Agenda item - The following Notices of Motion have been submitted by Members for consideration:

(a)          Housing & Planning Bill.  Proposed by Councillor Meadows (copy attached).

 

(b)          Trade Union Bill.  Proposed by Councillor Atkinson (copy attached).

 

(c)          Multiple Births.  Proposed by Councillor Taylor (copy attached).

 

(d)          PaybyPhone Parking Scheme.  Proposed by Councillor Janio (copy attached).

 

(e)          Boosting Alcohol Related Policing and Prevention.  Proposed by Councillor Deane (copy attached).

 

(f)           Payments for High-Value Council Housing.  Proposed by Councillor Gibson (copy attached).

69.1         Prior to the consideration of the item, the Mayor noted that the Notices of Motion listed as items 69 (a) and 69 (f) in the agenda related to the Housing & Planning Bill.  As such she was minded to take both motions in one debate and to then hold separate votes on each one.

 

(a)             Housing & Planning Bill

 

69.2         The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Meadows and seconded by Councillor Cattell.

 

69.3         Councillor Cattell stated that she had worked in local government for a number of years and had not seen such an onslaught on the planning system as was the case today.  She could not see who would be able to afford the average price of a home which now stood at £250k outside of London; and yet the Government planned to require councils to sell-off homes and pay an amount to the Government.  She had recently attended a planning summit and many there had expressed concerns about the Bill which was regarded as being ill-thought out and fundamentally flawed.  She therefore hoped that the motion would be supported.

 

69.4         The Mayor congratulated Councillor Cattell on her maiden speech on behalf of the council.

 

(f)              Payments for High-value Council Housing

 

69.5         The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Gibson and seconded by Councillor Phillips.

 

69.6         Councillor Gibson noted that under the right to buy scheme the council had lost around 1,400 properties and was now going to be required to make a payment to the Government on the assumption that it would sell a number of properties.  He did not believe that central government should be controlling council housing and that of Housing Associations who would also be affected.  He suggested that there was a need to get the Bill amended and to enable councils to retain the receipts from sales so that they could replace lost properties.

 

69.7         Councillor Miller noted that there were families living in accommodation that was too small for their needs, whilst others were living in accommodation that was too large.  There was a need to encourage people to move out of large three-bedroom properties so that they became available for those families in need of such accommodation.  It was a situation that would not be found in the private sector and by enabling receipts from right to buy to go into starter homes; it would enable younger people to get onto the property ladder.   He also suggested that there were people living in council homes that could live in the private sector which would then release properties to those in need.  The properties that were sold-off did not disappear and would remain part of the housing market.

 

69.8         Councillor G. Theobald stated that the Government had made it clear that it was committed to seeing every home that was sold under right to buy replaced by another. He therefore supported the Bill and the need to reinvigorate the housing market.

 

69.9         Councillor Mears stated that the number of properties that would be affected by the Bill was not known and suggested that it was a matter of choice which would enable people to own their own homes.

 

69.10      Councillor Taylor stated that the intention was to enable people to fulfil their own aspirations and to own their own homes, which was something that should be encouraged.

 

69.11      Councillor Bewick stated that since right to buy had been introduced more than 35,000 council properties had been sold and only 4,000 had been built to replace them.  In the last year alone 12,320 had been sold and only 1,863 started or acquired to replace them.  He was yet to see how a like for like replacement would be achieved.

 

69.12      Councillor Meadows questioned why people who had lived all their lives in a family home should be asked to leave that home.  She also noted that the majority of homes sold to private landlords under right to buy had been converted into houses for multiple occupation rather than kept as a family home.

 

69.13      Councillor Gibson stated that council housing was not subsidised and the fundamental point of the Green Group’s notice of motion was that local authorities should decide what happens to council housing and not central government.

