To consider the following Notices of Motion, which have been submitted pursuant to Standing Order 9 (1):
(1)
Universal
Credit
Cr. Jennifer Evans to propose:
"Recent reports by Citizens Advice and the Rowntree Foundation have highlighted problems associated with the roll-out of Universal Credit, which are leading to increases in debt, rent arrears, evictions and families in temporary accommodation.
In view of this, Rushmoor Borough Council calls upon HM Government to pause the implementation of Universal Credit immediately in order to introduce measures to avoid these problems, and, in this way, protect our residents from them."
(2)
Social
Value in Procurement
Cr. J.B. Canty to propose:
“This Council:
·
Notes the Public Services (Social
Value) Act 2012 which requires local
authorities to consider how services they procure might secure wider
social, economic and environmental benefits for an area.
·
Recognises that embedding Social
Value within contracts for goods and services can
help drive positive outcomes for residents.
Therefore, this Council will
strengthen the role of Social Value in procurement by:
·
Giving Social Value greater weighting
when scrutinising bids for future contracts in goods and services;
· Including
a section on Social Value in the new Procurement Strategy; and
·
Developing a Social Value Policy to underpin the new
Procurement Strategy.
Minutes:
The Council was asked to consider two Motions which had been submitted in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 9 (1).
(1) Universal Credit
It was MOVED by Cllr Jennifer Evans; SECONDED by Cllr A.H. Crawford – That
“Recent reports by Citizens Advice and the Rowntree Foundation have highlighted problems associated with the roll-out of Universal Credit, which are leading to increases in debt, rent arrears, evictions and families in temporary accommodation.
In view of this, Rushmoor Borough Council calls upon HM Government to pause the implementation of Universal Credit immediately in order to introduce measures to avoid these problems and, in this way, protect our residents from them.”
In introducing the Motion, Cllr Evans stated that she felt that no one was opposed to the idea of simplifying the complicated benefits system and rolling up a number of benefits into one payment. She felt that, in theory, new technology should enable a more flexible and responsive system to be put in place.
Cllr Evans considered that there were a number of delays which had been built into the system. Firstly, new claimants had to wait one week after losing their job before they could apply. Secondly, applications could only be made online and, until an online application had been made, an appointment could not be made with Job Centre Plus to progress a claim. Even if computer literate, and a person had access to the internet, there was another wait that had been built into the system. However, she felt that the big delay, and the one which caused the most problems and anxiety for claimants was that there was a minimum wait of six weeks before the first payment could be made.
Cllr Evans advised that research by Citizens Advice had shown the effects of this on households. Its survey had showed that almost 40% of people waited more than six weeks for their first payment and that over half of claimants had to borrow money whilst waiting for their first payment. The research had also revealed that one quarter of people seeking advice from the CAB about Universal Credit had debt problems. Citizens Advice had called upon the Government to postpone the roll-out until the system was more robust.
Cllr Evans felt that the dangers of this delay for low-income families with no savings to tide them over were obvious. They would not be able to pay their rent on time, and thereby risking eviction. Private landlords, who provided a substantial number of homes in the area, were less likely to be sympathetic than housing associations and were likely to be less willing to rent to tenants on Universal Credit. It was understood that housing associations were worried about rent arrears and a drop in income as Universal Credit was rolled out. Rushmoor had one of the most effective housing benefit teams in the country, but this function would be handed over to staff in job centres and the time waited for payments would jump from a few days to at least six weeks. Cllr Evans posed the question what would families with children do about buying food, heating their homes, providing transport and all the other necessities of life during this minimum of six weeks without any income?
Cllr Evans referred to the fact that the Government had recently announced that claimants could apply for an advance payment, which would be given in the form of a loan, to be repaid, and that repayment would be taken from the first few months of the new payments. In order to get the loan, claimants had to ring a premium phone number, which could cost up to 40p per minute.
Cllr Evans stated that Universal Credit appeared to give more money to some claimants and less to others. The IFS had calculated that £2.7 billion would be cut from the benefit in the long run. Whilst 2.2 million people would gain on average about £1,400 per year, 3.2 million people were likely to lose £1,800 on average. The most likely to lose would be single parents, which was one of the most vulnerable groups in society. Research undertaken by the local CAB as part of a national survey had showed that most said that they could not manage if their benefits were to be cut by that amount. Cllr Evans drew attention to the important link to the increased number of people suffering from mental health problems if this was the kind of worry and stress they had to put up with.
