Agenda item - Notices of Motion.

(a)               A return to the Committee System of Governance for Brighton & Hove City Council.  Proposed by Councillor Mitchell (copy attached).

 

(b)              Housing Benefit.  Proposed by Councillor Randall (copy attached).

 

(c)               Opposing Cuts and ‘Intelligent Commissioning’ as the Response.  Proposed by Councillor Kitcat (copy attached).

(a)               A Return to the Committee System of Governance for Brighton & Hove City Council

 

18.1         The Notice of Motion as detailed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Marsh.

 

18.2         Councillor Peltzer Dunn moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Simson, which was accepted by Councillor Mitchell.

 

18.3         The Mayor then put the following Notice of Motion as amended to the vote:

 

“In its document ‘The Coalition: our programme for government’ published in May 2010, the new government states;

 

“We will allow councils to return to the committee system, should they wish to do so.”

 

Prior to its implementation in 2008, all political parties represented on Brighton & Hove City Council were opposed to the Leader and Cabinet System and accordingly this council:

 

·         Reaffirms its desire to return to the committee system of governance, provided there is significant local support from residents to do so following proper consultation;

 

·         Requests the Chief Executive of the Council to write to the Minister with responsibility for Communities and Local Government asking when the required legislation will be forthcoming and seekingclarification of the process to be followed.”

 

18.4         The motion was carried.

 

 

(b)              Housing Benefit

 

18.5         The Notice of Motion as detailed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Randall and seconded by Councillor Wrighton.

 

18.6         Councillor Simpson moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Hawkes, which was accepted by Councillor Randall.

 

18.7         Councillor Alford moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Caulfield, which was not accepted by Councillor Randall.

 

            Motion to terminate the meeting:

 

18.8         The Mayor noted that the meeting had been in session for four hours and in accordance with Procedure Rule 17, was required to move a closure motion to effectively terminate the meeting.

 

18.9         Members of the Council asked for clarification in regard to the motion and how it would affect the treatment of the current item under debate and other remaining items.

 

18.10    The Monitoring Officer noted that it was the first Council meeting to operate under the revised procedures and that the Mayor was now required move the motion to terminate the meeting once the meeting had been in progress for four hours.  In so doing, a vote was then required to determine whether the council wished to agree to the motion or to refuse it.  If the motion was approved, then any current item under discussion would be put directly to the vote.  Following this, the Mayor would then ask the movers of any other items if they wished to withdraw the item or have it voted upon.  If the motion was lost, the meeting would then continue in the usual way until such time as all the remaining items were dealt with or a further closure motion was moved and carried.

 

18.11    Councillor Kitcat requested that a recorded vote be taken on the motion moved by the Mayor, which was supported by a sufficient number of Members.

 

18.12    The Mayor noted that a recorded vote had been requested and put the motion to terminate the meeting to the vote:

 

	NAME	For	Against	Abstain
Cllr	Alford	ü
	Allen		x
	Barnett	ü
	Bennett	ü
	Brown	ü
	Carden	ü
	Caulfield	ü
	Cobb		x
	Davey	Absent
	Davis	ü
	Deane	ü
	Drake	ü
	Duncan		x
	Elgood		x
	Fallon-Khan	ü
	Fryer		x
	Hamilton	ü
	Harmer-Strange	ü
	Hawkes	ü
	Hyde	ü
	Janio	ü
	Kemble	ü
	Kennedy		x
	Kitcat		x
	Lepper	ü
	Marsh	ü
	McCaffery	ü
	Meadows	ü
	Mears	ü
	Mitchell	ü
	Morgan	ü
	Norman, Ann	ü
	Norman, Ken	ü
	Older	ü
	Oxley	ü
	Peltzer Dunn	ü
	Phillips		x
	Pidgeon		x
	Randall		x
	Rufus		x
	Simpson	ü
	Simson	ü
	Smart	ü
	Smith	ü
	Steedman		x
	Theobald, Carol	ü
	Theobald, Geoffrey	ü
	Turton	Absent
	Wakefield-Jarrett		x
	Watkins		x
	Wells	ü
	West		x
	Wrighton		x
	Young	ü
	Total	36	16

 

 

18.13    The motion was carried.

 

18.14    The Mayor noted that the motion had been carried and therefore returned to Item 18(b) which had been under discussion and noted that the amendment moved by Councillor Alford had not been accepted by Councillor Randall and therefore put the proposed amendment to the vote, which was carried.

 

18.15    The Mayor then put the following Notice of Motion as amended to the vote:

 

“This council recalls the period in the 1990s when Housing Benefit changes led to a crisis in rough sleeping and homelessness.