 

69.14      The Mayor then put the following motion 69 (a) to the vote:

 

“This council notes that the Housing and Planning Bill, if passed, would threaten the provision of affordable homes for rent and to buy in the city through:

 

·           forcing 'high-value' council homes to be sold on the open market;

·           extending the right-to-buy to housing association tenants; and

·           undermining section 106 requirements on private developers to provide affordable homes.

 

This council resolves to ask the Chief Executive:

 

(1)        to write to the Secretary of State expressing its concerns about the Bill; and

 

(2)       to set up an urgent meeting between the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive with the local Members of Parliament to raise our concerns.

 

69.15      The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried by 33 votes to 16 with 1 abstention as detailed below:

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen	?				Mac Cafferty	?
Atkinson	?				Marsh	?
Barford	?				Meadows	?
Barnett	Absent				Mears		X
Barradell	?				Miller		X
Bell		X			Mitchell	?
Bennett		X			Moonan	?
Bewick	?				Morgan	?
Brown		X			Morris	?
Cattell	?				Nemeth		X
Chapman	?				A Norman		X
Cobb		X			K Norman		X
Daniel	?				O’Quinn	?
Deane	?				Page	Absent
Druitt	?				Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson	?				Penn	?
Gilbey	?				Phillips	?
Greenbaum	?				Robins	?
Hamilton	?				Simson		X
Hill	?				Sykes	?
Horan	?				Taylor		X
Hyde			Ab		C Theobald		X
Inkpin-Leissner	?				G Theobald		X
Janio		X			Wares		X
Knight	?				Wealls		X
Lewry		X			West	?
Littman	?				Yates	?
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	33	16	1

 

69.16      The motion was carried.

 

69.17      The Mayor then put the following motion 69 (f) to the vote:

 

“This council notes proposals in the Housing and Planning Bill for Local Housing Authorities to be required to consider selling high value housing as it becomes vacant, and for a payment to be made to the Secretary of State of the market value of such housing, whether or not any sale is made.

The council further notes that if this money is lost to Brighton and Hove it could severely impair the council’s ability to build affordable housing to tackle the growing housing crisis in the city.  This council therefore;

 

(1)       Requests the Chief Executive to write to the Housing Minister, expressing its support for the principle that councils should decide on how many of their empty properties are sold off and that any payments to the Secretary of State be made only after sufficient funds have been set aside to repay debt and replace the council property with an equivalent at the same rents;

 

(2)       Agrees that the council will issue an immediate press release to publicise this decision.”

 

69.18      The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried by 33 votes to 17 with 1 abstention as detailed below:

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen	?				Mac Cafferty	?
Atkinson	?				Marsh	?
Barford	?				Meadows	?
Barnett	Absent				Mears		X
Barradell	?				Miller		X
Bell		X			Mitchell	?
Bennett		X			Moonan	?
Bewick	?				Morgan	?
Brown		X			Morris	?
Cattell	?				Nemeth		X
Chapman	?				A Norman		X
Cobb		X			K Norman		X
Daniel	?				O’Quinn	?
Deane	?				Page	Absent
Druitt	?				Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson	?				Penn	?
Gilbey	?				Phillips	?
Greenbaum	?				Robins	?
Hamilton	?				Simson		X
Hill	?				Sykes	?
Horan	?				Taylor		X
Hyde			Ab		C Theobald		X
Inkpin-Leissner	?				G Theobald		X
Janio		X			Wares		X
Knight	?				Wealls		X
Lewry		X			West	?
Littman	?				Yates	?
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	33	17	1

 

69.19      The motion was carried.

 

69.20      Prior to the consideration of the next item, Councillor G. Theobald asked for clarification in terms of the validity of the motion, in having regard to the position of the proposer and a potential conflict of interest as a member of a trade union.

 

69.21      The Monitoring Officer stated that under the Council’s code of conduct the membership of a trade union could be made as a declaration of interest under the membership of a voluntary organisation.  The nature of the declaration would also depend upon the financial aspects of any membership which may then affect the ability of a Member to take part and vote in a debate.  He also noted that any declaration of interest was for each individual Member to decide although advice could be sought from officers and a declaration made prior to an item being taken.  In regard to the next item, he was not aware of any interest that would prevent the Member from speaking or voting on the item.

