WOWpetition Briefing on the Need for a Backbench Business Committee Debate of e-petition 43154.

On Saturday 30th November 2013 Government e-petition 43154, also known as the WOWpetition, was signed for the 100,000 time and qualifies to be considered for a debate by the Back Bench Business Committee. 

John McDonnell MP has agreed to make representations to the Backbench Business Committee in support of a debate of the WOWpetition.

The WOWpetition calls for

1.     A Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) of all cuts and changes affecting sick & disabled people, their families and carers, and a free vote on repeal of the Welfare Reform Act.

The response received from the DWP upon the WOWpetition reaching 10,000 signatures, stated that the Government had not done a Cumulative Impact Assessment of the effects of the Welfare Reform Bill 2012 because “it is very difficult to do accurately and external organisations have not produced this either.” However, since posting this response, 2 external agencies, “DEMOS” and the “Centre for Welfare Reform” have separately produced relevant CIA’s.

DEMOS’s analysis showed a cumulative loss of income for disabled people of £28.3 billion over the 5 years to 2018. Referring to this analysis, Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of disability charity Scope said: “At the moment there’s no place for disabled people in the Chancellor’s aspiration nation. In 2013 disabled people are already struggling to pay the bills. Living costs are spiralling. Income is flat-lining. We know many are getting in debt, just to pay for essentials. What’s the Government’s response?  The same group of disabled people face not just one or two cuts to their support, but in some cases three, four, five or even six cuts. It paints a frightening picture of the financial struggles affecting disabled people in 2013. On top of this the Government is suggesting capping the welfare bill in the June spending review – having already slashed billions.”

Dr Simon Duffy of the Centre for Welfare Reform, on behalf of the Campaign for a Fair Society, produced analysis that suggested the cuts to benefits and services fell disproportionately on minority groups. The extreme unfairness of this policy is demonstrated if we compare the burden of cuts born annually by most citizens (£467 per person) to the burden on people in poverty (£2,195: 5 x rest of population), the burden on disabled people (£4,410: 9 x rest of population) and the Burden on people with severest disabilities (£8,832: 19 x rest of population).

We believe that the Government either needs to demonstrate that the CIA’s produced are not accurate and produce its own CIA or explain why the austerity measures have been targeted at people, who WOWpetition believe, the Government thought would not fight back.

2.     An immediate end to the Work Capability Assessment, as voted for by the British Medical Association. Consultation between the Depts of Health & Education to improve support into work for sick & disabled people, and an end to forced work under threat of sanctions for people on disability benefits.

The Work Capability Assessment judges the Capability for work or work related activity of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants. We believe the current test is totally discredited, with the Prime Minister saying in October 2013 that its provider, Atos, had "to improve the quality of decision-making" in the face of sustained criticism of both the efficacy and effectiveness of what, WOWpetition believe, is not a tool meant to enable disabled people and help them to achieve what they feel capable of but instead a blunt instrument to reduce the social security bill. We do not believe it is right that in the 21st Century an experimental process has been imposed on sick and disabled people with in some cases fatal consequences. Over 10,000 people have died within 6 weeks of being compelled to submit to what has been described as a “dehumanizing, brutal and aggressive quasi-medical assessment”.

WOWpetition believes that any method for assessing the financial support given, and the life opportunities presented to sick and disabled people needs to be based upon 3 questions: “What do you want to do?” “What stops you from doing that?” “What adjustments can be made to enable you?” Any process that seeks to enable disabled people and give them equality of opportunity, needs to address not just the “supply side” issues of “what can you do” but also needs to address “demand side” prejudices and ensure society provides the opportunities to people facing significant barriers to mainstream employment opportunities, in a fair way that gives people with impairments equality of opportunity. Additionally, any individual trying to enhance their experience should not be penalised/ restricted, as they already face difficulty with employment.

More than anything, WOWpetition wants a system based upon trust. The evidence clearly shows that at approximately 0.7%, Benefit fraud is non-systemic and the overwhelming feeling of grassroots Disabled Peoples Organisation’s, expressed at a summit organised by WOWpetition in London on the 25th October 2013, was that sick and disabled people are sick of being treated as guilty until proven innocent and that the system needs to embody trust, not persecution.

Irrespective of their ability to work, sick & disabled people should be able to rely upon financial support from society that would allow them to experience a good standard of living.

