Agenda item
MOTIONS
The following two motions have been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 16:
22.1 . The following motion has been received from Councillor Miles Kenny:
‘This Council notes:
1.That the EU and USA launched negotiations in July 2013 on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
2.That negotiations are underway to determine which goods and services TTIP will apply to and if new rules can be agreed to protect investors, harmonise standards, reduce tariffs and open new markets throughout the EU and USA.
3.That there has been no impact assessment about the potential impact on local authorities.
4.That there has been no scrutiny of the negotiating texts by local government and no consultation with local government representatives
5.That MPs are also unable to scrutinise the negotiating documents.
This Council believes that:
1.TTIP could have a detrimental impact on local services, employment, suppliers and decision-making.
2.A thorough impact assessment of TTIP on local authorities must be undertaken before the negotiations can be concluded.
3.The proposed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism has been used by corporations to overturn democratic decisions by all levels of governments at significant public cost. Local decision-making must be protected from ISDS.
4.The EU’s food, environmental and labour standards are better than those in the US and TTIP negotiations must raise and not lower these standards across the EU and USA.
5.Sourcing supplies and employment locally is important to strengthening local economies and meeting local needs. TTIP must not impact on local authorities’ ability to act in the best interests its communities.
This Council Resolves:
6.To write to the secretary of state for communities and local government, local MPs, and all West Midlands MEPs raising our serious
concerns about the impact of TTIP on local authorities and the secrecy of the negotiating process.
7.To write to the Local Government Association to raise our serious concerns about the impact of TTIP on local authorities and ask them to raise these with government on our behalf.
8.To call for an impact assessment on the impact of TTIP on local authorities.
9.To publicise the council’s concerns about TTIP; join with other local authorities which are opposed to TTIP across Europe and work with local campaigners to raise awareness about the problems of TTIP. ‘
22.2 The following motion has been received from Councillor Roger Evans:
‘RIGHT TO BUY FOR HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS
This Council notes:
- the new Government’s proposal to extend the Right to Buy to Housing Association tenants, to be paid for by selling off the most expensive Council Housing stock;
- with alarm the shortage of affordable rented homes Shropshire with increasing numbers on our housing waiting list and is very concerned that the current government plans risk making matters far worse.
- For July 2015 we have 7,822 registered on our waiting list and are consequentially deemed to be in housing need. This is made up of 135 in the Priority, 1,147 in Gold, 2,573 in Silver and 3,967 in the Bronze Band.
- During 2014/15 just 1,184 properties were let, and within this number just 254 of those in Bronze Band were allocated a house.
- This is similar throughout England. Our younger residents are increasingly finding it difficult to find a home. Recent publications for example have shown that more than 3.4 million adults between 20 and 34 live with their parents.
- that a recent opinion poll showed that just 16% of the public believed that extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants would be the most useful way of tackling the affordability crisis; the public’s top choice was to help housing associations or councils to build more affordable homes, selected by 46% of the public;
- the recent report from June 2015 which shows that there could be a funding gap of over £1 billion to pay for the scheme.
Council opposes the forced sell off of council housing to pay for this plan and is concerned that the Government also:
- Fails to address Shropshire’s situation which no longer has any housing stock to sell.
- Fails to address the situation in rural areas where there are few suitable sites to build replacement social housing stock;
- Fails to recognise that this means housing associations will simply be trying to catch up with replacing homes rather than building affordable housing to give more people homes they need
Council notes that even the Conservative Mayor of London has said he did not want to see councils “deprived at a rapid rate of their housing stock” if more homes were not being built to replace them.
Council recognises the desire by many to own their own homes, and suggests that proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrats over a “Rent to Own” model and Shared Ownership housing would represent a better way of reaching this goal.
Council also notes that there are existing routes for housing association tenants to own their own properties – some Housing Association tenants already have the Right to Acquire.
Council resolves:
- to work with other neighbouring authorities and housing associations to oppose the current government proposals;
- to request the Chief Executive and Leader to each write to our four MPs’ who represent different parts of Shropshire asking them support the Council’s position; to speak up in parliament for more social housing and not less and to push for a genuine “one for one” replacement but not at the cost of losing more council housing.’