 

(b)             Trade Union Bill

 

69.22      The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Atkinson and seconded by Councillor Gilbey.

 

69.23      Councillor Atkinson stated that he wished to clarify that he was a member of UNISON at the Sussex Partnership Trust and held a non-paid role there.  He wished to apologise for any confusion caused which had not been his intention. 

 

69.24      In regard to the actual motion, he believed that the Bill would result in a fundamental change in relations between trade unions and employers.  Rather than enabling them to have good working relations, where unions can be a critical friend and help to take on board changes, it was likely to be more adversarial.  Whereas unions currently offered advice and were there to help find ways to save money; this was unlikely to continue.  He believed that many employer organisations and councils in the region had expressed concerns about the Bill and hoped that the motion would be supported.  He also confirmed that he was happy to accept the Green Group’s amendment.

 

69.25      The Mayor congratulated Councillor Atkinson on his maiden speech on behalf of the council.

 

69.26      Councillor Gilbey stated that she had been a UNISON member and was currently a member of the GMB.  She believed it was an unnecessary Bill and one that would damage relations given the level of restrictions that would be imposed and effectively turned the clock back.

 

69.27      Councillor Mac Cafferty moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group and stated that it was a piece of legislation that was ideologically driven and sought to end the collective bargaining process that was essential for social justice in the workplace.

 

69.28      Councillor Littman formally seconded the amendment.

 

69.29      Councillor Janio stated that the intention was to return the control of unions to their members and enable them to choose how to inter-act with their employers.  It also gave the members the choice to opt in or not in regard to making political donations and was the right way forward, so he could not support the motion.

 

69.30      Councillor G. Theobald stated that he had to disagree with the Monitoring Officer on this occasion and felt that there was a conflict of interest.  He also noted that there had been a high number of disputes both within the council and across the country so could not accept that unions provided a good working relationship with employers.  He also questioned the cost of union officials and the amount of time off that was granted to union reps.

 

69.31      Councillor Bell stated that he believed the Bill was fair and reasonable and provided control to local working people so that they had a choice in regard to how matters were taken forward.

 

69.32      Councillor Atkinson noted the comments and stated that he believed trade unions of today were modern and open and that elements of the Bill could be positive.  However, it was unnecessary and should not be taken forward.

 

69.33      The Mayor then put the following motion as amended 69 (b) to the vote:

 

“This Council notes with concern the Trade Union Bill which would adversely affect this Council’s relationship with its trade unions and its workforce.

 

This Council recognises the positive contribution that trade unions and trade union members make in the workplace. The Council values the constructive relationship that it has with the trade unions and recognises their commitment, and that of staff, to the delivery of good quality public services in Brighton and Hove.

 

This Council is content with the arrangements currently in place for deducting trade union membership subscriptions through payroll. This is an important part of maintaining positive industrial relations and a simple way to administer a system that supports employees. This system is an administrative matter for the Council and should not be interfered with by the Government in Westminster.   

 

This council resolves to:

 

·                Request the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stating the Council’s opposition to the Government’s Trade Union Bill.

 

·                Request the Policy & Resources Committee to continue the council’s own locally agreed industrial relations strategy, take every measure possible to maintain its autonomy and;

 

(i)        To maintain the current facility that recognised trade unions can have subscriptions deducted through payroll, unless legally obliged not to, in which case the Council will support trade unions’ efforts to move members onto direct debit.

(ii)       Maintain an adequate level of release time for Trade Union representatives.

 

·                Support the Heart Unions week of action on 8-14 February 2016.”