3.     An Independent, Committee-Based Inquiry into Welfare Reform, covering but not limited to: (1) Care home admission rises, Daycare Centre’s, access to education for people with learning difficulties, universal mental health treatments, Remploy closures; (2) DWP media links, the ATOS contract, IT implementation of Universal Credit; (3) Human rights abuses against disabled people, excess claimant deaths & the disregard of medical evidence in decision making by ATOS, DWP & the Tribunal Service.

WOWpetition cannot understand how in the Worlds 6th richest country (by GDP – IMF 2012) the situation can have been allowed to occur where, despite the UK ratifying the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, what is arguably “retrogressive legislation” has been introduced, without being effectively challenged pre-implementation.

At its AGM on April 14 2013, Amnesty International UK passed a resolution on the Human Rights of sick and disabled people in the UK. The resolution (A5) read:

“This AGM calls for urgent action to halt the abrogation of the human rights of sick and disabled people by the ruling Coalition government and its associated corporate contractors.”

It is WOWpetition’s belief that The WRA 2012 was “rushed” through Parliament with the House of Commons using the procedural tool of “financial privilege” to curtail debate and over-turn the amendments tabled by the House of Lords. We believe The House of Lords had taken very relevant advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, with the effect that the Human Rights and Equality issues pertinent to the WRA 2012 have been largely ignored. Some overlooked amendments have since been the subject of successful legal challenges, and the Minister for Disabled People has been criticized in open court for failing to consider the effect her policies have on equality of opportunity.

WOWpetition call for the UK to comply with the spirit of its Treaty Obligations and, in line with “Article 4 – General Obligations” of the UNCRPD, strive to achieve full realization of the rights so included in that document without prejudice. As an example of what we would argue is the non-compliance of the UK with this Treaty, we are dismayed that an apparent working definition of “Equality of Opportunity” appears to be, that employers may choose to favour a disabled candidate over a non-disabled candidate. This, we believe, is not what was intended by “Article 3 – General Principles” of the UNCRPD.

 In order for lessons to be learnt and safeguards put in place to ensure persons with disabilities are never again to face what we believe is a coordinated onslaught on our human rights and right to life, we call for an independent Committee based enquiry into Welfare Reform.

Most worrying are the comments attributed to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson on Nov 28th 2013, in which he says “It is surely relevant to a conversation about equality that as many as 16% of our species have an IQ below 85, while about 2% have an IQ above 130.”

Is a person’s worth or right of equality to be linked to his measured IQ? Is economic potential the accepted measure of somebody’s value and equality? This comment is not acceptable.

Conclusion

WOWpetition suggests that sick and disabled people are the target of a sustained attack on their human rights and standard of living as it is believed they will not fight back. We agree with Richard Hawkes of Scope who said “At the moment there’s no place for disabled people in the Chancellor’s aspiration nation.” WOWpetition seeks a society where disabled people (through birth, trauma or illness) are given true equality of opportunity and valued appropriately, based upon their intrinsic humanity.

On the 10th July 2013 an Opposition Day Debate on “Disabled people” called for a Cumulative Impact Assessment of the changes made by Government that affect disabled people. We argue that the debate called for by the WOWpetition is significantly different to this debate, based on:

·         Following this debate, two independent organisations have done what is “very difficult to do accurately” and produced Cumulative Impact Assessments.  These demonstrate how this government’s austerity measures have unfairly targeted sick and disabled people. The House needs to debate why disabled people are seen as easy targets by this government or the DWP needs to challenge the findings.

·         It is widely reported that both the new Universal Credit Payment (UC) and the Personal Independence Payments (PIP) are in trouble. WOWpetition believe the UK government should take the time to carefully consider the effect the transition to these potentially flawed procedures would have on sick and disabled people and if it is prepared to inflict more excess deaths on these communities.

·         Paul Maynard MP, who referred to WOWpetition as “extremists” using the protection of Parliamentary Privilege, made reference in this Opposition Day Debate to the DWP publication “Fulfilling Potential – The Next Steps” and implied it was a remedy for the exclusion and barriers to society facing disabled people. WOWPetition believes this document is flawed and based upon Esther McVey’s inability to distinguish between the Social Model of Disability and the Bio-psychosocial Model of Disability which, we believe, she seems to think are the same thing. This document should be debated in conjunction with relevant meaningful published statistics to identify whether it really is a tool in leading to meaningful Equality of Opportunity for sick and disabled people and how long it is to be before sick and disabled are given this meaningful Equality of Opportunity, defined appropriately. This is a requirement under “Article 3 – The General Principles” of the “UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities“.