Minutes:
40.1 The following motion was proposed by Mr M Kenny and duly seconded by Dr J Jones:
“This Council believes that:
1.TTIP could have a detrimental impact on local services, employment, suppliers and decision-making.
2.A thorough impact assessment of TTIP on local authorities must be undertaken before the negotiations can be concluded.
3.The proposed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism has been used by corporations to overturn democratic decisions by all levels of governments at significant public cost. Local decision-making must be protected from ISDS.
4.The EU’s food, environmental and labour standards are better than those in the US and TTIP negotiations must raise and not lower these standards across the EU and USA.
5.Sourcing supplies and employment locally is important to strengthening local economies and meeting local needs. TTIP must not impact on local authorities’ ability to act in the best interests its communities.
This Council Resolves:
6.To write to the secretary of state for communities and local government, local MPs, and all West Midlands MEPs raising our serious
concerns about the impact of TTIP on local authorities and the secrecy of the negotiating process.
7.To write to the Local Government Association to raise our serious concerns about the impact of TTIP on local authorities and ask them to raise these with government on our behalf.
8.To call for an impact assessment on the impact of TTIP on local authorities.
9.To publicise the council’s concerns about TTIP; join with other local authorities which are opposed to TTIP across Europe and work with local campaigners to raise awareness about the problems of TTIP. ‘
On being put to the vote this motion was lost with 11 members voting for it, 1 abstention and the majority of members voting against it.
40.2 The following amended motion was circulated at the meeting on the day and it was agreed to consider this version instead of the motion originally put forward in the Speaker’s agenda. This amended motion was proposed by Mr R Evans and duly seconded by Mr M Price;
“RIGHT TO BUY FOR HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS
This Council notes:
- the new Government’s proposal to extend the Right to Buy to Housing Association tenants, to be paid for by selling off the most expensive Council Housing stock;
- with alarm the shortage of affordable rented homes Shropshire with increasing numbers on our housing waiting list and is very concerned that the current government plans risk making matters far worse.
- For July 2015 we have 7,822 registered on our waiting list and are consequentially deemed to be in housing need. This is made up of 135 in the Priority, 1,147 in Gold, 2,573 in Silver and 3,967 in the Bronze Band.
- During 2014/15 just 1,184 properties were let, and within this number just 254 of those in Bronze Band were allocated a house.
- This is similar throughout England. Our younger residents are increasingly finding it difficult to find a home. Recent publications for example have shown that more than 3.4 million adults between 20 and 34 live with their parents.
- That a recent opinion poll showed that just 16% of the public believed that extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants would be the most useful way of tackling the affordability crisis; the public’s top choice was to help housing associations or councils to build more affordable homes, selected by 46% of the public;
- The recent report from June 2015 which shows that there could be a funding gap of over £1 billion to pay for the scheme.
Council opposes the forced sell off of council housing to pay for this plan and is concerned that the Government also:
- Fails to address Shropshire’s situation which no longer has any housing stock to sell.
- Fails to address the situation in rural areas where there are few suitable sites to build replacement social housing stock;
- Fails to recognise that this means housing associations will simply be trying to catch up with replacing homes rather than building affordable housing to give more people homes they need.
Council notes that many leading politicians have said they do not want to see councils “deprived at a rapid rate of their housing stock” if more homes were not being built to replace them.
Council recognises the desire by many to own their own homes, and suggests that proposals put forward involving a “Rent to Own” model and Shared Ownership housing would represent a better way of reaching this goal.
Council also notes that there are existing routes for housing association tenants to own their own properties – some Housing Association tenants already have the Right to Acquire.
Council Resolves:
- to work with other neighbouring authorities and housing associations to oppose the current government proposals;
- to request the Chief Executive and Leader to each write to our four MPs’ who represent different parts of Shropshire asking them support the Council’s position; to speak up in parliament for more social housing and not less and to push for a genuine “one for one” replacement but not at the cost of losing more council housing.”
Both Mr N Hartin and Mrs M Shineton declared an interest in this motion and duly left the room before any debate commenced.
On being put to the vote this motion was unanimously carried, with no abstentions and no votes against.