 

69.34      The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried by 33 votes to 17 with 1 abstention as detailed below:

 

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen	?				Mac Cafferty	?
Atkinson	?				Marsh	?
Barford	?				Meadows	?
Barnett	Absent				Mears		X
Barradell	?				Miller		X
Bell		X			Mitchell	?
Bennett		X			Moonan	?
Bewick	?				Morgan	?
Brown		X			Morris	?
Cattell	?				Nemeth		X
Chapman	?				A Norman		X
Cobb		X			K Norman		X
Daniel	?				O’Quinn	?
Deane	?				Page	Absent
Druitt	?				Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson	?				Penn	?
Gilbey	?				Phillips	?
Greenbaum	?				Robins	?
Hamilton	?				Simson		X
Hill	?				Sykes	?
Horan	?				Taylor		X
Hyde			Ab		C Theobald		X
Inkpin-Leissner	?				G Theobald		X
Janio		X			Wares		X
Knight	?				Wealls		X
Lewry		X			West	?
Littman	?				Yates	?
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	33	17	1

 

69.35      The motion was carried.

 

Closure Motion

 

69.36      The Mayor noted that the meeting had been in session for 4 hours and in accordance with council procedure rules had to move a motion to terminate the meeting.  She therefore put the motion to the vote which was lost by 22 votes to 26 with 2 abstentions as detailed below:

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen			Ab		Mac Cafferty		X
Atkinson	?				Marsh	?
Barford	?				Meadows	?
Barnett	Absent				Mears		X
Barradell	?				Miller		X
Bell		X			Mitchell	?
Bennett		X			Moonan	?
Bewick	?				Morgan	?
Brown		X			Morris	?
Cattell	?				Nemeth		X
Chapman	?				A Norman		X
Cobb		X			K Norman		X
Daniel	?				O’Quinn	?
Deane		X			Page	Absent
Druitt		X			Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson		X			Penn	?
Gilbey		X			Phillips		X
Greenbaum		X			Robins	?
Hamilton	?				Simson		X
Hill	?				Sykes	?
Horan	?				Taylor		X
Hyde			Ab		C Theobald		X
Inkpin-Leissner	?				G Theobald		X
Janio		X			Wares		X
Knight		X			Wealls		X
Lewry		X			West		X
Littman		X			Yates	?
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	22	27	2 6

 

69.37      The motion was lost.

 

(c)             Multiple Births

 

69.38      The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor A. Norman.

 

69.39      Councillor Taylor stated that as a triplet he was acutely aware of the high rates for still births and neonatal deaths associated with multiple births.  He hoped that by highlighting this issue it would enable further work to be undertaken and improvements made to support those women carrying multiple babies and the babies themselves after their birth.  He was also happy to accept the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment but could not agree with the Green Group’s amendment.

 

69.40      Councillor A. Norman stated that there was a clear need for more resources to be available to people experiencing multiple pregnancies and she hoped that the needs assessment suggested by the Labour Group would identify how improvements could be made.

 

69.41      Councillor Yates moved an amendment on behalf of the Labour & Co-operative Group and stated that it was disappointing to know that the South East came out badly compared to other regions and levels of care for multiple births.

 

69.42      Councillor Barradell formally seconded the amendment and noted that having had twins at 29weeks, she owed a great deal to the care and support that she and they received at their local NHS hospital some 25 years ago. She did not believe that they would have survived otherwise and could not contemplate the feeling of loss that others would have had to endure.  She full supported the motion and hoped that all Members would do so.

 

69.43      Councillor Phillips moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group and stated that she whilst welcomed the motion, she felt that it missed the critical point.  The NHS was facing severe cuts and a funding gap which needed to be addressed if the service was to remain a highly valued service that was available to everyone.

 

69.44      Councillor Mac Cafferty formally seconded the amendment and welcomed the request for the Health & Wellbeing Board to consider seeking a joint needs assessment for multiple births in the city.  However, he was also concerned about the funding crisis that was being faced by the NHS and this was the reason for the amendment.

 

69.45      Councillor Taylor stated that he was pleased to bring the matter to the attention of the council, but had not intended to start a debate on funding issues.  He welcomed the positive amendment from the Labour Group and hoped that the motion as amended could be accepted.