 

It acknowledges the excellent work of the city housing team, Brighton Housing Trust, the Sussex Central YMCA, CRI and others who have dramatically reduced the problems.

 

Furthermore, this Council recognises that significant cuts in public expenditure are required over the coming years in order to address the huge deficit bequeathed by the previous Labour Government which has left every man, woman and child in the country owing £22,400.

 

The Coalition Government’s recent proposals to cut Housing Benefit from October 2011 could have a profound effect on Brighton and Hove, a city with double (24 per cent) the national average of private rented housing and a critical shortage of social housing as well as being one of the most expensive areas in the UK to live.  However, until further details of the proposals emerge, it is difficult to predict the impact with any certainty.  This will also depend to a large extent upon other unpredictable variables such as landlord behaviour, tenant behaviour, the wider housing market and unemployment levels.

 

This council notes that cuts in housing benefit made by the Conservative and Lib Dem Government will unfairly hit the poorest families and individuals of our City the hardest. The poorest 10% of households in the Country will see their income cut by more than one fifth, the second poorest group earning below £16,900 will see the largest cuts at 13.6% of their income and the richest will see a cut of just 3.6%.

 

This council requests that a report setting out the impact of these cuts to Housing Benefit claimants in Brighton and Hove be brought to Cabinet as soon as possible with proposals for shaping local support services accordingly and how the recently produced Housing Strategy will be adapted to also reflect this.

 

This council therefore resolves to:

1.      continue to work with the City’s MP’s and the new Coalition Government to minimise any potential negative impacts of the proposed changes to Housing Benefit; and

 

2.      continue the good work in housing strategy where our excellent relationship with private sector landlords and other partners will minimise the impact of any changes.

 

18.16    The motion was carried.

 

 

(c)       Opposing Cuts and ‘Intelligent Commissioning’ as the Response

 

18.17    The Notice of Motion as detailed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Kitcat and seconded by Councillor Duncan.

 

18.18    Councillor Mitchell moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Allen, which was accepted by Councillor Kitcat.

 

18.19    The Mayor then put the following Notice of Motion as amended to the vote:

 

“This Council notes with dismay the cuts imposed upon it by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government, amounting to £3.55 million within the current financial year. These cuts will hit services to all residents, but particularly the most vulnerable and those least able to lose the support of our public servants.

 

Local government including this Council, has continued to deliver annual efficiency savings and so played no part in causing the current national government’s budgetary deficit. These cuts unfairly penalise this Council, put public sector jobs at risk and threaten important programmes including Connexions, housing benefit and road safety improvements.

 

This Council deplores the Government’s willingness to hand down swingeing cuts without providing any additional powers to raise funds in a fairer way than the regressive council tax system.

 

This Council also notes the Conservative Administration’s stated desire to adopt a process of outsourcing and privatisation labelled ‘Intelligent Commissioning’.

 

This Council expresses full confidence in its staff and would wish to protect their pay and conditions. It expresses concerns in respect of ‘Intelligent Commissioning’ which it feels risks:

 

·         Wasting time and resources on lengthy tendering processes;

 

·         Outsourcing services to private firms who will place profit ahead of public service;

 

·         A hugely negative impact on staff morale.

 

With less than a year until local elections, this Council questions the timing of this restructure and the political mandate for its implementation.

 

This Council also refutes the need for the high salaries of the new strategic directors proposed for this restructure.

 

However, this council notes that during discussions on the restructure at Cabinet both the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive indicated that public services will not be further privatised under the guise of ‘Intelligent Commissioning’ and call on them to;

 

·         Restate this principle and include it within any further officer reports coming to Cabinet or Council meetings;

 

·         Ensure that any future reports will contain an express willingness to seriously consider and evaluate Co-operative, Social Enterprise and other ‘mutual’ models of service delivery within any new commissioning strategy;

 

·         Make available to all Elected Members the comments and opinions of members of staff, unions and other stakeholders that were forwarded as part of the consultation on the proposed new commissioning model.

 

This Council requests that:

 

·         The Leader & Chief Executive reconsider their approach to restructuring the Council;

 

·         The Chief Executive write to Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, requesting he reconsider the huge cuts imposed on this Council;

 

·         The Chief Executive write to the city’s three MPs asking them to support the council’s request to the Secretary of State Eric Pickles to reconsider the cuts he has imposed.

 

18.20    The Mayor noted that the vote was tied at 26 for and 26 against and in the absence of a casting vote being used by the Mayor, the status-quo remained and the motion was lost.