stonebridge?

Today I found out about a potentially disturbing and possibly illegal decision made about new lettings at the Stonebridge Park development of so-called 'social housing'.

The last time we heard about this particular development was when the nearby City Farm was presented with an apparent fait accompli by NCC to have 10% of their land taken away for parking for residents of the new estate. A portent of the levels of user friendliness to come maybe?

Anyway, it seems that at least some of the new social housing is to be subject to a 'local lettings policy' to restrict the type of people eligible for a tenancy. The policy aims, in short to '...improve the social profile of the area' by introducing a lettings policy that '...tackles crime and antisocial behaviour and also takes a different approach to the letting of the properties by focusing particularly on potential residents who are in employment or training.'

Ok, that looks a lot to me like they consider people who aren't in employment or training as having a negative impact on the social profile of an area. No?

Further into the report the following condition is cited (among others) -

"You are in employment or on a training programme i.e. apprenticeship and you can demonstrate the ability to pay rent subject to income assessment. Applicants in receipt of Disability Living Allowance will not be subject to employment/income conditions and those of pensionable age will be considered."

Preumably, the concessions to those on DLA and pensioners are there in a ham-fisted attempt at avoiding legal action for disability discrimination or the political fall-out of having a 'no pensioners' rule. Indeed, the appended Equality Impact Assessment notes no problems caused to people with disabilities by the policy other than some tosh about problems caused by having to wait for adaptations.

The problem here is, yet again, NCC's utter inability to understand the meaning of 'disability', both in everyday life and as defined by the Equality Act. Not all disabled people get DLA by a long chalk and, contrary to the policy's apparent expectations, quite a lot of people getting DLA do in fact work.

On the other hand, all those on Incapacity Benefit or its replacement Employment Support Allowance are UNABLE to work, that is a key defining condition of the benefit and a great deal of them will be defined as disabled under the Equality Act. I think what I'm saying here is that NCC is about to face a number of disability discrimination claims if the policy  remains in this state.

That aside (and I haven't even mentioned that their crappy EIA accepts that the policy may well discriminate against women due to most lone parents, who are significantly less likely to be working, being women. The justification is basically that they can go somewhere else. I kid you not) we should have a look at the whole basis of this belief that out of work benefit claimants are undesirables. NCC's evidence for this is based entirely on the experiences of the Victoria Centre flats which has had a similar policy for 25 years, according to the report. This 'evidence' includes the 'positive opinion of the Housing Patch Manager' (srsly) and that a 3 year survey of the dreaded anti-social behaviour' fingered 66% (27 in all) of miscreants being out of work.

First of all, that figure is meaningless without knowing the overall work status rates of the whole population of the flats. If 66% of all tenants are out of work then it cannot be argued that those out of work are more likely to be involved with ASB. Furthermore, it turns out that 12 of the 27 were receiving DLA or Incapacity Benefit so this raises questions as to the effectiveness of the entire policy i.e. they want to stamp out ASB but they are planning to allow DLA claimants in, but not Incapacity Benefit claimants, even though past evidence has shown they may commit ASB. So, the policy is an irrational shambles as well as likely to be discriminatory, think we've seen this somewhere before.

The sheer crapness of the evidence combined with a determination to go ahead anyway is the kind of policy based evidence that keeps the Daily Mail warm at night and has no real basis in fact. Anti-social behaviour will NOT be reduced by not accepting benefit claimants as tenants but it WILL result in fewer housing choices for some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

Rumours of Shocking Cuts to Staff Terms and Conditions at NCC

I mentioned before that the Appointments and Conditions of Service Committee met last week with all discussion items hidden under a veil of secrecy. After all you don't want to be embarrassed by the ridiculous spend on consultants when you're discussing redundancies and cuts to terms and conditions for permanent staff, benevolently titled "Managing the Impact on Colleagues of the Financial Challenges Facing the Council".

I've heard some rumours about what the latest cuts to staff terms will be as agreed at the meeting. I should stress that I can't verify the accuracy of this but the person I heard it from does know what s/he's talking about.

Apparently then, the following changes are afoot -

Big reductions to redundancy payments
No longer being paid for first three days off sick
Reducing time on redeployment from 3 to 6 months
and most bizzarrely, forcing over 55s to reduce their hours

The first three changes come straight from Daily Mail land and, as such, will probably face limited criticism in the media. Apart from complaining that the 'gold plated' pensions are still in place of course. But the last one is barmy and is certain to face legal challenge under age discrimination rules if it really does go ahead.

I really do wonder if NCC's 'equalities and diversity' advisers even have the beginnings of a clue. After all there was their appalling abuse of Equality Impact Assessments as a weapon against CERN and only last week there was the introduction of age discrimination into the sports and leisure concessions scheme.

It will be interesting if there is any suggestion of cuts to senior management pay and perks, after all we've been reassured that 'we're all in this together' by the PM and who are NCC to go against that? This has added resonance because it looks like the cost cutting measure to get rid of the Director of Adult Services has been effectively reversed, meaning the loss of those savings.

Still, I'm sure we can guess how that will go eh?

