(time limit 15 minutes).
Motion 1
Councillor Akhtar to MOVE and Councillor Ball to SECOND:
The New Economy recently published a report which reviewed the impact of benefit sanctions. This has been reviewed by the Oldham Poverty Action Group and local data collected through a workshop. The Group has stated that:
· The sanctions system itself is complex and the wording in official letters is difficult to understand. Local residents do not know they can access hardship payments from the DWP and are not clear about Local Welfare Provision.
· Many organisations that work to support claimants believe that sanctions are applied when they shouldn’t be. For example when there are exceptional circumstances that have led to the claimants actions e.g. when a person is sanctioned for not attending an interview when the letter inviting them arrived after the date of the meeting.
· People who are already vulnerable are often more likely to incur sanctions e.g. concerns were expressed about people with mental ill health and with poor literacy/numeracy skills.
· Overall there seems to be less support services available to help people facing multiple disadvantages who are affected by sanctions which means people are left isolated and need to turn to charitable help.
According to the Children in Poverty Action Group only about one third of sanctioned claimants appeal and yet 56% are successful at getting the sanction overturned which implies that confidence and understanding about the appeal process is likely to be poorly understood and that too many sanctions probably shouldn’t have been applied. A number of work clubs in Oldham are now trying to support claimants with the appeal process and it is appears that where claimants have skills issues (e.g. literacy issues) that they will not engage in submitting appeals.
I thereby call on the Chief Executive to write to the Government asking it to urgently review its approach to sanctioning. It is accepted that sometimes sanctions are required but there should be a fairness test and clear support pathways for those sanctioned.
Motion 2
Councillor Briggs to MOVE and Councillor Williams to SECOND:
This Council recognises the hazards caused by Sky Lanterns (also known as Chinese Lanterns).
Sky Lanterns have given rise to a number of serious safety concerns including:
· The risk to human life, especially to those who are members of the emergency services
· Risks to Pets, livestock, birds, wildlife and marine life.
· Fires and damage to property and vehicles.
· The impact on the environment, including littering.
Sky Lanterns were responsible for the fire at the Smethwick Recycling Plant in June 2013, which resulted in damage totalling around £6m. They have also been responsible for 62 fires within Greater Manchester.
Death and injury has been inflicted on Pets, livestock, birds, wildlife and marine life mainly through ingestion and entrapment caused by the lanterns wire frames.
The RSPCA, Fire and Rescue Authorities, farmers and vets have all warned of the dangers of Sky Lanterns. They have also been banned in several other countries including Australia, Spain and Germany.
This Council therefore, resolves to ban the sale and use of sky lanterns on any of its property or premises.
In addition, that the Council resolves to write to our three local Members of Parliament and urges them to support Early Day Motion 266 which states: ‘That this House expresses concern regarding the use of sky lanterns, also known as Chinese lanterns and their impact on livestock, crops and the environment; notes that Cleveland Fire Brigade recognises that the lanterns pose a serious fire safety hazard due to their uncontrolled and unpredictable flight paths; further notes the existence of a ban on their use in Spain as a result of damage to property and death or injury to livestock caused by discarded lanterns and increases on the fire service, police and medical emergency services; and urges the Government to act swiftly.’
Minutes:
The Mayor informed the meeting that there were two items of outstanding business from the previous meeting.
“Motion 1
Councillor Akhtar MOVED and Councillor Ball SECONDED the following Motion:
The New Economy recently published a report which reviewed the impact of benefit sanctions. This has been reviewed by the Oldham Poverty Action Group and local data collected through a workshop. The Group has stated that:
According to the Children in Poverty Action Group only about one third of sanctioned claimants appeal and yet 56% are successful at getting the sanction overturned which implies that confidence and understanding about the appeal process is likely to be poorly understood and that too many sanctions probably shouldn’t have been applied. A number of work clubs in Oldham are now trying to support claimants with the appeal process and it is appears that where claimants have skills issues (e.g. literacy issues) that they will not engage in submitting appeals.
I thereby call on the Chief Executive to write to the Government asking it to urgently review its approach to sanctioning. It is accepted that sometimes sanctions are required but there should be a fairness test and clear support pathways for those sanctioned.
AMENDMENT
Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor McCann SECONDEDthe following amendment:
“Insert before the start of the motion:
‘This Council notes that:
- Benefit claimants enter into a Claimant Commitment in which they agree to meet certain conditions in return for benefit payments, referred to as “conditionality”.
- Sanctions are imposed when a claimant fails to satisfy “conditionality” without “good reason”.
This Council wishes to ensure that local benefit claimants are made aware of:
- The advice and support available from Job Centre Plus, Get Oldham Working and the Oldham Work Club Network.
- The importance of meeting “conditionality” and of furnishing “good reason” as soon as possible where they cannot do so.
