Agenda item - Petitions for Council Debate

Petitions to be debated at Council.  Reports of the Monitoring Officer (copies attached).

 

(1)       Improve Brighton & Hove’s Recycling Scheme.  Lead petitioner Tea Menghetti.

(2)       A People’s Vote on Brexit: have a Say on the Final Terms of the Brexit Deal.  Lead petitioner Councillor West.

 

31.1         The Mayor stated that where a petition secured 1,250 or more signatures it could be debated at the council meeting.  She had been made aware of 2 such petitions.  She also noted that there was an amendment to the covering report’s recommendation for Item 31(1), Improve Brighton & Hove’s Recycling Scheme from the Green Group.

 

31.2         The Mayor then invited Tea Meneghetti and Alizee Staes to come forward and present the first petition. 

 

(1) Improve Brighton & Hove’s Recycling Scheme

 

31.3         The petitioners thanked the Mayor and sated that the petition resulted from the need to improve the council’s recycling scheme and to encourage people to recycle a wider range of plastics and to be able to make better use of home composting for food waste.  There was a need to provide better information to people so that they could improve their own recycling and to look at how schools could be encouraged to get involved in educating children.  M noted that of the 353 councils in the UK, Brighton & Hove was 326^th for waste recycling and this needed to improve and could with support from residents, organisations and the council.

 

31.4         Councillor Mitchell thanked both petitioners for bringing the petition to the council meeting and noted that it was a wide-ranging petition and that the council was already taking some action in relation to the options outlined.  She stated that more plastics could be collected, but there was a need for a national approach to this as collections differed across the country.  She also noted that reprocessing plants were becoming increasingly selective about the materials they would accept and demand for low-grade materials was falling.  A number of authorities had taken steps to change their collections and were not taking low-grade plastics.  She stated that there was a need for a co-ordinated approach and investment in how plastics could be recycled but that had to come from the government at a national level.

 

31.5         Councillor Littman welcomed the petition and moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group, which called for a report to the November meeting of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee detailing how matters could be progressed to meet the aims of the petition.  He stated that the amendment sought to be constructive and to enable residents to have a clear understanding of what could and could not be recycled.  He also suggested that Veolia as the waste contactor would be willing to invest in their equipment to improve the recycling of plastics if the council made steps to improve collections.

 

31.6         Councillor Littman stated that there had been discussions prior to the meeting and a suggestion that if the three recommendations were taken separately, there could be support for some of them.  He therefore queried whether the Mayor would be willing to put each recommendation in the amendment to the vote on an individual basis rather as a whole.

 

31.7         The Mayor noted the request and stated that given the length of amendment she was minded to take it in its entirety rather than separate out the recommendations.

 

31.8         Councillor Gibson formally seconded the amendment and stated that it reflected a change in the public’s attitude towards recycling and single-use plastics.  He noted that current recycling rates were at 29% and the target was 50% by 2020 and stated that there was a need to listen to the community and to improve recycling rates.

 

31.9         Councillor Wares welcomed the petition and stated that the need to address the issue of the use of plastics was something that had to be addressed by everyone, including the government, manufacturers, and residents.  He believed that it would take two years to get back to previous recycling rates and that the frequency of collection rates could not be reduced.

 

31.10      Councillor Hill stated that there was a need for manufacturers and retailers to look at how goods were packaged and to reduce the use of plastics.  She acknowledged that the council had a part to play and would need to look at sustainable options and that residents would also need to support the council with recycling.

 

31.11      Councillor Mitchell stated that she was not minded to accept the amendment as it would impact on available resources and divert them away from other service considerations that needed to be addressed.  She stated that new garden waste customers were being taken on and that there were no plans to reduce household waste collections.

 

31.12      Councillor Littman stated that he wished to revise the amendment and to remove recommendation 2.1 (iii) so that the Mayor could then put the whole amendment to the vote.

 

31.13      The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the mover of a motion could either withdraw it or seek to amend it subject to the consent of the council.

 

31.14      The Mayor noted the request from Councillor Littman to revise the amendment by removing recommendation 2.1 (iii) and put it to the vote, which was carried by 27 votes to 18 with 2 abstentions.

 

31.15      The Mayor thanked the petitioners for attending the meeting and presenting the petition, and noted that the Green Group’s amendment as amended had been approved.  She therefore put the revised amendment to the vote which was carried by 28 votes to 19.

