Agenda item

Motion B (2010/11)

Councillor Browne has given notice that he will move in the following terms:

This Council notes:

That the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% announced in the Government's June Budget will fall hardest on those least able to afford it.

That the increase in VAT will lead to higher prices for goods and services; will have a disproportionate impact on pensioners and other low income groups; and will have a severe impact on businesses, charities and community groups in Haringey.

That the effect of the increase in VAT, when taken with other measures in the Budget, will be unfair to pensioners, who have not had a compensatory increase in other benefits and allowances.   

That the way the VAT increase will affect pensioners and other low income groups runs counter to the Government's Coalition Agreement statement on 20 May 2010 that it would "ensure that fairness is at the heart of those decisions so that all those most in need are protected.”

That the Institute of Fiscal Studies has stated the VAT increase was not "unavoidable," as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech.

This Council resolves:

To write directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising concerns about the impact of the proposed VAT increase on pensioners, other vulnerable groups and businesses in Haringey. 

To call on the Members of Parliament representing Haringey to stand up for Haringey’s pensioners, businesses and wider community,  to voice their opposition to this unfair increase in VAT, and to vote against it in Parliament.

Motion C (2010/11)

Councillor Canver has given notice that she will move in the following terms:

This Council Notes:

• The Labour Party’s National Manifesto pledge “to protect the character of their areas, local authorities now have greater powers to reject applications for lap-dancing clubs and we will give councils new powers to oppose gambling licences if there are too many betting shops operating in a high street.”
• That there is no provision in the Coalition Government’s Agreement to empower local democracy through allowing councils to stop the clustering of betting shops

This Council Believes:

• That the clustering of betting shops deprives local people of diverse high streets
• Residents and local authorities should have a stronger say in whether betting shops are able to set up in an area.

This Council Resolves:

• To lobby the Government to give local councils the power to stop the clustering of betting shops and refuse licensing applications for betting shops on these grounds  

Motion D (2010/11)

Councillor Weber has given notice that she will move in the following terms:

This Council notes

·        There are currently areas with 20mph limits in Haringey.

·        Excessive speed is a direct factor in about a fifth of all collisions and is a major contributory factor in a third of all road deaths.

·        Research from the London Transport Committee show’s that reducing the speed limit increases road safety as well as offering other potential benefits, such as encouraging walking and cycling and improving traffic flow.

·        Measures to introduce 20 mph limits into streets which are primarily residential are supported by the Department for Transport and recent proposals from the government on 20mph limits.

This Council believes

·        Haringey Council has a good record of reducing accidents in the borough and has existing 20mph limit areas. However, there is currently no clear vision for the implementation of this policy throughout the borough.

·        20mph speed limits can be effective tool to reduce speed and accidents without the use of physical enforcement measures.

This Council further notes, with concern

·        The recent increase in accidents on Haringey’s roads including children and older residents.

This Council resolves:

·        To provide a better environment for all road users, by implementing a 20 mph limit on all residential roads in London Borough of Haringey over a four year period.

·        To pilot a Town Centre 20 mph limit.

·        To carry out a comprehensive consultation programme to involve local residents, stakeholders and community groups.

·        To use minimal physical measures of enforcement.

·        To contact the Minister of State for Transport on recent proposal set out by the government on 20mph and how these would be best implemented in Haringey.

Motion B (2010/11)

It was moved by Councillor Browne and seconded by Councillor Waters that:

“This Council notes:

That the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20% announced in the Government's June Budget will fall hardest on those least able to afford it.

That the increase in VAT will lead to higher prices for goods and services; will have a disproportionate impact on pensioners and other low income groups; and will have a severe impact on businesses, charities and community groups in Haringey.

That the effect of the increase in VAT, when taken with other measures in the Budget, will be unfair to pensioners, who have not had a compensatory increase in other benefits and allowances.   

That the way the VAT increase will affect pensioners and other low income groups runs counter to the Government's Coalition Agreement statement on 20 May 2010 that it would "ensure that fairness is at the heart of those decisions so that all those most in need are protected.”

That the Institute of Fiscal Studies has stated the VAT increase was not "unavoidable," as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech.

This Council resolves:

To write directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer raising concerns about the impact of the proposed VAT increase on pensioners, other vulnerable groups and businesses in Haringey. 

To call on the Members of Parliament representing Haringey to stand up for Haringey’s pensioners, businesses and wider community,  to voice their opposition to this unfair increase in VAT, and to vote against it in Parliament”.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Davies that:

Delete from “This Council Notes” and insert:

·        “That the Coalition Government inherited the largest deficit of any country in Europe except the Republic of Ireland, and that after the election it was revealed that the UK’s structural deficit was significantly higher than previously revealed.

