At the second Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 23 December 2014 it was agreed that the debate on the following motion, having been moved by Councillor Fonyonga and seconded by Councillor Taylor, should be adjourned to the next Council meeting on 28 January 2014.
In adjourning the debate (under Council Procedure Rule 12.12 (a) (iii)) it was agreed that the motion should be placed at the start of the Council agenda for consideration following Opposition Priority Business.
The motion is as follows:
“Council notes that:
1) Working people are now £1,600 plus a year worse off than in 2010
2) Business investment trails our international competitors
3) The 1% tax cut for top earners takes £3 billion away from vital public services
4) The need for food banks in Enfield is growing
Council further notes the unfunded tax pledges of the Conservative Government in the Autumn Statement, and the Deputy Prime Minister’s accusation that the Government was ‘Kidding the public’.
The Council agrees that any political group represented on the Council is irresponsible if it does not appreciate the calamity of Government economic and fiscal policy and its impact on ordinary people in Enfield.
Council condemns any politicians, local or National, who seek to ignore the impact of Government cuts on the difficult decisions Councils have to take.
Council agrees:
a) to take a responsible approach to budget setting in 2015-18 and expects any suggestions for growth, or protected spending, to be aligned with proposals for reductions elsewhere in the budget, to meet the £75 million plus pressures on the Councils’ budget.
b) to write to the 3 local MPs asking them to confirm their opposition to the Conservative Government’s plan for excessive future cuts to public services as identified by the IFS, and to call for adequate funding for the London Borough of Enfield to preserve vital public services.”
Minutes:
Before moving on to consider this item, the Mayor reminded members that it had been agreed at the second Extraordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 23 December 2014, to adjourn the debate on the motion set out below.
In agreeing to adjourn the debate (under Council Procedure Rule 12.12 (a) (iii)) it had been specified that the motion should be placed at the start of the agenda for the next (January 2015) Council meeting, for consideration following Opposition Priority Business.
Whilst the motion had been moved and seconded at the Extraordinary Council meeting, the Mayor felt it would be appropriate, for the sake of completeness, if the process for considering the motion was started from the beginning and therefore invited Councillor Fonyonga to once again move the motion, summarising the points made when originally moving the item.
Councillor Fonyonga therefore moved and Councillor Taylor seconded the following motion:
“Council notes that:
1) Working people are now £1,600 plus a year worse off than in 2010
2) Business investment trails our international competitors
3) The 1% tax cut for top earners takes £3 billion away from vital public services
4) The need for food banks in Enfield is growing
Council further notes the unfunded tax pledges of the Conservative Government in the Autumn Statement, and the Deputy Prime Minister’s accusation that the Government was ‘Kidding the public’.
The Council agrees that any political group represented on the Council is irresponsible if it does not appreciate the calamity of Government economic and fiscal policy and its impact on ordinary people in Enfield.
Council condemns any politicians, local or National, who seek to ignore the impact of Government cuts on the difficult decisions Councils have to take.
Council agrees:
a) to take a responsible approach to budget setting in 2015-18 and expects any suggestions for growth, or protected spending, to be aligned with proposals for reductions elsewhere in the budget, to meet the £75 million plus pressures on the Councils’ budget.
b) to write to the 3 local MPs asking them to confirm their opposition to the Conservative Government’s plan for excessive future cuts to public services as identified by the IFS, and to call for adequate funding for the London Borough of Enfield to preserve vital public services.”
During the debate on this item, Councillor Rye moved and Councillor Neville seconded the following amendment to the original motion:
1. To delete all word from “Council notes that…” up to and including “Councils have to take….” and replace with:
“In the face of further reductions in Government Grant for 2015-18, the Council agrees:”
2. Delete all of sub para (b) and replace with the following wording:
“To lobby the government (involving both political parties) to revise the formula for determining the revenue support grant to tackle residuary issues arising from “damping” and other factors within the formula, which deny Enfield a fair proportion of Local Government grant having regard to its growing population and consequent demands on services.”
In response to a query from the Leader of the Council, John Austin (Assistant Director Governance Projects) ruled that the amendment was valid, in terms of the Constitution, as it was seeking to amend rather than negate the original motion.
Following this advice, Councillor Stewart then immediately moved and Councillor Achilleas Georgiou seconded procedural motion 12.12 (a) (ii) in relation to the amendment “that the question be now put”. John Austin advised members that before this procedural motion was put the meeting the Mayor would need to be satisfied that the amendment had been sufficiently discussed. As members had indicated they wished to speak on the amendment the Mayor allowed a short debate, during which the Leader of the Council indicated that whilst supportive of the need for continued cross party lobbying in relation to the revenue support grant formula and to address the issues around “damping” the Majority Group could not support the remainder of the amendment.
Following this debate, procedural motion 12.12 (a) (ii) “that the question be now put” was agreed, without a vote. The amendment to the motion was then put to the vote and lost, with the following result:
For: 21
Against:31
Abstentions
The debate then continued on the (unamended) substantive motion and following a further period of debate the motion was put to the vote and agreed, with the following result:
For:34
Against: 20
Abstentions: 0
In agreeing the motion, the Leader of the Council advised that the Majority Group would, as a result of the discussion on the amendment, seek to ensure that lobbying of the Government continued (on a cross party basis) around the need to revise the formula for determining the revenue support grant in order to address the impact of damping and other factors within the current formula on Enfield.