 

69.46      The Mayor noted that the Green Group’s amendment had not been accepted and put it to the vote which was lost by 10 votes to 40 with 1 abstention as detailed below:

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen		X			Mac Cafferty	?
Atkinson		X			Marsh		X
Barford		X			Meadows		X
Barnett	Absent				Mears		X
Barradell		X			Miller		X
Bell		X			Mitchell		X
Bennett		X			Moonan		X
Bewick		X			Morgan		X
Brown		X			Morris		X
Cattell		X			Nemeth		X
Chapman		X			A Norman		X
Cobb		X			K Norman		X
Daniel		X			O’Quinn		X
Deane	?				Page	Absent
Druitt	?				Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson	?				Penn		X
Gilbey		X			Phillips	?
Greenbaum	?				Robins		X
Hamilton		X			Simson		X
Hill		X			Sykes	?
Horan		X			Taylor		X
Hyde			Ab		C Theobald		X
Inkpin-Leissner		X			G Theobald		X
Janio		X			Wares		X
Knight	?				Wealls		X
Lewry		X			West	?
Littman	?				Yates		X
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	10	40	1

 

69.47      The motion was lost.

 

69.48      The Mayor noted that the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment had been accepted and therefore put the following motion 69 (c) as amended to the vote:

 

“This Council notes with regret figures from the Twins & Multiple Births Association (Tamba) which state that multiple pregnancies make up 3% of all births but account for more than 7% of stillbirths and 14% of neonatal deaths.

 

This Council notes the £3.8bn of additional funding for the NHS allocated for 2016/17 announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and resolves to:

 

1.         Call on NHS England to consider the allocation of funds for further assistance to parents who have experienced multiple births and investigate improvements in care to reduce the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths.

 

2.         Request the Chief Executive to write to Brighton and Hove CCG to ask to what degree the clinical guidance and quality standards published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have been implemented in Brighton and Hove.

 

3.         Request the Health and Wellbeing Board ensure that a Joint Strategic Needs Assessment on Multiple Births is added to the work programme.”

 

69.49      The Mayor confirmed that the motion 69 (c) as amended had been carried unanimously as detailed below:

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen	?				Mac Cafferty	?
Atkinson	?				Marsh	?
Barford	?				Meadows	?
Barnett	Absent				Mears	?
Barradell	?				Miller	?
Bell	?				Mitchell	?
Bennett	?				Moonan	?
Bewick	?				Morgan	?
Brown	?				Morris	?
Cattell	?				Nemeth	?
Chapman	?				A Norman	?
Cobb	?				K Norman	?
Daniel	?				O’Quinn	?
Deane	?				Page	Absent
Druitt	?				Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson	?				Penn	?
Gilbey	?				Phillips	?
Greenbaum	?				Robins	?
Hamilton	?				Simson	?
Hill	?				Sykes	?
Horan	?				Taylor	?
Hyde	?				C Theobald	?
Inkpin-Leissner	?				G Theobald	?
Janio	?				Wares	?
Knight	?				Wealls	?
Lewry	?				West	?
Littman	?				Yates	?
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	51	0	0

 

69.50      The motion was carried.

 

(d)             PaybyPhone Parking Scheme

 

69.51      The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Janio and seconded by Councillor Nemeth.

 

69.52      Councillor Janio stated that the intention of the motion was to bring fairness to the council’ sparking scheme, which currently penalised those choosing to pay by phone by making an extra charge. He believed the council’s parking charges brought in a significant amount of revenue and therefore the abolition of the additional charge could be accommodated and provide a fair scheme for all.

 

69.53      Councillor Nemeth stated that the proposal to drop the additional charge was fair and would not impact on the cost to administer the scheme.  He noted that unless you chose to un-tick two boxes when you signed up to the scheme, you would pay an additional 40p rather than the standard extra 10p for each parking fee.  He had received a number of complaints about the issue and hoped that the council would act appropriately.