Cllr Evans further stated that former Welfare Minister, Lord Freud, had admitted that the design failures in Universal Credit were causing one in four low-income tenants to run up rent arrears and risk eviction. Meanwhile, the link between Universal Credit and lack of money for essentials, such as food, was so clear that in areas where the full roll-out had taken place, food bank referral rates were running at more than double the national average.
Cllr Evans stated that her Motion was not proposing that the Government should abandon Universal Credit. However, the Motion was asking that full roll-out should be paused in order for a robust evaluation of the impacts of the new system to be carried out and for any necessary amendments to be made. This was being requested to secure a smooth transition to the new benefit for residents and to avoid unnecessary hardship and homelessness.
In
seconding the Motion, Cllr Crawford stated that, in 2016, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond
MP, had announced cuts in welfare of £12 billion by 2019/20. The cuts to the work allowances in Universal
Credit were now just nine months away for claimants in the Borough. This would
focus cuts on families in work much more than those out of work, and would cost
them an average of £1,000 per year each.
He referred to the deficiencies in the Universal Credit system, which had been outlined by Cllr Evans, which would bring six types
of benefit together, including Housing Benefit. Cllr Crawford stated that the current
Rushmoor Universal Credit (Live Service) covered 438 single, unemployed
jobseekers – some of whom took three or four hours of support to get through
the process to obtain their correct payments.
He advised that, from July 2018, ten times as many claimants of these
six types of benefit in Rushmoor would be using the Universal Credit (Full Service)
system, with the complex telephone and online processes that Cllr Evans had
outlined. Cllr Crawford was of the
opinion that this process would put thousands of residents at risk of rent
arrears, debt and hunger. There was no shortage of
evidence of the adverse effects of the Universal Credit (Full Service) system, because it had
been piloted in other areas, and the outcomes reported to the current
Inquiry of the Work and Pensions Committee of the House of Commons.
Cllr
Crawford stated that Your Homes Newcastle, which managed homes on behalf of Newcastle
City Council, was having
to help struggling claimants to prevent them becoming homeless. Of the 3,293 Council house tenants in
Newcastle in receipt of Universal Credit, 2,532 (or 77%) were in arrears
amounting to £1.3 million more than they had been under the previous system.
Similarly, in
Southwark, more than 4,000 tenants had moved over to the Universal Credit –
Full Service system. Their rent arrears
had also increased by £1.3 million.
Southwark had reported that this had been caused
by the length of time before people started receiving their payments, and
particularly the housing element.
Typically, people moving over were very often already in rent arrears.
They did not have savings that they could call on, and they were
having to wait a very long time.
Rushmoor processed Housing Benefit claims in a few working days. In
Southwark, however, it was now taking 12-13 weeks for people to get their first
payment of Universal Credit.
Cllr Crawford gave
an example of one claimant he had dealt with at the Job Club at The Vine Centre
who had been unfairly treated and sanctioned under the new Universal Credit
system. He was of the opinion that the
Universal Credit system, as it was now in the Borough, was inhumane and
questioned how much worse it would get after the introduction of the full
Universal Credit system in July, 2018. He asked the Council to support the Motion
and call upon the Government to introduce measures to avoid these problems being placed on the Borough’s residents.
During a debate,
attention was drawn to the availability of the advance payment facility and also that arrangements could be made to make payments
direct to landlords. It was also mentioned that the Council would continue to
scrutinise and improve the local implementation of Universal Credit and helping
residents with this. Further comment
was also made of the need to understand fully what it was like to have no money
and the implications for residents in such a situation.
Following further
debate, the Motion was put to the meeting. There voted FOR: 12;
AGAINST: 21 and the Motion was DECLARED
LOST.
(2) Social Value in Procurement
It was MOVED by Cllr J.B. Canty and SECONDED by Cllr A. Newell – That
“This Council:
· Notes the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 which requires local authorities to consider how many services they procure might secure wider social, economic and environmental benefits for an area
· Recognises that embedding Social Value within contracts for goods and services can help drive positive outcomes for residents.
Therefore, this Council will strengthen the role of Social Value in procurement by:
· Giving Social Value greater weighting when scrutinising bids for future contracts in goods and services;
· Including a section on Social Value in the new Procurement Strategy; and
· Developing a Social Value Policy to underpin the new Procurement Strategy.”
