The following two motions have been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 16:

17.1 The following motion has been received from Councillor Heather Kidd:

“The Council notes that the Government has failed to make fair transitional state pension arrangements for all women born on or after 6^th April 1951, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA) with lack of appropriate notification.

Hundreds of thousands of women had significant pension changes imposed on them by the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 with little/no/personal notification of the changes.  Some women had only two years notice of a six-year increase to their state pension age.

Many women born in the 1950’s are living in hardship. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.  Many of these women are already out of the labour market, caring for elderly relatives, providing child-care for grandchildren or suffering discrimination in the workplace so struggle to find employment.

Women born in this decade are suffering financially.  These women have worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and national insurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure when reaching 60.  It is not the pension age itself that is in dispute – 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, leaving them with no time to make alternative arrangements.

The Council requests that the Chief Executive write letters of support to the Prime Minister, the secretary of State for DWP (David Gauke) and the Pensions Minister (Guy Opperman) to advise them of the adverse effects that these changes to the SPA is having on women living in Shropshire who were born on or after 6^th April 1951.”

17.2 The following motion has been received from Councillor Andy Boddington:

“Many policies that Shropshire Council introduces will have a direct or indirect impact on the economy of the towns and villages of Shropshire.  The way the transport, education, housing, care and health systems are managed impacts on the economic wellbeing of our county.  If we don’t provide the right places for people to live and to work in the right jobs, and they can’t get access to the education and health care they need, we will not thrive.

Every paper coming to Cabinet and Council should incorporate a brief statement on the perceived economic impacts of any policy.  The intention of this duty is not to be onerous.  It aims to focus the Council on the benefits and disbenefits of any policy for a county that we all want to flourish.

This motion requests the Council establish a Task and Finish group to consider an economic duty and how it should be reported to Council.  It should report to full Council no later than December 2017.

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Kidd and duly seconded by Councillor Parry:

i)                 “The Council notes that the Government has failed to make fair transitional state pension arrangements for all women born on or after 6^th April 1951, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA) with lack of appropriate notification.

Hundreds of thousands of women had significant pension changes imposed on them by the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 with little/no/personal notification of the changes.  Some women had only two years notice of a six-year increase to their state pension age.

Many women born in the 1950’s are living in hardship. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.  Many of these women are already out of the labour market, caring for elderly relatives, providing child-care for grandchildren or suffering discrimination in the workplace so struggle to find employment.

Women born in this decade are suffering financially.  These women have worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and national insurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure when reaching 60.  It is not the pension age itself that is in dispute – 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, leaving them with no time to make alternative arrangements.

The Council requests that the Chief Executive write letters of support to the Prime Minister, the secretary of State for DWP (David Gauke) and the Pensions Minister (Guy Opperman) to advise them of the adverse effects that these changes to the SPA is having on women living in Shropshire who were born on or after 6^th April 1951.”

On being put to the vote this motion was lost, with the overwhelming majority voting against it (there were 3 abstentions).

ii)               The following motion was proposed by Councillor Boddington and duly seconded by Councillor Evans:

“Many policies that Shropshire Council introduces will have a direct or indirect impact on the economy of the towns and villages of Shropshire.  The way the transport, education, housing, care and health systems are managed impacts on the economic wellbeing of our county.  If we don’t provide the right places for people to live and to work in the right jobs, and they can’t get access to the education and health care they need, we will not thrive.

Every paper coming to Cabinet and Council should incorporate a brief statement on the perceived economic impacts of any policy.  The intention of this duty is not to be onerous.  It aims to focus the Council on the benefits and disbenefits of any policy for a county that we all want to flourish.

This motion requests the Council establish a Task and Finish Group to consider an economic duty and how it should be reported to Council.  It should report to full Council no later than December 2017.

An amendment was circulated at the meeting by the Conservative Group as follows;

Delete the final paragraph of the motion and replace with “The Council refers this motion to the appropriate Overview/Scrutiny Committee for further consideration and to decide whether any further action is required.”

This was proposed by the Leader, Councillor Nutting and duly seconded by Councillor Charmley.

On being put to the vote this amended motion was duly carried.