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

(a)          Fair Trade.  Proposed by Councillor Hill (copy attached).

 

(b)          Immigration Bill.  Proposed by Councillor Littman (copy attached).

 

(c)          Being Prepared for Flooding.  Proposed by Councillor Sykes (copy attached).

82.1.      The Notice of Motion listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Hill and seconded by Councillor Horan.

 

82.2.      Councillor Hill recognised the work of the Fair Trade Steering Group over the last few years and stated that the aim of the motion was to highlight the need to continue to promote the benefits of fair trade for all.

 

82.3.      Councillor Horan formally seconded the motion and stated that in many aspects Brighton and Hove was unique, one such aspect being its sense of community that existed across the city.  She hoped that the forthcoming fair trade fortnight would encourage people to consider their actions and show support to the farmers and others involved in fair trade activities.

 

82.4.      The Mayor noted that whilst Councillor Horan had been recorded as having given her maiden speech previously, this was in fact her maiden speech and congratulated her on behalf of the council.

 

82.5.      Councillor Wealls welcomed the motion and stated that it had prompted him to look at his own habits and to change them and to support the motion.

 

82.6.      Councillor Deane stated that she fully supported the motion and hoped that everyone would support the fair trade fortnight and continue to support fair trade across the city and beyond.

 

82.7.      The Mayor noted that there was universal support for the motion and put the following motion to the vote by way of a show of hands:

 

“This Council:

 

Welcomes the City’s renewal in December 2015 of its Fairtrade City status - first awarded in 2004.

 

Congratulates the work of the Fairtrade Steering Group over the past years in promoting fair trade to businesses, buyers and consumers and building a partnership which includes Brighton University (the flagship employer), local fair trade retailers and business owners, the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership, faith groups, schools, Councillor representatives on the steering group and Council staff.

 

Endorses the help being given to the Steering Group by the Economic Development team to promote fair trade to local businesses.

 

This Council resolves:

 

To support Fairtrade Fortnight 29^th February to 13^th March and encourage its suppliers, partners and staff to celebrate the event, which is themed “Sit down for breakfast, stand up for farmers.

 

To request that Officers draw attention to the educational benefits of fair trade and raise awareness of Fairtrade Fortnight by highlighting it in the Schools Bulletin  and suggesting ways in which  schools might participate.

 

To request the Policy & Resources Committee to maintain the Council’s commitment to fair trade as part of the Minimum Buying Standards for food and catering contracts, and to look for opportunities to increase its commitment to buying fair trade as much as current budget constraints allow.”

 

82.8.      The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried unanimously.

 

82.9.      The motion was carried.

 

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

 

82.11.   Councillor Littman stated that following the Bill’s passage through Parliament he wished to amend the motion by deleting the words “a deferral or,” in paragraph 5 of the motion.  He believed that the actual Bill was not necessary and could cost the council a great deal of money.  It did not address the situation and created more problems that were unnecessary.

 

82.12.   Councillor Phillips formally seconded the motion.

 

82.13.   Councillor Daniel stated that there should be a safe and fair immigration system and the Bill was likely to make it more difficult for people to find accommodation.  She was concerned that it would lead to further problems having to be dealt with by local authorities and people being exploited because of their vulnerability.

 

82.14.   Councillor Moonan stated that the country had benefitted from immigration throughout history and whilst it was not possible to have unlimited immigration, the Bill did not address the situation that was now being faced across the country.  It was already difficult to find accommodation and it was more likely that landlords would be disinclined to offer any accommodation if they were unsure of the information provided to them rather than seek to clarify matters.

 

82.15.   Councillor G. Theobald suggested that the motion was a little late to have any influence on the matter as he understood the Bill had already completed its report stage.  He disagreed that there was any evidence to support the concerns expressed and believed that the checks required on prospective tenants were straight forward.  He also felt that the Government was committed to meeting its obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees and there was no need for the motion.

 

82.16.   Councillor Phillips stated that there was a genuine unfairness underpinning the issue in that wealthy people could choose where to move and live, whereas the poor had no choice.  She believed that it was too easy to dehumanise the situation and that people should be welcomed into the country and supported.

 

82.17.   Councillor Littman accepted that the motion was late in the day given the Bill’s passage, but he felt that the matter was being raised across the country and as such there was still a need to highlight the concerns held in the hope that the House of Lords would take them into consideration and act accordingly.