As outlined earlier, WOWpetition calls for much more than a Cumulative Impact Assessment and to refuse a debate dismisses and trivializes the other very real concerns of the Sick and Disabled Community.

WOWpetition therefore ask you to support a Main Hall Backbench Business Committee debate of the important issues contained in their e-petition 43154 and engage with our plea for a New Deal for Sick and Disabled People based upon their needs, abilities and ambitions.

EXPRESS & ECHO Community News | P Bus Survey

Thursday 14 November 2013

Local councillors are still trying to convince Stagecoach SW that there is sufficient demand from Cowick residents for a direct bus sevice to take them to the only doctors' surgery in the neighbourhood.

Ward councillor Paul Bull said: "Over the coming weeks, we are going to talk to the residents of Cowick on the doorstep, on the phone, at the bus stops, on the buses and at the doctors' surgery to show Stagecoach that there is a critical mass of potential passengers who would use this route."

The P bus service stopped running from the top of Dunsford Road directly to the doctors' surgery in Cowick Street some years ago, to the unhappiness of many residents

COWICK WARD NEWSLETTER | November 203

Speed Limits

Over the last few months there have been a series of letters in First, the membership magazine of the Local Government Association.

Limiting Speed2 May 2013

As I look out of my window I see three little girls riding their bikes along my street. It is a common occurrence here where people are aware of children playing and are careful, but in other streets it is unusual.

In the past, most children liked to play out close to home but are now more likely to be kept indoors because of the danger of speeding traffic.

Across the country, 44 councils have decided to implement 20 mph speed limits using signs only (rather than chicanes and road humps). The usual justification for this is to make our residential roads safer.

The Transport Research Laboratory found that approximately 98 per cent of pedestrians will survive a 20 mph collision. Their chances drop to around 93 per cent at 30 mph and 69 per cent at 40 mph.

However, putting in 20 mph speed limits in residential streets means more than just making streets safer. It is the beginning of a culture change where people on foot and on bikes, and children playing, take precedence over passing motor vehicles. It's about giving control of streets back to the people who live in them.

Councils can do ‘signs only' blanket coverage for a fraction of the cost of 20 mph zones, where there are physical measures such as speed tables to prevent drivers from breaking the law. With restraints, 20 mph zones still have their place but with reducing funds less of them can be implemented by councils.

Critics say that ‘signs only' 20 mph speed limits cannot be enforced, but then enforcement of any speed limit is difficult given reducing police resources.

If councils achieve a small reduction in speed it has a big effect on safety. ‘Signs only' 20 mph should be self-enforcing by drivers, by becoming the default speed limit, and exceeding it should become as rare as the non-wearing of seat belts.

Government advice now encourages traffic authorities to consider 20 mph restrictions not just in residential areas, but also on busier roads where the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists are – or could be – significant. A sure sign of a growing move to 20 mph.

Cllr Roger Symonds (Lib Dem) is Cabinet Member for Transport at Bath and North East Somerset Council

Cutting Speed Limit Costs

2 May 2013

Slower road speeds are popular. Speed limits of 20 mph offer safer streets, quality living and are key to increasing physical activity. They also benefit traders through higher footfall and profits.

'The Independent' found that over a third of local authorities had either agreed, or were considering, 20 mph limits without road humps. More than 11 million people live where 20 mph is, or will be, normal – in York, Liverpool, Oxford, Bristol, Cambridge, Newcastle, Camden, Islington, Brighton and Lancashire.

The UK is in transition to a 20 mph national urban speed limit for lit roads. Yet the Department for Transport appears to have no process for this. Signage regulations are rigid in assuming that a limit other than 30 mph requires repeater signs, despite many iconic cities wanting 90 per cent or more of streets at 20 mph.

Signs are a substantial part of the implementation costs of 20 mph speed limits. To maximise value for money, it would be far better to set a default limit and only sign exceptions. This releases funds for community engagement to maximise driver compliance.

Maximising cost effectiveness is my topic for the national 20 mph conference on 23 May in Coventry.

Cllr Anna Semlyen (Lab) York City Council

Star letter – Set limits on 20 mph30 May 2013

While canvassing for the county council elections last month, a car drove up and stopped adjacent to me. The driver said he would never vote for any party again that introduced a 20 mph speed limit. This resident was utterly frustrated by the extent to which these limits are being applied.

Both through roads in my ward have very extensive 20 mph limits. If these were just by our village school or central green, nobody would have minded and the lower speed would have been obeyed. But clumsy, ill thought out application has caused the 20 mph limit to stretch for miles.