- Their right to appeal against sanctions, and the support that is available to them from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau and the Welfare Rights team.
- Their right to apply for a Hardship Payment or for Local Welfare Provision, and the importance of refreshing their claim for Housing Benefit and Local Council Tax Support should they be sanctioned’.
Delete: ‘The’before New Economy in the First Line of the original motion.
Replace: ‘Oldham Poverty Action Group’ with ‘VAO Poverty Agenda Group’ in the Second Line of the original motion.
Replace: ‘Children in Poverty Action Group’ with ‘Child Poverty Action Group’ in the Eighteenth Line of the original motion.
Insert after the end of the Twenty Fourth Line of the original motion ending ‘submitting appeals’ the following wording and bullet points:
‘Council therefore welcomes:
- The recent publication of the Oakley Review with its many recommendations to improve communications and support from Job Centre Plus staff to help claimants meet “conditionality”, avoid sanctions, access hardship payments, and appeal.
- The recent publication of a report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee following an inquiry into “the purpose, effects and efficacy of benefit sanctions” and whether their use is “appropriate and proportionate” for jobseekers with ill health and disabilities.
- The recent work at the Oldham Job Centre, in conjunction with the Oldham Housing Investment Partnership, to develop a pilot training project for roll-out to external advisors so they are better able to help claimants meet “conditionality”.
- The publication of the Sanctions Toolkit for advisors by the Salvation Army.’
Delete in the Twenty Fifth Line of the original motion: ‘I thereby call on the Chief Executive to urgently review its approach to sanctioning’.
Insert at the end of the original motion the following wording and bullet points:
‘Council therefore resolves to:
- Ask the Chief Executive to write to the next Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking the new Government to:
- Ask the Chief Executive to specifically reference in her letter two of the recommendations arising from the recent Work and Pension Select Committee’s inquiry, namely that:
And ask the Chief Executive to request in her letter that Oldham be the location of pilot projects for testing these concepts.
- Ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board to convene a special workshop to which elected members, Job Centre staff and representatives from relevant local agencies can be invited to establish “best practice” in the application of benefit sanctions, particularly where applied to vulnerable claimants.
- Ask the appropriate Cabinet Member and officers to work with the Employer and Partnership Manager at the Oldham Job Centre and with the Chair of the VAO Poverty Agenda Group to support the roll out of the recently developed Job Centre training programme for advisors working with claimants.
- Ask the appropriate Cabinet Member to ensure that the Sanctions Toolkit is distributed electronically as widely as possible to advisors and relevant organisations by the District Partnership Teams’.
The motion as amended would then read:
“This Council notes that:
- Benefit claimants enter into a Claimant Commitment in which they agree to meet certain conditions in return for benefit payments, referred to as “conditionality”.
- Sanctions are imposed when a claimant fails to satisfy “conditionality” without “good reason”.
-
This Council wishes to ensure that local benefit claimants are made aware of:
- The advice and support available from Job Centre Plus, Get Oldham Working and the Oldham Work Club Network;
- The importance of meeting “conditionality” and of furnishing “good reason” as soon as possible where they cannot do so.
- Their right to appeal against sanctions, and the support that is available to them from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau and the Welfare Rights team.
- Their right to apply for a Hardship Payment or for Local Welfare Provision, and the importance of refreshing their claim for Housing Benefit and Local Council Tax Support should they be sanctioned.
New Economy recently published a report which reviewed the impact of benefit sanctions. This has been reviewed by the VAO Poverty Agenda Group and local data collected through a workshop. The Group has stated that:
- The sanctions system itself is complex and the wording in official letters is difficult to understand. Local residents do not know they can access hardship payments from the DWP and are not clear about Local Welfare Provision.
- Many organisations that work to support claimants believe that sanctions are applied when they shouldn’t be. For example when there are exceptional circumstances that have led to the claimants actions, e.g. when a person is sanctioned for not attending an interview when the letter inviting them arrived after the date of the meeting.
- People who are already vulnerable are often more likely to incur sanctions e.g. concerns were expressed about people with mental ill health and with poor literacy/numeracy skills.
- Overall there seems to be less support services available to help people facing multiple disadvantages who are affected by sanctions which means people are left isolated and need to turn to charitable help.
According to the Child Poverty Action Group only about one third of sanctioned claimants appeal and yet 56% are successful at getting the sanction overturned which implies that confidence and understanding about the appeal process is likely to be poorly understood and that too many sanctions probably shouldn’t have been applied. A number of work clubs in Oldham are now trying to support claimants with the appeal process and it is appears that where claimants have skills issues (e.g. literacy issues) that they will not engage in submitting appeals.
It is accepted that sometimes sanctions are required but there should be a fairness test and clear support pathways for those sanctioned.
