Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Coulton, Heyworth, Mrs Hothersall, Mrs Noblet, O'Hare, Patten, Suthers, M Tomlinson, Mrs Woollard and Yates.

Councillor Mullineaux referred to an issue about an incident in Brickfield Wood raised by Councillor Heyworth as an urgent matter at the last meeting. Further enquiries internally had ascertained that the incident had in fact occurred in March and had not been reported to the authority at the time, meaning that there had been two intervening meetings of full Council at which the matter could have been reported. He urged members to report issues of concern when they arose.

In Councillor Heyworth?s absence, Councillor Foster said that the Labour group rarely brought urgent matters to the Council and Councillor Heyworth must have believed the matter to be urgent at the time. Councillor Kelly explained that he and Councillor Heyworth had visited the scene when the incident had been reported to them and genuinely believed that it had happened only a few days previously. More recently, however, a similar incident had occurred and he urged the council to erect warning signs. Councillor Mullineaux confirmed that he had asked for some signage to be erected to advise people to stay on the path due to the changeable ground conditions. He advised that members could view his detailed response on the incident on Cllr CONNECT.

The Leader said that the final sentence of minute 26, paragraph 2, should be expanded to read ?as far as possible?.

Councillor Foster stated that minute number 26, resolution 2, should be expanded to include the fact that the Labour group had reserved its right to submit its own proposals relating to the wards of Farington East and Farington West to the Local Government Boundary Commission.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
Subject to the amendments above, the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2013 be approved and signed by the Mayor.

The Leader commended the report of the Cabinet meeting held on 4 September. The report was seconded.

In relation to item 1, Empty Homes Policy, Councillor Ms Bell noted that there was a relatively low number of empty properties in South Ribble, and although bringing them back into use was commendable, it made little difference in relation to the number of people on the Select Move waiting list. Councillor Martin echoed these comments, stating that the demand for single occupancy units in particular far exceeded availability on Select Move. Councillor Titherington said that he was pleased to see that many of the recommendations from the Scrutiny Committee?s review of empty properties had been taken forward in the policy. The Cabinet member for Strategic Planning and Housing acknowledged that a lack of available affordable housing was a major issue and confirmed that the Scrutiny review had been helpful.

In relation to item 3, Commercial Services, Councillor Foster said he considered that the current administration had systematically run down Commercial Services until it could close it down and bring in private contractors, with the result that loyal staff would be made redundant. He said that although Councillor Hamman, as Cabinet Member for Corporate and Support Services, would be associated with the closure of the service, he questioned how Councillor Robinson, as Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, had allowed the situation to arise where the Council and the borough was losing an invaluable service, or even whether he had created the economic situation that ensured it would be closed regardless.

Councillor Foster expressed regret that this was not an item on which all members of the Council would be given an opportunity to vote. He believed that Councillor Robinson had relied on a mention in the budget of a Commercial Services Review as authority for the Cabinet to make a unilateral decision to cut a service. Cabinet members would have known that this would be a controversial decision, even amongst their own group, and had used the constitution to prevent members from having a democratic vote on the matter, which he considered to be a ?slap in the face to local democracy?. He suggested that a final decision had been made by Cabinet prior to being armed with all the relevant information relating to the cost of private sector provision.

He said that Cabinet needed to recognise that it was Council which set the overall budget and policy framework, as laid out in the constitution. In accordance with Standing Order 10, (Motions and amendments which may be moved without notice), he proposed the following motion:

?That this Council resolve that Cabinet review the decision made in respect of Commercial Services as detailed in paragraph 3 of item 5, the Report of the Cabinet. Furthermore, this Council also resolves:

1. An all-party working group be immediately formed to review and report back to Council on all the options detailed within the Cabinet Report of 4 September 2013, ensuring that all possible options have been fully reviewed and considered;
2. the Governance Committee review the Constitution and report back to Council as to why such a significant decision to discontinue a particular service of the Council did not require Council approval and, furthermore, confirm that the decision making process was in line with our Standing Orders and Procedure Rules.?

In seconding the motion, Councillor Titherington said that all administrations of this Council had been proud to be transparent in the decision making process; however, he regretted that this did not seem to be the case on this particular matter. He questioned why, if Cabinet had absolute confidence in the correctness of the figures, the Scrutiny Committee or full Council had not been given an opportunity to consider the report before any final decision was taken. Had this opportunity been available, it would have given credibility and validity to whatever decision had been made. The fact that it had been taken by Cabinet only suggested that it was ?symptomatic of a philosophy of cut and outsource?. In spite of promising to protect South Ribble and the council, the current administration had cut the budget, posts and salaries, had outsourced services, and described all this as ?efficiencies?.

Councillor Pimblett queried the cost of the alternative provision and suggested that this should have been explored properly before the decision was taken.