 

82.18.   The Mayor noted that the motion had been amended by the proposer and accepted by the council and therefore put it to the vote:

 

“This council:

·           Notes the Immigration Bill before Parliament, and notes that this bill:

Ø   lacks a credible evidence base with measures in the Immigration Act 2014, which will be extended, yet to be fully evaluated.

Ø   threatens the rights and welfare of immigrants and British Citizens, increasingdiscrimination, racism and undermining community cohesion.

Ø   could cost Local Authorities £32 million over 10 years in supporting families, and substantial unspecified sums in undertaking statutory assessments, and could lead to breaches of the 1989 Children Act.

·           Requests the Chief Executive write to the Home Secretary urging a redrafting of the Bill in order to:

 

Ø   Ensure that the costs to Local Authorities are fully covered and the legal risks to Local Authorities are entirely removed

Ø   Remove the provisions in the Bill that prevent local authorities providing support to specific groups of young people

Ø   Ensure that those whose leave is curtailed or revoked will have an effective right of appeal or administrative review

Ø   Remove the provisions that prevent destitute refused asylum seeking families from accessing support

Ø   Remove the right to rent policy

Ø   Allow asylum seekers to work if an initial decision has not been taken on their application within six months

Ø   End the policy of indefinite detention for immigrants and asylum seekers.”

 

82.19.   The Mayor confirmed that the motion 82 (b) had been carried by 33 votes to 10 with 8 abstentions as detailed below:

 

		For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
1	Allen	ü				Mac Cafferty	ü
2	Atkinson	ü				Marsh	ü
3	Barford	ü				Meadows	ü
4	Barnett		X			Mears		X
5	Barradell	ü				Miller		X
6	Bell			Ab		Mitchell	Absent
7	Bennett			Ab		Moonan	ü
8	Bewick	ü				Morgan	ü
9	Brown		X			Morris	ü
10	Cattell	ü				Nemeth			Ab
11	Chapman	ü				Norman A			Ab
12	Cobb	Absent				Norman K		X
13	Daniel	ü				O’Quinn	ü
14	Deane	ü				Page	ü
15	Druitt	ü				Peltzer Dunn		X
16	Gibson	ü				Penn	ü
17	Gilbey	ü				Phillips	ü
18	Greenbaum	ü				Robins	ü
19	Hamilton	ü				Simson			Ab
20	Hill	ü				Sykes	ü
21	Horan	ü				Taylor		X
22	Hyde			Ab		Theobald C			Ab
23	Inkpin-Leissner	ü				Theobald G		X
24	Janio	Absent				Wares			Ab
25	Knight	ü				Wealls		X
26	Lewry		X			West	ü
27	Littman	ü				Yates	ü
							33	10	8

 

82.20.   The motion was carried.

 

82.21.   The Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Sykes and seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty.

 

82.22.   Councillor Sykes stated that climate change had led to evermore extreme weather conditions and yet there had been significant government cuts to the spending on flooding defences across the country.  He believed there was a need for more resources to be made available for flood management bearing in mind that Brighton and Hove was in the top ten flooding areas listed for the country.  He also stated that he could not accept the Labour amendment as he felt that there was a need to have some assurance over the downland management for the city.

 

82.23.   Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the recent events across the country highlighted the need to have greater investment in flood defences.  The likelihood was that with climate change these events would become regular and more extensive and it was therefore only right to prepare for them now.

 

82.24.   Councillor Barradell moved an amendment on behalf of the Labour & Co-operative Group and stated that she believed the work being requested in the motion had already been undertaken.  The flood risk strategy had been agreed at the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee last year and regular meetings with the Environment Agency were taking place.

 

82.25.   Councillor Inkpin-Leissner formally seconded the amendment and stated that only last year he had experienced the flooding in Moulsecoomb and had welcomed the efforts of officers to deal with impact.  The council had a robust strategy in place which had been used successfully and was reviewed regularly.  There was no need to undertake a further review but he agreed that pressure should be put on the Government to provide sufficient resources and investment.

 

82.26.   The Mayor congratulated Councillor Inkpin-Leissner on his maiden speech on behalf of the council.

 

82.27.   Councillor G. Theobald stated that the Conservative Group could not support the amendment and would abstain from voting on the motion as it directly questioned government policy.  He noted that over £1.7b had been put into flood protection programmes across the country and the issue of downland management was something that could be discussed at committee.