Council therefore welcomes:
- The recent publication of the Oakley Review with its many recommendations to improve communications and support from Job Centre Plus staff to help claimants meet “conditionality”, avoid sanctions, access hardship payments, and appeal
- The recent publication of a report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee following an inquiry into “the purpose, effects and efficacy of benefit sanctions” and whether their use is “appropriate and proportionate” for jobseekers with ill health and disabilities.
- The recent work at the Oldham Job Centre, in conjunction with the Oldham Housing Investment Partnership, to develop a pilot training project for roll-out to external advisors so they are better able to help claimants meet “conditionality”.
- The publication of the Sanctions Toolkit for advisors by the Salvation Army.
Council therefore resolves to:
- Ask the Chief Executive to write to the next Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking the new Government to:
- Ask the Chief Executive to specifically reference in her letter two of the recommendations arising from the recent Work and Pension Select Committee’s inquiry, namely that:
And ask the Chief Executive to request in her letter that Oldham be the location of pilot projects for testing these concepts.
- Ask the Overview and Scrutiny Board to convene a special workshop to which elected members, Job Centre staff and representatives from relevant local agencies can be invited to establish “best practice” in the application of benefit sanctions, particularly where applied to vulnerable claimants.
- Ask the appropriate Cabinet Member and officers to work with the Employer and Partnership Manager at the Oldham Job Centre and with the Chair of the VAO Poverty Agenda Group to support the roll out of the recently developed Job Centre training programme for advisors working with claimants.
- Ask the appropriate Cabinet Member to ensure that the Sanctions Toolkit is distributed electronically as widely as possible to advisors and relevant organisations by the District Partnership Team.”
A vote was then taken on the AMENDMENT.
On being put to the VOTE, FOURTEEN VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of the AMENDMENT with FORTY THREE VOTES cast AGAINST and NO ABSTENTIONS. The AMENDMENT was therefore LOST.
Councillor Akhtar did not exercise his right of reply.
A vote was then taken on the ORIGINAL MOTION.
On being put to the vote FORTY FIVE VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR of the MOTION with THREE VOTES AGAINST and NINE ABSTENTIONS. The MOTION was therefore CARRIED.
RESOLVED that the Chief Executive write to the Government asking it to urgently review its approach to sanctioning. It is accepted that sometimes sanctions are required but there should be a fairness test and clear support pathways for those sanctioned.
The Mayor informed the meeting that the time limit had expired for this item.
Motion 2
The Mayor informed the meeting that the time limit for this item had expired and Councillor Briggs as Mover of the Motion and Councillor Judge, as Seconder of the Motion, requested that the MOTION be put to the VOTE.
Councillor Briggs MOVED and Councillor Judge SECONDED
This Council recognises the hazards caused by Sky Lanterns (also known as Chinese Lanterns).
Sky Lanterns have given rise to a number of serious safety concerns including:
· The risk to human life, especially to those who are members of the emergency services
· Risks to Pets, livestock, birds, wildlife and marine life.
· Fires and damage to property and vehicles.
· The impact on the environment, including littering.
Sky Lanterns were responsible for the fire at the Smethwick Recycling Plant in June 2013, which resulted in damage totalling around £6m. They have also been responsible for 62 fires within Greater Manchester.
Death and injury has been inflicted on Pets, livestock, birds, wildlife and marine life mainly through ingestion and entrapment caused by the lanterns wire frames.
The RSPCA, Fire and Rescue Authorities, farmers and vets have all warned of the dangers of Sky Lanterns. They have also been banned in several other countries including Australia, Spain and Germany.
This Council therefore, resolves to ban the sale and use of sky lanterns on any of its property or premises.
In addition, that the Council resolves to write to our three local Members of Parliament and urges them to support Early Day Motion 266 which states: ‘That this House expresses concern regarding the use of sky lanterns, also known as Chinese lanterns and their impact on livestock, crops and the environment; notes that Cleveland Fire Brigade recognises that the lanterns pose a serious fire safety hazard due to their uncontrolled and unpredictable flight paths; further notes the existence of a ban on their use in Spain as a result of damage to property and death or injury to livestock caused by discarded lanterns and increases on the fire service, police and medical emergency services; and urges the Government to act swiftly.’
On being put to the vote the MOTION was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLVEDthat:
1. The Council ban the sale and use of sky lanterns on any of its property or premises.
2. The Council write to the three local Members of Parliament and urge them to support Early Day Motion 266 which states: “‘That this House expresses concern regarding the use of sky lanterns, also known as Chinese lanterns and their impact on livestock, crops and the environment; notes that Cleveland Fire Brigade recognises that the lanterns pose a serious fire safety hazard due to their uncontrolled and unpredictable flight paths; further notes the existence of a ban on their use in Spain as a result of damage to property and death or injury to livestock caused by discarded lanterns and increases on the fire service, police and medical emergency services; and urges the Government to act swiftly.’