Purely residential roads and possibly areas by schools are one thing but extensive application on through roads is another. It doesn't make roads safer, it just makes most drivers crosser!

The Government's own independent survey concluded that the 20 mph limit made no discernable difference to road safety. Why then are we spending millions to introduce it? Accidents may be more severe at 30 mph as opposed to 20 mph, but better by far is not to have the accident at all.

What's the main cause of accidents? It's not speed. Try catching people who make hand-held phone calls while driving: this is infinitely more dangerous. Stop this and you won't lose any voters, and you'll improve road safety.

Councillor Frank Andrews (Con) Fylde Borough Council

Limiting Speed Limits

27 June 2013

I agree with Cllr Frank Andrews (first 545) on 20 mph speed limits. In my ward, this stupid idea will be rolled out soon.

After looking into the guidelines, it is clear that any roads that have an average speed of 24 mph or more should not be reduced to 20 mph. So this exercise is for roads with an average speed of below 24mph. What a waste of money!

Cllr Gareth Fairhurst (Ind) Wigan Council

Speed causes accidents

11 July 2013

I agree with Cllr Frank Andrews about 20 mph speed limits and his views on the other reasons which cause accidents (first 545).

However, I cannot accept his premise that speed is not a main cause of accidents. The very reason for low limits is that, at 20 mph, it is unlikely that a pedestrian will be severely injured in an accident. So putting them in places where vulnerable adults and children congregate is a sensible move.
We put these limits in place, not for you and I, but for others, older or younger, without our skills and incredible reaction times.
We need to make speed limits appropriate, and to ensure they are obeyed. But we do need them for better road safety.

Cllr Peter Burgess (Con) Horsham District Council

Reaching a limit
5 September 2013

As someone who has been campaigning to get Devon County Council, as the local highways authority, to ensure that their 20 mph zones in Exeter are compliant and thus can be enforced by Devon and Cornwall Police, I would like to add my thoughts to the debate.

There are many causes of road traffic collisions: some related to speeding, others not. What cannot be denied is that the outcomes are speed-related.

When a pedestrian is hit at 20 mph, one in 10 accidents result in serious injury or death but at 40 mph the figure becomes nine in 10.

There is a 20 mph area in my ward where I often get comments about speeding. Yet it is a closed network of streets with only one way in and out. The majority of motorists driving around live there. Why are they speeding?

I haven't found the answer to that one, but it leads me to pose my own question: why aren't all residential roads 20 mph by default?

Cllr Paul Bull (Lab) Exeter City Council

Speed Limits31 October 2013

Cllr Paul Bull (first 550) has missed the point. While any accident is likely to be more severe if the impact speed is greater, the best solution is to avoid the accident altogether.

How do we achieve this? We need to raise the standard of driving, not produce ever more signage. We need fewer speed limits not more. We have 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 mph, and this is totally over the top.

Cllr Bull says the worst offenders in his 20 mph area are local residents. There is evidence to suggest this is so in my ward too. Many people are resistant to the 20 mph limit because they don't see the need. It is local residents who elect us so we ought to start listening to them.

It is well known that the Government's own independent survey of 20 mph speed limits found they made no discernible difference to road safety. Why then are we spending millions of pounds on this vote loser?

Cllr Frank Andrews (Con), Fylde Council

E&E | Devon County Council carries out major review of 20mph zones in Exeter

Thursday 31 October 2013

Devon County Council carries out major review of 20mph zones in Exeter

By Exeter Express and Echo  |  Posted: October 30, 2013

Devon County Council carries out major review of 20 mph zones in Exeter

Many, according to Paul Bull, city councillor for Cowick, were not compliant with Department for  Transport guidelines and were thus unenforceable.

Now, however, the county council has advertised a new traffic order for them and residents have until November 7 to comment on the scope of them.

A spokesman for the county council said: “Having carried out a city wide review of 20mph limits and zones we have advertised a new traffic order. This order is purely to make simple changes to ensure that the TRO is updated to reflect what is on site.

“Where a limit is proposed to be removed from the historical order, this is because a 20mph limit or zone has not been signed on site and speeds are already very low (generally below 20mph) due to the roads affected being short or cul de sac style, so there is no need for a 20mph limit to be signed on site.

“This is in line with the county council’s aim not to add signing clutter to the network, especially where there isn’t a key justification.

“We are inviting comments on this proposed order which must be submitted by November 7.”