 

69.54      Councillor Mitchell noted that in order to sign up to the scheme you could use an ordinary mobile phone or a land-line and that the additional 10p charge for paying by phone had been part of the budget setting proposals passed last February.  She also noted that the council currently subsidised the scheme and that other authorities such as East Sussex had higher charges.  The total income from the charge also contributed to the surplus that was used to meet the costs of providing bus passes for older people and bus routes.  She was therefore concerned as to how these would be maintained.  However, she believed that improvements could be made and was happy to work with officers to keep the scheme under review.

 

69.55      Councillor Robins stated that as a local trader he found the ability to pay by phone easy and accessible and flexible as he was able to pay for a set period and top up if necessary, which meant he didn’t have to over pay or keep the right change available.

 

69.56      Councillor West noted that transactions by phone for parking were now at 40% and likely to increase which was a welcome factor.  He also noted that there was one coin operated machine available for use in each area and payment could be made in a number of local shops.  It was also safer to use the phone and safer as those having to empty the coin machines in terms of the number and how much money they had to carry.  He could not understand the need for the motion and could not support it.

 

69.57      Councillor C. Theobald stated that it remained unfair for those using their phone to pay an extra 10p and noted that one coin operated machine was not sufficient as it could be too far away.  She believed that local businesses had been affected by this fact and people had been unable to locate a machine.  There was a need for a fairer system.

 

69.58      Councillor Janio stated that an alternative option to pay by phone was required and it needed to be fair in terms of the cost of using it.

 

69.59      The Mayor then put the following motion 69 (d) to the vote:

 

“This Council notes the recurrent criticism of the Council’s PayByPhone Parking Scheme, most recently as “discrimination against older people and those without smart phones”.

 

This Council notes the £8,439,569 income generated by on street parking charges in 2014/2015 and the £0.225m saving agreed at this year’s Budget Council by reducing the need to maintain, replace and collect cash from coin operated Pay & Display machines. 

This Council resolves to request that officers bring a report to the appropriate Committee which, if agreed, would seek to remove the mandatory 10 pence charge for ‘pay by phone’ parking where currently operational in Brighton and Hove, in light of the above savings generated by the replacement of coin operated machines and the related costs associated with their servicing and maintenance.”

 

69.60      The Mayor confirmed that the motion 69 (d) had been lost  by 17 votes to 31 with 1 abstention as detailed below:

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen		X			Mac Cafferty		X
Atkinson		X			Marsh		X
Barford		X			Meadows		X
Barnett	Absent				Mears	?
Barradell		X			Miller	?
Bell	?				Mitchell		X
Bennett	?				Moonan		X
Bewick		X			Morgan		X
Brown	?				Morris		X
Cattell		X			Nemeth	?
Chapman		X			A Norman	?
Cobb	?				K Norman	?
Daniel		X			O’Quinn		X
Deane		X			Page	Absent
Druitt		X			Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson		X			Penn		X
Gilbey		X			Phillips		X
Greenbaum		X			Robins		X
Hamilton		X			Simson	?
Hill		X			Sykes		X
Horan		X			Taylor	?
Hyde			Ab		C Theobald	?
Inkpin-Leissner		X			G Theobald	?
Janio	?				Wares	?
Knight		X			Wealls	?
Lewry	?				West		X
Littman		X			Yates		X
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	17	31	1

 

69.61      The motion was lost.

 

(e)             Boosting Alcohol Related Policing and Prevention

 

69.62      The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Deane and seconded by Councillor Druitt.

 

69.63      Councillor Deane stated that the motion was not intended to circumvent the Late Night Levy consultation process that was going through the Licensing Committee.  However, the concept was flawed as no allowance was made for those premises that could sell alcohol during the day and early evening which supplemented the pre-drinks culture amongst people that enjoyed the night-time entertainment experience.  She was hoping that alternative approaches to supporting the police and those involved in dealing with late night revellers could be found and hoped that the motion would be supported.

