South Gloucestershire Council votes on 'poverty premium' notion
The vote, which was passed, could mean the poorest residents in the region could be automatically put onto the cheapest energy tariffs
The poorest tenants in South Gloucestershire could be automatically put onto the cheapest energy tariffs after the council passed a motion to fight “poverty premium”.
Councillors voted in favour of a set of proposals to tackle the problem, which is where residents on the lowest incomes are forced to pay more for essential services such as household bills, loans, insurance and even their own money at cash machines.
The Lib Dem motion was backed by Labour while opposition Conservatives abstained saying they supported it in principle but that it lacked details, such as the cost of the work to the local authority and officer time required.
A full council meeting of South Gloucestershire Council was told one in five households in the district suffered poverty premium, having to fork out an average of £400 more each year – collectively nearly £9million in total – than their more affluent neighbours.
Expensive pre-paid meters, problems getting credit and a complete lack of free-to-use cash machines in some local wards were among the issues making the situation worse, members heard.
Council leader Lib Dem Cllr Claire Young said: “We cannot stand idle while a significant portion of our community is unfairly burdened with extra costs.”
Cllr Chris Davies (Lib Dem, Thornbury), who tabled the proposals, said: “The passage of this motion marks our resolve to create a more level playing field for all residents.
“It is high time the Government takes meaningful action to ensure that economic status does not dictate the cost of essential services.”
Cabinet member for cost of living, equalities and public health Cllr Alison Evans (Labour, Woodstock) told the meeting that people without access to a car were more likely to shop at corner shops than cheaper supermarkets and that they also bought a higher proportion of processed food which cost less.
She said: “Poverty premium leads to unhealthy children and unhealthy families.”
The council condemned the Government for doing too little to tackle poverty premium and called on ministers to address the additional costs for the poorest residents urgently, including instructing Cllr Young to write to Whitehall.
The motion also committed the council to take local action, including working with social and private landlords to ensure every tenant is placed automatically onto the cheapest suitable energy tariff, collaborate with ATM providers and insurers and explore local alternative credit and banking options.
Labour and the Lib Dems, who run the authority in coalition, voted down a request from the Tories to defer the plans until the next full council.
Cllr Rachael Hunt (Conservative, Emersons Green) told the meeting on Wednesday, October 18: “While we agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of this motion, it would benefit from a bit of further thought and input from officers, community groups and stakeholders.”
She said its recommendations were “vague” and did not appear tailored to address specific problems in South Gloucestershire, while there was no indication of the resources needed.
Cllr Ben Burton (Conservative, Frenchay & Downend) said: “My fear is that the rushed nature of this motion with insufficient details has the potential to inadvertently harm vital services or activities that are supporting the most vulnerable in our communities.
“The aims are supported across the chamber but I am still unclear how they are to be achieved and the impact this would have on the council.”
Tory group leader Cllr Sam Bromiley said: “I’m disappointed that no consideration was given to deferring the motion because the lack of financial information alone means any councillor should think twice before supporting something with no known costs, especially when you are telling residents there is no money and you are bringing in new charges.
“It’s a shame we cannot defer so we can strengthen the actions.
“Poverty premium is a real issue and this motion fails to grasp that this isn’t a Conservative Government problem – simply writing an angry letter does nothing for residents in our community.”