Councillor Forest said that the way in which the decision had been made had been an insult to the scrutiny process. He suggested that, when it became clear that there were concerns about the service budget, the Scrutiny Committee should have been invited to prepare a report for Cabinet to consider. When the Scrutiny Committee had considered Catering Services some ten years previously, it had concluded that the service should not be judged simply on an income versus expenditure basis. Councillor Martin considered the decision to show a lack of support to a service which had served this Council very well. Councillor Kelly expressed his concern about a general lack of openness, including in relation to the operation of the Worden Park coffee shop and the Marsden Theatre.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources said that the lack of financial awareness among the Labour group was ?stunning?. He said that the Labour councillors could have asked officers to look at the figures relating to Commercial Services but had not done so. The service was costing council tax payers ?200K per annum and was serving less than 50 meals per day. The leading administration wanted the Council to live within its means and could not afford to subsidise the service.

Councillor W Bennett said that part of the role of the Governance and Scrutiny Committees was to make recommendations to Cabinet and it was within the remit of Councillor Titherington, as chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, to call in a Cabinet decision if he felt it appropriate to do so. He had not chosen to call it in when he could have done.

The Leader said that it was a sad situation and the Commercial Services staff had been very loyal to the Council. She said that the analysis of the Coppice Restaurant was designed to be based on facts from the start and there was a desire to look at all available options. She had met with Councillor M Tomlinson, put the facts to him and offered to provide the Labour group with all the paperwork. She said that Councillor Forrest had been correct in saying that the Scrutiny Committee had considered Commercial Services some years ago and pointed out that when the committee had scrutinised the Leisure Service it had resulted in it being outsourced. She questioned why the decision was being questioned now when the opportunity to call it in had passed.

Councillor P Smith said that much time and effort had gone on over a number of years to protect this service. He said that the Labour group was incompetent when it came to money but pointed out that Councillor Titherington had agreed at the Cabinet meeting that the figures were correct. Councillor Mullineaux said the service had been losing money for a long time and he was sure that local residents would appreciate that the decision had to be made. He said that any suggestion that the Cabinet had not fully considered the facts before making the decision was completely wrong and he observed that no real concerns had been expressed at the Cabinet meeting itself.

Councillor Titherington acknowledged that the Scrutiny Committee chairman could call in a Cabinet decision, as could any five members of the Council, however, he was not questioning the grounds on which the decision was made and did not feel that there were grounds for a call-in. He said he may have commented at Cabinet that on the face of it the figures looked compelling but he had suggested that it should be referred to the Scrutiny Committee before a decision was made.

Councillor Evans questioned how members like himself, who were not members of the Cabinet or the Scrutiny Committee, could have a say on this decision ? although they might not have argued against it, it would have been nice to have an opportunity to be involved.

Councillor Foster expressed his disappointment that the Conservative members had not taken the time to listen to what Labour members had said and had not even read the motion. Councillor Foster said the Leader had not explained why the matter was not taken to the Scrutiny Committee and Labour members simply wanted a mechanism to confirm that the correct decision had been taken. He said that the Council was a decision making forum and his group wanted to be part of the decision making process.

The Mayor invited members to vote on the motion. The motion was lost (YES ? 20, no ? 25).

In relation to item 5, Electrical Upgrading, Roofing Works and Fire Suppression, Civic Centre and Moss Side Depot, Councillor Foster enquired whether any thought had been given to issuing a new invitation to tender after only a single tenderer responded to the first invitation. Councillor Forrest observed that when only one company tendered for a contract, there was often suspicion as to why. Councillor Harrison enquired whether the contractor was an ISO 9001 certified company. Councillor Pimblett asked why the decision had been taken to exclude the installation of a photo voltaic system at the Civic Centre. Councillor Robinson said the tender received had been considered to be completely reasonable, with all the appropriate and requested qualifications in place and, with the timescales involved, the decision had been taken not to issue a further ITT. The possibility that any cartel arrangement was at work was not something that had crossed his mind. Following close examination of the figures, it had proven impossible to determine whether the council would benefit, so the decision had been taken to defer the installation of a photo voltaic system at the Civic Centre for the time being.

In relation to item 6, Member Development Plan ? Outturn Report 2012/13, Councillor Ms Bell took the opportunity to thank the Human Resources team for their support for member development and encouraged as many members as possible to attend Learning Hours.

Councillor Foster said that item 7, Byelaws, had caused a great deal of debate. Whilst anti-social behaviour was an issue which could blight communities, there were laws and statutes in place to help tackle it and the imposition of byelaws should be fully considered and used only as a last resort. There were similar or worse anti-social issues in other parts of the borough and the vast majority of young people just wanted somewhere to ?hang out?. He queried what action Tesco was taking to resolve the issue and urged the Council to consider all appropriate actions, including asking the Leyland My Neighbourhood Forum to engage with other agencies to identify a possible solution.