 

31.16      The Mayor then put the recommendations as amended to the vote which was carried by 28 votes to 19.

 

31.17      RESOLVED:

 

(1)   That the petition be noted and referred to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee for consideration at its meeting on the 27^th November 2018, with the report to this meeting to include:

 

(i)        a costed investigation into increasing the range of plastics the Council collects;

(ii)       a costed investigation into the set-up of a food waste collection trial;

(iii)      a costed investigation into options for a ‘Service Guarantee,’ allowing residents to know what level of recycling service they can expect the Council to provide;

(2)   That with the above investigations to include the exploration of external funding sources e.g. DEFRA, Local Enterprise Partnership, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and others; and

 

(3)   That for such a report to provide further detail on:

(i)        how the Council may seek to ensure events granted permission in Brighton and Hove are ‘single-use plastic free’ by 2020;

(ii)       an action plan, including timescales, setting out how the council will contribute to the achievement of the Waste Framework Directive target of 50% recycling by 2020.

 

31.18      The Mayor then noted that the meeting had been in session for two hours and stated that she intended to call an adjournment for a refreshment break.

 

31.19      The Mayor then adjourned the meeting at 6.25pm.

 

31.20      The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 6.55pm and stated that the next item was the second petition for debate, concerning Brexit listed as Item 31 (2) on the agenda

 

(2)   A People’s Vote on Brexit

 

31.21      The Mayor then invited Councillor Greenbaum to present the second petition on behalf of Councillor West.

 

31.18      Councillor Greenbaum thanked the Mayor and stated that she was presenting the petition on behalf of Councillor West and noted that it had 1, 399 signatures.  She stated that the petition called on the Government to allow a People’s Vote on the issue of Brexit.  The referendum in 2016 had been the start of the process with a narrow majority in favour of a single choice on limited information.  The position had since changed and it was only right that the people should have the opportunity to review the situation and decide on how to proceed.

 

31.19      Councillor Yates noted the petition and stated that he agreed with the petitioner and noted that the city having voted in favour of remaining in the EU, was likely to support the petition and that the council had already written to the Secretary of State on the matter as a result of a previous notice of motion.  He was therefore happy to note the petition in this instance.

 

31.20      The Mayor than called on Councillor Sykes to move the notice of motion listed as Item 34 (6) on the agenda.

 

34.            (6) BRIGHTON AND HOVE BREXIT UPDATE

 

34.1         The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Sykes on behalf of the Green Group.  He noted the Leader of the Council’s comments to the petition and stated that there was a clear need for a people’s vote on the issue as it was evident that a number of people had not understood what they were voting for at the time of the referendum.  He also noted that a number of politicians in the House of Commons were supportive of a people’s vote and accepted that it would be the morally correct thing to do.  As things stood it appeared that the country was heading towards political and economic uncertainty which would directly impact on Brighton and Hove.  He suggested that as a city, more could be done to prepare for the exit and the possibility of a no deal situation and for Members to be aware of the potential impact.

 

34.2         Councillor Deane formally seconded the notice of motion and stated the no-one had anticipated the result of the referendum at the time and there had been no plan b for such a result.  It was also clear that the claims made by the leave campaign had not come to fruition and should the country leave the EU then it would lose a great deal.  She noted that there was always a possibility to reconsider any decision that was taken and yet there appeared to be no such option in this respect, which was not democratic. She believed there was a need to take people’s views into account at this time and hoped that the motion would be supported.

 

34.3         Councillor Janio stated that a people’s vote was held in 2016 and the outcome was clear in that the democratic choice was to leave the EU.  He did not see the need to ask the people again and suggested that there was a need to support the government in achieving the best outcome for the country.

 

34.4         Councillor Yates noted that the people of Brighton and Hove had given a clear desire to remain in the EU and as such this should be taken into consideration by the city council.  The situation should be a concern for all Groups as custodians of services within the city and there was a need for more understanding of the potential of a Brexit and what a soft or hard Brexit and a short or long transition period would imply.  There was a need for the council to understand what the implications of Brexit were for the city and to prepare for the outcome.

 

34.5         Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that he did not understand the Government’s position and believed that it was not being taken seriously by the other Member States in Europe.  He believed a people’s vote would unite the country and make it clear for the Government on how to progress matters.

 

34.6         Councillor Bell referred to the principal behind the motion and noted that at the last council meeting the Labour and Green Groups had voted together against staff at the Royal Pavilion having a meaningful vote about their position.  He also noted that the decision on the Mears housing contract had also been prevented from coming to full Council and yet there was now a call for a people’s vote to be held which contradicted the actions taken by the council.

 

34.7         Councillor G. Theobald stated that he had voted to remain but overtime had changed his mind and believed that a considerable number of people in the country just wanted to get on with the process of leaving.  He believed a decision had been made and that the Prime Minister should be supported in seeking to implement that decision.  If a second vote was taken with a different result what would prevent the argument to hold third vote and so on.  In the end he believed the result would be the same and therefore everyone needed to get on with preparing for the impact of leaving.

 

34.8         Councillor Littman stated that there was a need to recognise the democratic right for people to call for a further vote having had the opportunity to consider the matter and potential implications of Brexit.

 

34.9         Councillor Druitt suggested that if the Prime Minister was to be supported to get the best possible deal then it should be to stay in the EU.