In introducing the Motion, Cllr Canty stated that he felt procurement was one of the most important responsibilities that a local authority had. Assessing value for money was particularly important at a time when the Council’s budget was constrained and assessing the quality of service was crucial for a contract to be delivered effectively. Cllr Canty was of the opinion that ensuring that a contract delivered added value or social value was also vital for delivering positive outcomes for the Borough beyond just the provision of a public service. Social value had grown in popularity over the past decade because it provided a framework for decision makers to think about whether the services they were going to buy, or the way they were going to buy them, could secure these benefits for their area. It had been enshrined in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 that local authorities were required to consider how services they procured might secure wider social, economic and environmental benefits to an area. Rushmoor had been using social value in a variety of different ways in its procurement processes since the Act had become law. For example, in the waste management contract that had recently been awarded to Serco, the Council had identified a number of social value benefits that could be realised, such as apprenticeships, work experience and working with charity organisations. As part of its social value commitment, Serco had pledged to provide a minimum of ten one-day work experience placements for young people who were unemployed, a minimum of one day a year for staff to volunteer at local community projects and supporting community groups through the provision of materials and training.
Cllr Canty said that his Motion called for additional steps to strengthen and prioritise the role of social value as a criterion when assessing bids for goods and services. Firstly, the Motion called for greater weighting to be given to social value when scrutinising bids for contracts for goods and services. In practice, this would mean more clearly setting out social value aims as core requirements in specification and contract documents, which could then be referred to as contract requirements. Cllr Canty considered that writing more specific requirements into contract documents would challenge perspective suppliers to offer more in terms of social value. He also felt that it would make delivery and reporting on the implementation of contracts easier, allowing the Council to better demonstrate the social value each new contract was providing.
Cllr Canty stated that, secondly, the Motion called on social value to be embedded in the Council’s new Procurement Strategy, which was due to be published in Spring, 2018. The Strategy would set out the Council’s approach to the use of competition and how it would procure works, goods and services. He felt that including a section on social value would allow for a greater focus on considering how to structure contracts to reduce barriers to social enterprises and smaller companies from participating in public procurement processes. A suggested remedy could be to break up large contracts into smaller “lots” within each procurement exercise as a way to increase tender opportunities for these companies. Including a section on social value would also allow for greater focus on social outcomes which should be considered in procurement, such as: empowering social enterprises and charities to make an even bigger impact in supporting the most disadvantaged in the community; helping the long-term unemployed to get a foot on the employment ladder; providing disabled people with the opportunity to build their independence and develop new skills; and, increasing the use of local supply chains to support small and medium sized businesses in the Borough.
Cllr Canty considered that putting these principles at the heart of the new Procurement Strategy would highlight the Council’s commitment to improving the quality of life for residents.
In respect of the final part of his Motion, Cllr Canty called on the Council to create a Social Value Policy to underpin the Procurement Strategy. Such a policy would allow the Council to set out before the general public what social outcomes were most import to the Council when evaluating tender bids. It would make clear the Council’s expectations to potential suppliers and contractors that delivering social value to the community should be at the heart of the service they wished to deliver. It would provide the Council with leverage – where an explicit policy had been created it could also be used in the wording of a contract. Cllr Canty was of the opinion that such a policy could be developed in consultation with the voluntary sector providers and SMEs, to ensure that the Council could include outcomes that were realistic for the capability of those organisations. He felt that embedding social value in the Council’s Procurement Strategy and developing a Social Value Policy would be very public statements of intent about the priority the Council gave to delivering social outcomes. Cllr Canty called on Members to support the Motion which sought to build on existing work to embed social value in the procurement process operated by the Council.
In seconding the Motion, Cllr A.J. Newell stated that social value encompassed several priorities of the Council covering environmental, social and economic wellbeing. Cllr Newell also mentioned that the Council already had in place a policy on sustainability as part of procurement and that a Social Value Policy as part of the Council’s Procurement Strategy would be a further demonstration of the aims and priorities of the Council and this could be put into practice for future contracts such as the Alpine Ski Centre, Farnborough Leisure Centre and the Lido.
During discussion, Members referred to work by other councils who had gone down this route and that the Council needed to examine best practice elsewhere as part of a more comprehensive consideration of this subject.
It was MOVED by Cllr B. Jones and SECONDED by Cllr Keith Dibble – That the Motion be referred to the Corporate Services Policy and Review Panel for further consideration.
During discussion on the Motion for reference back to the Corporate Services Policy and Review Panel, Members agreed that there were many issues to be examined as part of social value and agreed that the Motion should be referred to the Corporate Services Policy and Review Panel. Others also spoke of whether the Council currently had the resources and expertise to carry out a corporate responsibility protocol. The amendment to refer to the Panel was then put to the meeting. There voted FOR: 14; AGAINST: 20 and the amendment was DECLARED LOST.
Following further debate, the original Motion was then put to the meeting. There voted FOR: 32; AGAINST: 0 and the Motion was DECLARED CARRIED.