Councillor Howarth observed that imposing byelaws would serve only to move the problem on to another part of the borough and suggested that the Council should be looking at how to accommodate young people. Councillor Martin acknowledged the considerable amount of work that Councillor Hamman had done but suggested that other avenues for resolving the problem should be considered.

Councillor Hamman explained that a number of residents and shopkeepers had spoken up at a Police and Communities Together meeting about their concerns about damage to property, noise levels and the dangers posed by people playing football or moving at speed on skateboards. The young people themselves had said they wanted to hang out in that location and members of the Cabinet had no issue with that, they simply wished to reduce danger and anti-social behaviour. Tesco was responsible for keeping the area clean and tidy but not for the behaviour of those who congregated in the area; having said that, the manager had positioned a fixed CCTV camera at the area of concern. Councillor Hamman understood that local police were in favour of byelaws, whereas Councillor Hanson had heard as part of discussions of similar issues in Bamber Bridge, that the local police had said they did not want byelaws.

Councillor Mullineaux pointed out that the introduction of byelaws would be an aid to try and help the situation in the vicinity of Tesco but there was no guarantee that the government would agree to the creation of the byelaws. He pointed out that all councillors had a right to report problems in their local areas but he was not aware of any having done so.

In relation to item 12, Cabinet Meetings Start Time, Councillor Michael Green recommended that the start time should be kept under review in the future. Councillor Foster said that he could not understand why the start time had moved to 5.00pm which was prohibitive for people who worked and said that the Labour group would prefer to revert to a 6.00pm start.

RESOLVED that:
1) the report of the Cabinet be noted;
2) Empty Homes Policy (YES ? 44, NO ? 0, ABSTENTION ? 1)
(i) the Empty Homes Policy be approved, and
(ii) delegated authority be granted to the Director of Planning and Housing in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Housing where appropriate, to take the most effective course of action and to report to Cabinet in accordance with the policy;
3) Open Space and Playing Pitch Supplementary Planning Document ? Adoption (unanimous)
(i) the Central Lancashire Open Space and Playing Pitch Supplementary Planning Document be adopted, and
(ii) delegated authority be granted to the Director of Planning and Housing in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Housing, to make minor text, layout and formatting amendments following the completion of the four week period stipulated by Part 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012;
4) Member Development Plan ? Outturn Report 2012/13 (unanimous)
(i) the report be noted;
5) Our People Plan (unanimous)
(i) the 2012/13 out-turn for the Council?s Our People Plan be noted and the proposed Plan for 2013-15 be approved;
6) Byelaws (YES ? 25, NO ? 18, ABSTENTION ? 2)
(i) the Director of Neighbourhoods and Street Scene be authorised, in consultation with the Deputy Leader, Neighbourhhods and Streetscene, to seek provisional approval from government to the making of byelaws to control skateboarding and the playing of games (including the playing of ball games) as detailed in the report, and
(ii) in the event that the government grants provisional approval to the proposed byelaws, the appropriate byelaws be made ? such approval from Council would then be sought by a further report;
7) Community Infrastructure Levy (unanimous)
(i) a revised composite 123 List of schemes to be funded through CIL be prepared for consultation as per the statutory requirements;
(ii) a further report be presented to Council to agree the revised composite 123 List, and
(iii) following on from Council approval of a revised composite 123 List, that Cabinet agree an annual programme and three year rolling programme for scheme delivery.

Councillor Titherington presented the report of the Scrutiny Committee held on 13 August. The report was seconded.

Councillor Titherington reminded members that the themes for the meeting on 8 October were the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service and the Leisure Partnership.

Councillor Crook recalled that during Councillor Harrison?s mention of child poverty at the last meeting, a member of the Conservative group had said ?rubbish? and he enquired if the Leader felt the same way. The Leader said she did not recollect hearing that comment at the last meeting so could not comment. She understood that Councillor Mrs Noblet had replied to Councillor Harrison following the meeting and she would ask for the reply to be posted on to CLLR CONNECT.

Councillor Michael Green congratulated the Leader, Cabinet members and officers for their work in bringing the City Deal forward. This deal was expected to deliver in excess of 20,000 jobs and was unlikely to have been taken forward without the influence of the county council?s Chief Executive. The Leader acknowledged that the county council?s Chief Executive had indeed done a lot of work and observed that there was a lot more work to be done between now and March.

Councillor Michael Green asked the Leader to write to the Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service (LFRS) to thank officers for their tremendous work which had helped to save much of St Mary?s Techology College which was expected to have been lost. The Leader said that she would be very happy to write to the LFRS to express the Council?s thanks. Our own officers had been in regular contact with the school and church, both of which had expressed their thanks for our support.