 

34.10      Councillor Sykes stated that a people’s vote would enable the country to decide one way or the other and for that result to then be taken forward and future trade deals to be negotiated as necessary.  He therefore put the motion forward and hoped it would be supported.

 

34.11      The Mayor noted that the debate had concluded and thanked Councillor Greenbaum for presenting the petition and stated that she would take the petition first and then the notice of motion in terms of the voting procedure.  She noted that the petition was calling on the Government to agree to a people’s vote on the issue of Brexit and therefore it was recommended to note the petition.  She then put the recommendation to the vote which was carried by 27 votes to 15 with 3 abstentions.

 

34.12      The Mayor then asked for the electronic voting system to be activated and put the recommendation to note the petition to the vote which was carried by 27 votes to 15 with 3 abstentions as detailed below:

 

		For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
1	Allen	Not Present			28	Marsh	P
2	Atkinson	P			29	Meadows		x
3	Barford	P			30	Mears		x
4	Barnett	Not Present			31	Miller		x
5	Bell		x		32	Mitchell	P
6	Bennett	Not Present			33	Moonan	P
7	Bewick	Not Present			34	Morgan	P
8	Brown		x		35	Morris	Not Present
9	Cattell	Not Present			36	Nemeth		x
10	Chapman	P			37	Norman A			Ab
11	Cobb		x		38	Norman K			Ab
12	Daniel	P			39	O’Quinn	P
13	Deane	P			40	Page	P
14	Druitt	P			41	Peltzer Dunn		x
15	Gibson	P			42	Penn	P
16	Gilbey	Not Present			43	Phillips	P
17	Greenbaum	P			44	Platts	P
18	Hamilton	P			45	Robins	P
19	Hill	P			46	Simson		x
20	Horan	P			47	Sykes	P
21	Hyde		x		48	Taylor	Not Present
22	Inkpin-Leissner	P			49	Theobald C		x
23	Janio		x		50	Theobald G		x
24	Knight	P			51	Wares		x
25	Lewry		x		52	Wealls			Ab
26	Littman	P			53	West	Not Present
27	Mac Cafferty	P			54	Yates	P
						Total	27	15	3

 

 

34.13      RESOLVED: That the petition be noted.

 

34.14      The Mayor then asked for the electronic voting system to be activated and put the following motion to the vote:

 

“This Council notes:

-     the background of considerable political uncertainty, and continuing evidence of damage, that any form of Brexit will cause to the national economy;

 

-     its previous position agreed in December 2017 in favour of a People’s Vote.

This Council further notes that more detail is now available on the potential impact of Brexit on our local and regional economy, such as on our local tourism and hospitality sector

This Council therefore requests:

-     That the Chief Executive write to James Brokenshire, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, reaffirming this Council’s desire for a People’s Vote;

 

-     That Policy Resources & Growth Committee request the Chief Finance Officer and the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture to consider strategic risks arising from Brexit that will affect the council and city, and report on this before year end;

 

-     That further to the above, that the Constitution Working Group be requested to review whether future BHCC committee reports are expanded to include a ‘Brexit Implications’ section in the body of the report, offering an assessment and analysis of any Brexit impact; and

 

-     That Policy Resources & Growth Committee request the Chief Finance Officer to consider the advantages and disadvantages of accepting income from fees, charges and council tax denominated in Euros to protect this city’s income stream and services.

 

34.15      The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried by 24 votes to 19 with 2 abstentions as detailed below:

 

		For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
1	Allen	Not Present			28	Marsh	P
2	Atkinson		x		29	Meadows		x
3	Barford	P			30	Mears		x
4	Barnett		x		31	Miller		x
5	Bell		x		32	Mitchell	P
6	Bennett	Not Present			33	Moonan	P
7	Bewick	Not Present			34	Morgan	P
8	Brown		x		35	Morris	Not Present
9	Cattell	Not Present			36	Nemeth		x
10	Chapman	P			37	Norman A			Ab
11	Cobb		x		38	Norman K		x
12	Daniel	P			39	O’Quinn			Ab
13	Deane	P			40	Page	Not Present
14	Druitt	P			41	Peltzer Dunn		x
15	Gibson	P			42	Penn	P
16	Gilbey	Not Present			43	Phillips	P
17	Greenbaum	P			44	Platts	P
18	Hamilton	P			45	Robins	P
19	Hill	P			46	Simson		x
20	Horan	P			47	Sykes	P
21	Hyde		x		48	Taylor	Not Present
22	Inkpin-Leissner	P			49	Theobald C		x
23	Janio		x		50	Theobald G		x
24	Knight	P			51	Wares		x
25	Lewry		x		52	Wealls		x
26	Littman	P			53	West	Not Present
27	Mac Cafferty	P			54	Yates	P
						Total	24	19	2