·        That the last Government failed to set aside money during economic good times to fund spending during the bad times, and Gordon Brown broke his own ‘Golden Rule’ on borrowing over the economic cycle by £485 billion.

·        None of the main political parties ruled out VAT increases in their recent election manifestos.

·        According to Lord Mandelson’s memoirs, Chancellor Alistair Darling wanted to increase VAT, and made sure that Labour made no commitment not to increase VAT during this parliament.

·        That the Coalition Government is committed to introducing the Liberal Democrat’s progressive tax policy of raising the income tax threshold to £10,000, that would take 4 million people on low pay out of income tax altogether.

·        That the budget includes plans to increase Capital Gains Tax and to introduce a new levy on banks to make sure the burden of repaying the deficit is spread fairly.

This Council calls on politicians of all parties to work together during this period of unprecedented economic difficulty to reduce the budget deficit, whilst doing everything possible to protect frontline services”.

On being put to the vote the amendment was declared LOST (21 for, 32 against).

The Motion was declared CARRIED following a recorded vote, as follows:

For the Motion: The Mayor (Councillor Griffith), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adamou), Councillors Adje, Amin, Basu, Bevan, Brabazon, Browne, Bull, Canver, Christophides, Cooke, Diakides, Dogus, Egan, Ejiofor, Gibson, Goldberg, Khan, Kober, Mallett, McNamara, Meehan, Peacock, Reith, Rice, Stanton, Stennett, Stewart, Strickland, Vanier, Waters and Watson.

Against the Motion: Councillors Alexander, Allison, Beacham, Bloch, Davies, Engert, Gorrie, Hare, Jenks, Newton, Reece, Reid, Schmitz, Scott, Solomon, Strang, Weber, Whyte, Williams, Wilson and Winskill.

Absent:  Councillors Butcher, Demirci and Erskine.

Motion C (2010/11)

It was moved by Councillor Canver and seconded by Councillor Strickland that:

“This Council Notes:

·        The Labour Party’s National Manifesto pledge “to protect the character of their areas, local authorities now have greater powers to reject applications for lap-dancing clubs and we will give councils new powers to oppose gambling licences if there are too many betting shops operating in a high street”.

·        That there is no provision in the Coalition Government’s Agreement to empower local democracy through allowing councils to stop the clustering of betting shops

This Council Believes:

·        That the clustering of betting shops deprives local people of diverse high streets

·        Residents and local authorities should have a stronger say in whether betting shops are able to set up in an area.

This Council Resolves:

·        To lobby the Government to give local councils the power to stop the clustering of betting shops and refuse licensing applications for betting shops on these grounds”  

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Schmitz and seconded by Councillor Engert that:

(Amendments are shown underlined, deletions have been struck through)

“This Council Notes:

·         The Labour Party’s National Manifesto pledge to undo the damage caused  to our High Streets by the former Labour Government’s Gamblng Act 2005 and to give councils to protect the character of their areas, local authorities now have greater powers to reject applications for lap-dancing clubs and we will give councils new powers to oppose gambling licences if there are too many betting shops operating in a high street.

·         That there is no provision in the Coalition Government’s Agreement to empower local democracy through allowing councils to stop the clustering of betting shops 

This Council Believes:

·         That the clustering of betting shops deprives local people of diverse high streets

·         Residents and local authorities should have a stronger say in whether betting shops are able to set up in an area.

This Council Resolves:

·         To lobby the Government to change the planning laws so prohibit changes of use to betting shops in all cases unless planning permission is obtained for that purpose and to give local councils the power to stop the clustering of betting shops and refuse licensing applications for gambling premises licences for betting shops on these grounds  wherever the local authority considers that there is excessive provision of such premises”.

Councillor Canver during her right of reply offered, with the agreement of the seconder, to alter the Motion subject to the Council’s agreement, to include the last paragraph of the amendment. The meeting signified its agreement. The amendment to the motion was then withdrawn.

The following altered motion was declared CARRIED unanimously.

“This Council Notes:

·        The Labour Party’s National Manifesto pledge “to protect the character of their areas, local authorities now have greater powers to reject applications for lap-dancing clubs and we will give councils new powers to oppose gambling licences if there are too many betting shops operating in a high street”.

·        That there is no provision in the Coalition Government’s Agreement to empower local democracy through allowing councils to stop the clustering of betting shops

This Council Believes:

·        That the clustering of betting shops deprives local people of diverse high streets

·        Residents and local authorities should have a stronger say in whether betting shops are able to set up in an area.

This Council Resolves:

·         To lobby the Government to change the planning laws so prohibit changes of use to betting shops in all cases unless planning permission is obtained for that purpose and to give local councils the power to refuse applications for gambling premises licences wherever the local authority considers that there is excessive provision of such premises”.

Motion D (2010/11)

Motion D was not reached.