(time limit 30 minutes)
Motion 1
Councillor Jabbar to MOVE and Councillor McCann to SECOND:
Local Government has experienced a significant reduction in funding since 2009/10 and the introduction of the Government’s austerity regime. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, since 2009/10 there has been a real terms cut in local government spending across England of 22%. Here in Oldham we have fared much worse with a real terms cut of more than 42%. At the same time there has been a huge increase in demand for services, particularly in adult social care. The Council has responded to this massive challenge by competently and efficiently redesigning many of its services to minimise the impact on citizens of Oldham.
This Council notes with disappointment the Chancellor’s 2016 Autumn Statement in which he commented that higher spending by local authorities is one of the causes of a weaker economic outlook
This Council believes that the Chancellor should have used his Statement to address pressing concerns in:
The Autumn Statement provided new money for grammar schools, a stately home and reduced corporation tax.
Council resolves to:
Motion 2
Councillor Toor to MOVE and Councillor Garry to SECOND:
This Council notes that hundreds of thousands of women had significant pension changes imposed on them by the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 but were not notified of the changes until relatively recently. Some women were not notified until two years ago of a six-year increase in pension age. Women born in the 1950s are bearing a disproportionate cost of Conservative plans to reduce state spending. Many women born in the1950s are living in hardship. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences. Many of these women are caring for elderly relatives, providing childcare for grandchildren, or suffer discrimination in the workplace so struggle to find employment. Women born in this decade are suffering financially due to the Tories' ideological drive to reduce the cost of the state. These
women have worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and national insurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure after finishing work. It is not the pension age itself that is disputed - it is widely accepted that women and men
should retire at the same time. The issue is that the rise in the women's state pension age has been too rapid and has happened without sufficient notice being given to the women affected.
The Council calls on the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age they were not told about until it was too late to make alternative arrangements.
The Council resolves to instruct the Chief Executive to write to the three borough MPs to inform them of the council’s position and request that they use whatever parliamentary means available to raise this matter with government
Motion 3
Councillor Goodwin to MOVE and Councillor Williams to SECOND:
This Council notes
This Council believes that
This Council resolves to
Minutes:
Motion 1
Councillor Jabbar MOVED and Councillor McCann SECONDED the following motion:
“Local Government has experienced a significant reduction in funding since 2009/10 and the introduction of the Government’s austerity regime. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, since 2009/10 there has been a real terms cut in local government spending across England of 22%. Here in Oldham we have fared much worse with a real terms cut of more than 42%. At the same time there has been a huge increase in demand for services, particularly in social care. The Council has responded to this massive challenge by competently and efficiently redesigning many of its services to minimise the impact on citizens of Oldham.
This Council notes with disappointment the Chancellor’s 2016 Autumn Statement in which he commented that higher spending by local authorities is one of the causes of a weaker economic outlook.
This Council believes that the Chancellor should have used his Statement to address pressing concerns in:
· The funding of Adult Social Care – the cuts made by central government have pushed social care to crisis point with knock on effects in the NHS as people cannot be safely discharged home. While a further increase to the National Living Wage is welcome, unless this is fully funded, it just increases pressure on council budgets and the viability of the private care sector.
· The benefits system. Cuts already agreed by government and not reversed will have a devastating impact on many Oldham residents.
· Providing more affordable and social housing and addressing homelessness and poor housing conditions.
The Autumn Statement provided new money for grammar schools, a stately home and reduced corporation tax.
Councillor Hudson spoke in support of the motion.
Councillor Jabbar exercised his right of reply.
A vote was then taken on the MOTION.
On being put the vote, the MOTION was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLVED that:
1. The borough’s three MP’s be written to, to urge them to take every opportunity to challenge the Government’s approach to public spending.
2. Council would work through the LGA to push the case for the urgent need to put social care on a sound financial footing.
3. Support provided to Oldham’s residents be continued, for example through the Welfare Rights Service, to do what could be to alleviate the difficulties faced by many of our residents.
Motion 2:
Councillor Toor MOVED and Councillor Garry SECONDED the following motion:
“This Council notes that hundreds of thousands of women had significant pension changes imposed on them by the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 but were not notified of the changes until relatively recently. Some women were not notified until two years ago of a six-year increase in pension age. Women born in the 1950s are bearing a disproportionate cost of Conservative plans to reduce state spending. Many women born in the 1950s are living in hardship. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences. Many of these women are caring for elderly relatives, providing childcare for grandchildren, or suffer discrimination in the workplace so struggle to find employment. Women born in this decade are suffering financially due to the Tories’ ideological drive to reduce the cost of the state. These women have worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and national insurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure after finishing work. It is not the pension age itself that is disputed – it is widely accepted that women and men should retire at the same time. The issue is that the rise in the women’s state pension age has been too rapid and has happened without sufficient notice being given to the women affected.
The Council calls on the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6th April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age they were not told about until it was too late to make alternative arrangements.
Councillor Bates spoke in support of the motion.