The spokesman added that in Devon a 20mph speed limit or zone can be considered in cases where all or most of the following apply:

• It is used by high numbers of pedestrians and cyclists

• Where there is a speed-related casualty record

• Where average speeds are already low or traffic calming will be introduced

• Where signing and traffic calming will not damage the environment and

• a school travel plan supports the proposal.

Paul Bull, city councillor for Cowick, has been campaigning for a 20mph limit in all residential streets and said: “Some two years ago, the Government changed the regulations so that as long as the zone had one physical traffic calming measure the others could be replaced by a 20mph repeater roundel or a 20mph carrriageway roundel. Even despite this relaxation, many, if not all zones within Exeter, were not meeting the regulations, so were not compliant with the legislation and able to be enforced.

“Pressure by myself and others have forced the county council to carry out an audit to see which zones were legal.

“I’ve heard from the county council that the contractors have finished the Broadway zone, but when I followed up around there I found several stretches where there was more than 100m between physical calming measures and/or zones. So they are still not compliant or enforceable.

“Also as a consequence of the audit they found that several road where not signed properly.

“In Cowick this covered Franklyn Drive and Orchard Gardens.

“For various reasons, the county council has decided to approach each of these streets in a different manner – put in the proper signs along Franklyn Drive because there are some speed humps in place; officers think that drivers could never go above 20mph in Orchard Gardens and so have decided not to put up signs, and let it revert back to 30mph ‘by virtue of street lighting’.

“This upsets me. For more than two years I have been saying that all residential roads – other than the major routes of Cowick Lane, Buddle Lane and Dunsford Road – are 20mph. This is what I had been told was the case, now due to errors in the past this will not be the case in the future."

Some more thoughts on 20 mph zones in Exeter

Once again, I've been contacted by people about the recent official advert in a recent Express and Echo  relating to the new Traffic Regulation Order, Devon County Council (Various Roads, Exeter) (20 mph Zones and Limits) Order

Some have asked Devon County Council about the difference between 20 mph zones and limits - here's DCC's response:

20mph limits are:

“introduced on roads where speeds are already low and generally traffic calming features are not needed”.

And 20mph zones are: 

“usually introduced in Urban Areas over several streets and normally be supported by traffic calming in order to make vehicles speeds self-enforcing to 20mph. In a 20mph zone there is also no need to sign or light traffic calming features, which would otherwise have a negative impact on the residential street scene”.

In Devon a 20mph Speed Limit or Zone can be considered in cases where all or most of the following apply:-

• - used by high numbers of pedestrians and cyclists

• - where there is a speed-related casualty record.

• - where average speeds are already low or traffic calming will be introduced.

• - where signing and traffic calming will not damage the environment.

• - a School Travel Plan supports the proposal.

Interested in what they said constituted a 20mph zone!

Especially "In a 20mph zone there is also no need to sign or light traffic calming features, which would otherwise have a negative impact on the residential street scene” as it is only by increasing physical traffic calming measures and/or street signage is the ONLY way DCC can make 20 mph zones compliant and able to be enforced

When they were first introduced (in Cowick in 2000)20 mph zones needed 

(1) a gateway sign at each and every entrance to the zone

(2) physical traffic calming measures (humps, chicanes, bends greater than 70 degrees, etc) no more than 50m from any point within the zone - in practice that means no more than 100m between any physical traffic calming measure

This is of course very expensive so some 2 years ago, the Govt changed the regulations so that as long as the zone had ONE physical traffic calming measure, the others could be replaced by a 20mph repeater roundel or a 20mph carrriageway roundel.

Even despite this relaxation, many if not all zones within Exeter, were not meeting the regulations, so were not compliant with the legislation and able to be enforced.

Pressure by myself and others have forced DCC to carry out an audit to see which zones care legal.

On this audit, DCC have said:

 “Having carried out a city wide review of 20mph  limits and zones we have advertised a  new traffic order. This order is purely to make simple changes to ensure that the TRO is updated to reflect what is on site. 

Where a limit is proposed to be removed from the historical order, this is because a 20mph limit or zone has not been signed on site and speeds are already very low (generally below 20mph) due to the roads affected being short/cul de sac style, so there is no need for a 20mph limit to be signed on site. 

This is in line with the County Council’s aim not to add signing clutter to the network, especially where there isn’t a key justification. We are inviting comments on this proposed order which must be submitted by 7 November.”