 

82.28.   Councillor Sykes noted the comments and stated that the level of funding had gone down and the flood risk strategy did not account for what actions could be taken on the downland estate to relieve flooding in the city.  He felt that there was a need to look at the strategy again on this basis.

 

82.29.   The Mayor noted that the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment had not been accepted and put it to the vote which was lost by 22 votes to 26 with 2 abstentions as detailed below.

 

		For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
1	Allen	ü				Mac Cafferty		X
2	Atkinson	ü				Marsh	ü
3	Barford	ü				Meadows	ü
4	Barnett		X			Mears		X
5	Barradell	ü				Miller		X
6	Bell		X			Mitchell	Absent
7	Bennett		X			Moonan	ü
8	Bewick	ü				Morgan	ü
9	Brown		X			Morris	ü
10	Cattell	ü				Nemeth		X
11	Chapman	ü				Norman A		X
12	Cobb	Absent				Norman K		X
13	Daniel	ü				O’Quinn	ü
14	Deane			Ab		Page		X
15	Druitt		X			Peltzer Dunn		X
16	Gibson	Not present				Penn	ü
17	Gilbey	ü				Phillips		X
18	Greenbaum		X			Robins	ü
19	Hamilton	ü				Simson		X
20	Hill	ü				Sykes		X
21	Horan	ü				Taylor		X
22	Hyde			Ab		Theobald C		X
23	Inkpin-Leissner	ü				Theobald G		X
24	Janio	Absent				Wares		X
25	Knight		X			Wealls		X
26	Lewry		X			West		X
27	Littman		X			Yates	ü
							22	26	2

 

82.30.   The motion was lost.

 

82.31.   The Mayor then put the original motion as follows to the vote:

 

“This Council notes:

 

·           The latest UK Climate Change Risk Assessment estimates that changes in rainfall patterns caused by climate change may result in more flooding nationally, with the number of properties with a significant likelihood of flooding projected to increase from 560,000 in 2012 to 1.3 million by the 2050s.

·           Brighton & Hove is in the top ten Flood Risk Areas in England with more than 30,000 people at risk of flooding and is experiencing more frequent flood events

·           Cuts in funding for flood risk management by national government over the past five years have exacerbated damage caused by floods in 2012, 2013/4, 2015, which cost the economy an estimated total £7.5bn as well as causing dislocation and severe distress for people affected.

·           Residential and commercial development plans over the next few years in our city provide potential opportunities but also potential threats in terms of surface water flooding.

 

This Council resolves to:

·           Request the Chief Executive to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting increases in planned Flood Defence Grant in Aid capital funding and in flood risk management revenue funding, in line with analysis by the Environment Agency, National Audit Office and the Association of British Insurers’ Flood Free Homes Campaign;

 

·           Request the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee to review land use of the city’s downland estate from the perspective of reducing flood risk in the city.”

 

82.32.   The Mayor confirmed that the motion was carried by 32 votes to 0, with 18 abstentions as detailed below:

 

		For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
1	Allen	ü				Mac Cafferty	ü
2	Atkinson	ü				Marsh	ü
3	Barford	ü				Meadows	ü
4	Barnett			Ab		Mears			Ab
5	Barradell	ü				Miller			Ab
6	Bell			Ab		Mitchell	Absent
7	Bennett			Ab		Moonan	ü
8	Bewick	ü				Morgan	ü
9	Brown			Ab		Morris	ü
10	Cattell	ü				Nemeth			Ab
11	Chapman	ü				Norman A			Ab
12	Cobb	Absent				Norman K			Ab
13	Daniel	ü				O’Quinn	ü
14	Deane	ü				Page	ü
15	Druitt	ü				Peltzer Dunn			Ab
16	Gibson	Not present				Penn	ü
17	Gilbey	ü				Phillips	ü
18	Greenbaum	ü				Robins	ü
19	Hamilton	ü				Simson			Ab
20	Hill	ü				Sykes	ü
21	Horan	ü				Taylor			Ab
22	Hyde			Ab		Theobald C			Ab
23	Inkpin-Leissner	ü				Theobald G			Ab
24	Janio	Absent				Wares			Ab
25	Knight	ü				Wealls			Ab
26	Lewry			Ab		West	ü
27	Littman	ü				Yates	ü
							32	0	18

 

82.33.   The motion was carried.