Councillor Turner spoke in support of the motion.
Councillor Roberts spoke in support of the motion.
Councillor Chauhan spoke in support of the motion.
Councillor Toor did not exercise her right of reply
On being put the vote, the MOTION was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLVED that the Chief Executive be instructed to write to the three borough MPs to inform them of the council’s position and request that they use whatever parliamentary means available to raise this matter with government.
Motion 3
Councillor Goodwin MOVED and Councillor Williams SECONDED the following motion:
“This Council notes:
· The Government has recently changed the guidance to Building Regulations whereby they do not require the installation of Fire Suppression Systems to be fitted into new schools.
· It was reported there were more than 600 fires in British schools last year and Arson was suspected in 40% of cases. According to insurers, each large fire causes an average of £1.5million of damage, and that, where fitted, sprinklers pay for themselves in lower premiums.
· The core objective of the Revised Building Bulletin 100 is to simplify the guidance. However, in the process, it has removed the expectation that all new schools (except for low risk schools) will be protected from fire with automatic sprinklers. The benefits of Fire Suppression, extensively and emphatically documented in the foreword of the current BB100, by the then Minister of State for Schools, have been erased from the revised BB100, with no mention made of sprinklers at all. This has taken place at a time when new schools in Scotland and Wales will have automatic sprinklers installed.
· There has been no advanced notice, or prior indication of this alarming change, which is, strongly rejected across the Fire Sector, The Fire Sector Federation, the Fire Protection Association and the Arson Prevention Bureau.
This Council believes that
· This is a retrograde step that does not make sense. Sprinklers do not just save lives, they prevent fires from spreading and causing significant disruption to children’s education. They are supported by CFOA, teachers and the LGA.
· This change of policy is a false economy as the cost of increased insurance premiums and the damage caused by fire, outweighs that of the installation of sprinklers.
· This is also remarkably out of step with the rest of Great Britain. In Scotland and Wales new schools are fitted with sprinklers. Should children in England be educated in schools with a lower safety standard than those in our neighbouring devolved administrations?”
AMENDMENT
Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor Williamson SECONDED the following amendment:
“After ‘This Council resolves to’ replace the original wording in the resolution with the following
“ask the Chief Executive to write to:
· The Minister of State for Schools calling on the Government to reintroduce the requirement that Fire Sprinkler Systems be installed in new schools as part of Revised Building Bulletin 100
· The Local Government Association asking the association to support the Council’s position
· The Borough’s three Members of Parliament asking them to make representations on this matter to the Minister’
And add an additional paragraph at the end of the motion:
‘This Council also resolves to campaign to ensure that plans for the redevelopment of Saddleworth School and Royton and Crompton School include the provision of Fire Sprinkler Systems into new school bulidings.’
The amended motion to read:
“This Council notes:
· The Government has recently changed the guidance to Building Regulations whereby they do not require the installation of Fire Suppression Systems to be fitted into new schools.
· It was reported there were more than 600 fires in British schools last year and Arson was suspected in 40% of cases. According to insurers, each large fire causes an average of £1.5million of damage, and that, where fitted, sprinklers pay for themselves in lower premiums.
· The core objective of the Revised Building Bulletin 100 is to simplify the guidance. However, in the process, it has removed the expectation that all new schools (except for low risk schools) will be protected from fire with automatic sprinklers. The benefits of Fire Suppression, extensively and emphatically documented in the foreword of the current BB100, by the then Minister of State for Schools, have been erased from the revised BB100, with no mention made of sprinklers at all. This has taken place at a time when new schools in Scotland and Wales will have automatic sprinklers installed.
· There has been no advanced notice, or prior indication of this alarming change, which is, strongly rejected across the Fire Sector, The Fire Sector Federation, the Fire Protection Association and the Arson Prevention Bureau.
This Council believes that
· This is a retrograde step that does not make sense. Sprinklers do not just save lives, they prevent fires from spreading and causing significant disruption to children’s education. They are supported by CFOA, teachers and the LGA.
· This change of policy is a false economy as the cost of increased insurance premiums and the damage caused by fire, outweighs that of the installation of sprinklers.
· This is also remarkably out of step with the rest of Great Britain. In Scotland and Wales new schools are fitted with sprinklers. Should children in England be educated in schools with a lower safety standard than those in our neighbouring devolved administrations?”
Councillor Goodwin exercised his right of reply
Councillor Sykes exercised his right of reply.
A vote was then taken on the AMENDMENT.
On being put the vote, 9 were cast in FAVOUR of the AMENDMENT and 44 votes were cast AGAINST with 0 ABSTENTIONS. The AMENDMENT was therefore LOST.
Councillor Goodwin did not exercise his right of reply.
On being put the vote, the MOTION was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLVED that:
1. The Government be called on to reconsider their position and the reintroduction of the guidance to Building Regulations with regard to the installation of Fire Sprinkler Systems into new school buildings.
2. Other Local Authorities be called on to consider requesting that the Government reconsider this matter.