This item has a 15 minute time limit in total.

The head petitioner will speak to Council for a maximum of 5 minutes at the start of this item.

Council is asked to consider a petition meeting the criteria for debate under the Council’s petitions scheme in line with the procedure for large petitions.

The full text of the petition is contained in the accompanying report of the Acting Head of Law and Governance.

The petition proposes:

Homeless people sleeping rough in Oxford have been issued with threats of fines of up to £2,500 just for having their sleeping bags and possessions in shop doorways. ………..

The council must withdraw these threats of fines, and stop issuing them to homeless people now.

This is the petition motion.

If a Councillor wishes to put a substantive motion/recommendation on a petition that differs from the proposal in the petition then they must submit this by 10.00am on the working day before the full Council meeting. These are then published in the Council briefing note. Any amendments to these must be submitted by 11.00am on the day of the meeting.

Council is recommended to:

·         hear the head petitioner for the petition;

·         debate the proposal to the Council contained within the petition (above) and/ or;

·         debate any motions submitted by councillors; and

·         decide the action it wishes to take.

Councillor Turner arrived during this item.

Council considered a petition meeting the criteria for debate under the Council’s petitions scheme in line with the procedure for large petitions stating Homeless people sleeping rough in Oxford have been issued with threats of fines of up to £2,500 just for having their sleeping bags and possessions in shop doorways. ……….. The council must withdraw these threats of fines, and stop issuing them to homeless people now.

At the start of this agenda item the Lord Mayor asked for and Council agreed to an extension of time for debate to 30 minutes.

In response to the petition, Council considered a motion proposed by Councillor Gant and seconded by Councillor Thomas (subsequently amended by the proposer) and an amendment to this proposed by Councillor Hayes and seconded by Councillor Rowley.

Councillor Thomas thanked the petitioner for organising the petition and requesting the debate.

Councillor Hayes commended the officers working with homeless people and on the streets and thanked them for their professionalism. He explained the current process for issuing these Community Protection Notices.

Councillors briefly debated the work undertaken with the street homeless and rough sleepers, and the issues around balancing the needs of this community and the wider public and business community in the city.

After debate, and on being put to the vote, Councillor Hayes’ amendment was declared carried.

After debate, and on being put to the vote, the motion as amended was declared carried.

 Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

1.    This Council believes that all Oxford residents, whether living in houses, in hostels or on our streets, have the right to be treated with dignity and without discrimination.

2.    Council notes the good work done by Council officers and voluntary organisations to support homeless residents in this city

3.    Council takes note of the Petition signed by more than 1,800 people, calling for the reopening of Lucy Faithfull House and accepts that the Petition shows a powerful concern by Oxford citizens for community cohesion and for a better way of life for those on our streets.

4.    Community Protection Notices (CPNs) are used to address unreasonable behaviour that is detrimental and persistent. Fire hazards in a central Oxford street with a high footfall are detrimental to everyone working in the building and people in the vicinity if there was an incident. In the case referred to in the petition, Council welcomes the judgement of officers that the fire safety of people working within the building should take precedence.”

5.    Council acknowledges that all enforcement decisions are taken on a case by case basis, in accordance with the Council’s Corporate Enforcement Policy which place a requirement on council officers to resolve cases using the lowest possible intervention suitable to circumstances of the case. Contrary to recent publicity, only the court can fine a person for breaching a CPN. This Council is not taking anyone to court.

This Council recognises there may indeed be circumstances where issuing a CPN is necessary and in order to provide sufficient checks and balances, this Council requests that the City Executive Board review the process with a view to including appropriate checks such as:

·         No CPN should be issued by a Council employee (or contracted staff) without a dual sign-off, one from either the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive or a Director, and the other from the Head of Law and Governance; and that

·         Before signing, the signatories must continue to satisfy themselves that the CPN is considered, appropriate, proportional, and humane and that all other reasonable courses of action have been explored, as already happens.