Cuts to Sports and Leisure Discounts - Confusion Reigns

Cllr Trimble has delivered a portfolio holder decision to reduce the range of concessions available for use of the City's sports and leisure facilities. Unfortunately, it's a case study of what happens if you don't get someone who knows what they're talking about in to help.

According to the decision and its accompanying report the following city residents could get a 50% discount under the old scheme-

Over 60 or under 16
In receipt of Jobseekers Allowance
in receipt of Working Tax Credit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit
In receipt of Income Support
In receipt of 'disability allowance'

Already this differs to what is said on the website because that includes students and also includes Disability Living Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance (an obsolete benefit almost entirely phased out) and Incapacity Benefit. There is actually no such benefit as 'disability allowance' and Incapacity Benefit is being phased out in favour of Employment Support Allowance, which isn't mentioned.  The website also makes clear that only the Income Based version of JSA counts and not the National Insurance based version which isn't means tested. So it's already a bit mixed up.

The proposed new rules, which council officials will no doubt be told MUST be followed strictly and to the letter in these 'difficult times', say the following city residents are entitled to concessions -

Those who have reached pension age or aged under 17
In receipt of Jobseekers Allowance
In receipt of 'disability allowance' or 'registered disabled' depending on which part of the decision you look at

Now as we've already said, 'disability allowance' doesn't exist so we have no way of knowing whether this includes people getting DLA, Incapacity Benefit, Employment Support Allowance or whatever. And there's no such thing as being 'registered disabled' anymore. Just to make things even more confusing there is also a benefit called Disablement Benefit in the Industrial Injuries scheme, is that included too? This might sound pedantic but you wait until you try and get your concessionary pass and they won't give it to you because you're on ESA. And if the policy intention is in fact to exclude ESA or other illness/disability related benefits then there is a real possibility of a disability discrimination case.

Also, the decision doesn't specify whether all JSA claimants are entitled to concessions. I suspect that the intention is that only Income Based claimants are like the previous scheme, I only hope that someone decides to make that clear. Otherwise, while you're stood there fuming because the council officer won't accept that your ESA is the same as a 'disability allowance', the millionaire's wife who has just been made redundant will be waltzing past you for her half price go in the sauna.

Interestingly they have appended an Equality Impact Assessment to the decision. It says that there is absolutely no gender discrimination in the new concessionary scheme, clearly failing to realise that men and women still retire at different ages for the time being. Therefore tying the concessions scheme to reaching pension age will be potentially discriminatory for the next 8 years.

What's more, the decision may not be constitutional. According to NCC's constitution (see p22), a decision is a 'key decision' if it will cost more than £500k in revenue and/or will affect two or more wards in the city. I put and/or because the constitution doesn't specify which it is. If it's 'or' then this change will be a key decision and should only be made by the executive board. If it's 'and' then, presumably, as long as the effect of the decision is restricted to a single ward there's no financial limit to a portfolio decision. To be honest this lack of clarity pops up fairly regularly and I suspect it suits certain people to look the other way.

I'd always presumed that it was an either/or situation i.e. if either the financial limit or the two or more wards condition applied then it was a key decision. If that's right then this change to the concessions scheme should have been put before the Executive Board.

So, all in all, this one's a bit of a dog's dinner. We sort of know that there are cuts but we have no real idea who is to be affected. Really the decision should be subject to call-in to get it clarified but I doubt anybody will bother. After all, what's a bit of sex and potential disability discrimination among friends?

Do We Have A Gay Friendly Council?

At today's full council meeting, Lib Dem Cllr Alex Foster tabled a motion requesting the following -

"This Council…
 
Celebrates today's World Blood Donor Day, which highlights the importance of blood donation.
 
Celebrates the work of phlebotomists across the UK, and everyone who keeps this vital life-saving service running.
 
Urges all those who are able to donate blood to do so regularly.
 
Regrets that the blood service in the UK discriminates unfairly against different groups in our society including gay men and bisexual men.
 
Pledges that the Portfolio Holder for Adult Support and Health will write to and lobby central government and the National Blood Service, urging them to scrap their discriminatory and outdated policy towards gay and bisexual men."

Nothing controversial there in these enlightened times surely?

Here is Cllr Foster's tweet reporting the result -

Hmmm. Now why would they do that?

Next year local authorities will be subject to a new 'Public Sector Equality Duty' which will extend similar duties of promoting equality to age, sexual orientation, religion or belief and gender reassignment as currently apply to race, disability and gender. Regulations have yet to be finalised so I don't know whether removing a reference to anti-discrimination of gay men from a motion such as this would breach the duties but it's hardly in the spirit of things.

I suspect (and hope) that we haven't heard the last of this...

Addendum - you might want to have a look at this rather self-congratulatory report on NCC's progress towards 'excellence' in equalities to be presented to the rather lovely and benign sounding 'Community and Wellbeing Committee' on June 21. You can decide for yourself whether this decision is consistent with the requirements under the 'sexuality' heading.

17 June - Update via Cllr Foster's blog. Doesn't look like it was a particularly pleasant experience for him but more positively five Labour councillors, including three frontbenchers, abstained which is unheard of.

Update 21 June - The Post's angle on this. It reports that the three Labour front bench councillors who abstained were David Mellen, Jane Urquhart and David Liversidge. Sheriff Penny Griggs also abstained.