I've heard from DCC that the contractors have finished the Broadway zone, but when I followed up around there I found several stretches where there was more than 100m between physical calming measures and/or zones. So they are STILL not compliant or enforceble

So as  a consequence of the audit they found that several road where not signed properly since the zones were introduced (in Cowick's case, since 2000)

In Cowick this covered Franklyn Drive and Orchard Gardens

For various reasons, DCC have decided to approach each of these streets in a different manner - put in the proper signs along Franklyn Drive because there are some speed humps in place; officers think that drivers could never go above 20mph in Orchard Gardens and so have decided not to put up signs, and let it revert back to 30mph "by virtue of street lighting"

This upsets me - for over 2 years I have been saying that ALL residential roads - other than the major routes of Cowick Lane, Buddle Lane and Dunsford Road - are 20 mph. This is what I had been told WAS the case - now due to errors in the past this will not be the case in the future.

I'm sure there are similar cases all around Exeter. 

I've also seen some correspondence from DCC which suggests that 20 mph can be enforce even if all the roads within a 20mph are not compliant - I am not convinced of that argument and would not like to see it pursued in a court of law.

Minutes on the Notice of Motion on the Energy Bill Revolution

In presenting the Notice of Motion, Councillor Bull stated that the country was facing an energy bill crisis, with millions of people nationwide struggling to heat their homes. It was estimated that 5,957 families in Exeter were currently in fuel poverty meaning that these households need to spend more than 10% of their income on keeping their homes warm. It was projected that by 2016 one in three households would be in fuel poverty. The two main reasons for this crisis were the high price of gas, oil and coal and that the UK’s homes were some of the most energy inefficient in Europe. This meant they cost much more than they should to heat and power and cold homes were damaging the health of vulnerable members of society and costing the NHS nearly one billion pounds each year.

Councillor Bull stated the answer was for the Government to use the money it received from carbon taxes to help make homes super-energy efficient. The Government must provide more funding from carbon taxes to help combat climate change. The current Green Deal had failed and, at its current take up rate could take 160 years for all of the UK's housing to benefit. Over the next 15 years the Government would raise an average of £4 billion every year in carbon taxes. If the Government recycled this carbon revenue back to households, it could provide billions of pounds to help insulate the UK’s homes.

There would be enough carbon tax revenue to treat 600,000 fuel poor households every year and help them potentially reduce their energy bills by an average £310 a year. Recycling carbon revenue to make homes super-energy efficient could bring 9 out of 10 homes out of fuel poverty and quadruple savings in carbon emissions compared to the Government’s new energy efficiency schemes and create up to 200,000 jobs which would help economic recovery. The Energy Revolution Bill was a public alliance, made up of over 150 major organisations supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party and the Big Six Energy companies.

Councillor Pearson, in seconding the motion, referred to the fact that one in five households were in fuel poverty and that hardworking people were forced to choose between warm homes or hot food. The Council had already invested in energy saving measures for their tenants by installing Solar Panels and this Energy Revolution Bill would help aid investment in new technologies to bring hard working people out of fuel poverty.

Some Councillors felt that the proposals in the Energy Revolution Bill were unworkable and that the Government was taking steps to help the hardworking people out of fuel poverty by ensuring that there was competition in the energy market and that ensuring that Energy Companies put customers on their lowest tariff.

In supporting the motion, other Councillors felt that the £4 billion raised by carbon taxes could be better spent to address fuel poverty in Exeter and beyond. Whilst recognising the measures that the Council had undertaken by installing Solar Panels on its council houses and civic buildings and its commitment to District Heating Systems, there was a need for pressure to be put on the Government to address fuel poverty and increase energy efficiency measures.

Councillor Bull, in response, stated that over150 organisations and 201 MPs from all parties were supporting this Energy Revolution Bill but Exeter's MPs were absent from the list. The Bill was about using the carbon taxes currently collected by the Government and redirect them to tackle fuel poverty. He asked Members to support this motion.

In accordance with Standing Order 27 (1), a named vote on the Motion was called for, as follows:

Voting for:

Councillors Bialyk, Branston, Brock, Bull, Clark, Crew, Denham, The Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Edwards, Fullam, Laws, The Right Worshipful the Mayor, Councillor Macdonald, Martin, Mitchell, Morris, Newby, Owen, Payne, Pearson, Robson, Ruffle, Sheldon, Spackman, Sutton, Tippins, Wardle and Winterbottom

(28 Members)

Voting against:

Councillors Baldwin, Donovan and Mrs Henson

(3 Members)

Abstain:

Councillors Crow, Leadbetter, Mottram, Prowse and Shiel

(5 Members)

The Notice of Motion was carried.