 

69.64      Councillor Druitt stated that Councillor Page had been unable to attend the meeting and he was therefore seconding the motion on his behalf.  He noted that should a Late Night Levy be introduced it was likely to affect small businesses and it was those businesses that the council needed to nurture and support.

 

69.65      Councillor Simson stated that she believed it was premature to bring such a motion forward.  She agreed that funding to support those services involved in managing the late night economy were required, however at the last Licensing Committee it was decided not to consult on the Late Night Levy and to look at other options which would be brought back to the committee.

 

69.66      Councillor Wares suggested that it would be better to wait and withdraw the motion as it was premature and it would be better to wait until the matter was considered fully by the Licensing Committee.

 

69.67      Councillor O’Quinn stated that 1 in 3 adults had a drink at home and alcohol was a major factor in all violent crime, and had a cost of around £3b to the NHS.  She also noted that the UK paid the highest tax on alcohol which brought a significant amount of revenue to the government.  Brighton had a thriving night-time economy but she was not sure that the cost of excessive drinking should be spread across the city rather than the town centre.  There was evidence that a substantial amount of alcohol was bought from supermarkets and off-licences for pre-drinks before people went out and this needed to be considered.

 

69.68      The Mayor congratulated Councillor O’Quinn on her maiden speech on behalf of the council.

 

69.69      Councillor Marsh stated that she had a great deal of sympathy with the motion and noted that no decision had been made as yet on the question of a Late Night Levy.  She felt that it would help to see if the government decided to provide any funding towards the matter but in the meantime was happy to support the motion.

 

69.70      Councillor Deane welcomed the comments and noted that the motion did not preclude any consultation or decision on the Late Night Levy issue, but simply sought to give consideration to other options that might be available.  As things stood currently there would be a 70:30 split of revenue between the Police and the Local Authority which has the responsibility for administering any Late Night Levy scheme.

 

69.71      The Mayor then put the following motion 69 (e) to the vote:

 

“This council notes the proposal before the Licensing Committee to consult on introducing a Late Night Levy for the city, and the practical difficulties and costs associated with the Levy and its collection at a local level.

 

Therefore, the Council requests that:

 

The Chief Executive write to the Home Office Minister of State (Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice and Victims) and the Local Government Association requesting that, in the spirit of devolution, a proportion of revenue raised from alcohol taxation should be granted directly to local Police and Crime Commissioners and Directors of Public Health, to contribute towards the extra costs of policing and targeted support services in the night-time economy, and other preventive programmes for tackling alcohol-related harm.”

 

69.72      The Mayor confirmed that the motion 69 (e) had been carried  by 32 votes to 0 with 17 abstentions as detailed below:

 

	For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
Allen	?				Mac Cafferty	?
Atkinson	?				Marsh	?
Barford	?				Meadows	?
Barnett	Absent				Mears			Ab
Barradell	?				Miller			Ab
Bell			Ab		Mitchell	?
Bennett			Ab		Moonan	?
Bewick	?				Morgan	?
Brown			Ab		Morris	?
Cattell	?				Nemeth			Ab
Chapman	?				A Norman			Ab
Cobb					K Norman			Ab
Daniel	?		Ab		O’Quinn	?
Deane	?				Page	Absent
Druitt	?				Peltzer Dunn	Absent
Gibson	?				Penn	?
Gilbey	?				Phillips	?
Greenbaum	?				Robins	?
Hamilton	?				Simson			Ab
Hill	?				Sykes	?
Horan	?				Taylor			Ab
Hyde			Ab		C Theobald			Ab
Inkpin-Leissner	?				G Theobald			Ab
Janio			Ab		Wares			Ab
Knight	?				Wealls			Ab
Lewry			Ab		West	?
Littman	?				Yates	?
						For	Against	Abstain
					Total	32	0	17

 

69.73      The motion was carried.