Councillor Ms Bell lamented the increase in demand for food banks in the borough to which people in need were referred from agencies such as the Job Centre and Citizens Advice Bureau and observed that it must be extremely difficult for people to swallow their pride and ask for food. She urged the Council to consider what it might be able to do to assist local people who were in need. The Leader agreed that it must be extremely difficult for people to ask for food and thought that the Council should perhaps look into how it might help people to learn to cook economically. Councillor Martin pointed out that the large increase in people using food banks meant that the issue needed to be looked at with some urgency. The Leader pointed out that there were no short term solutions to what was a long term issue but suggested the Council should help where it could.

Councillor Foster said that the Leader, Chief Executive and officers should take credit for their efforts on the City Deal. He noted that Lorraine Fullbrook had announced her decision not to stand at the next general election and wondered whether the Leader agreed with him that the last 12 years had been more about Mrs Fullbrook?s ego than about serving the residents of the borough. If she was retiring due to ill health he wished her all the very best but, if not, he believed that she had let the borough down. The Leader considered that some of Councillor Foster?s comments were out of order and observed that Mrs Fullbrook had suffered from a number of illnesses since her election. She wished her all the very best and thanked her for all her work for the borough.

When a member of the public rose to ask a question of the Leader, Councillor Crook quoted Standing Order 14 ?Address by Members of the Public? and suggested that the member of the public should have given notice of the subject matter in advance of the meeting. The Mayor pointed out that the member of the public had indicated that he would like to ask a question rather than an address and invited him to ask his question.

In response to a suggestion from Councillor Michael Green that Labour was attempting to silence members of the public, Councillor Crook pointed out that most of the comments and questions raised by the member of the public concerned did not relate to the functions of this authority nor affect the authority or its residents. Councillor Titherington observed that this Council had a proud record of allowing public participation and he hoped that this could continue, however, he firmly believed that members of the public should not cross the line of common decency. The Leader pointed out that many years ago the public did not have the opportunities to participate in the way that they currently did and she believed that public participation should continue. Councillor Foster confirmed that the Labour group fully supported public participation but said that some members of the group had been subject to some ?vile? material from the member of the public concerned.

A member of the public offered his congratulations for the substantial efficiency savings identified by the Conservative administration and asked if the Leader would write to the Prime Minister on behalf of the residents of South Ribble to thank him for turning round the economy. The Leader thanked the member of the public for his comments but declined to write to the Prime Minister.

Deputy Leader, Neighbourhoods and Street Scene

In response to a question from Councillor Watts about travellers, Councillor Mullineaux acknowledged that it was not easy to move travellers on but working with other agencies certainly helped to move them on more quickly.

Regeneration, Leisure and Healthy Communities

Councillor Mrs Mary Green thanked all those involved in organising the health Mela the previous Saturday and urged members to do all they could to help endorse the current campaign by Galloway?s Society for the Blind to encourage people to have regular sight tests. Councillor P Smith said that the Mela had been hugely successful and well organised by Leyland Rotary and the Preston Gujarat Hindu Society. He recognised the importance of regular sight checks and was pleased that an optician would be on hand at the Health and Wellbeing Day being held the next day.

Councillor Martin expressed his thanks in advance for the Health & Wellbeing Day. He welcomed the Cycle to Work Scheme which formed one part of the Council?s commitment to health and wellbeing but suggested that more thought needed to be given to how cycles could be stored more securely at both the Civic Centre and Moss Side Depot following the theft of a number of cycles. Councillor P Smith was not aware of the thefts but agreed to investigate what might be done to improve security.

Shared Services and Corporate Support

Councillor W Bennett welcomed the launch of the new website which he considered was long overdue and thanked the cabinet member for moving it forward. Councillor Hamman said that the new website would be a real benefit to the Council in many ways. He acknowledged that it had been a long road and thanked all those involved, in particular, Ian Parker, John Healey, Mark Gilmore and Dave Pollard.

Strategic Planning and Housing

Councillor Howarth expressed his delight that the City Deal had been signed off. He hoped that all the relevant people would be involved in the discussions to ensure that appropriate infrastructure was in place. Councillor Hughes confirmed that he was adamant that there had to be provision for the road bridge to be in place and Councillor Mrs Smith had pointed out the omission in the City Deal paperwork, stressing that the bridge needed to be in place.

Following the provision of a substantial amount of statistical evidence, Councillor Crook lamented the disappointingly low number of affordable houses coming forward in the borough and asked the cabinet member to take appropriate measures to ensure that for all future planning applications, the requirements of Policy 7 of the Core Strategy and the Supplementary Planning Document on Affordable Housing were strictly adhered to, and that unless developers were able to provide robust and verifiable justification to the contrary, there would be a firm expectation that the required number of Affordable Houses would be built on each and every site where the threshold applied.

Councillor Hughes acknowledged that affordable housing presented a major challenge. The new Core Strategy set a requirement of 30% affordable housing but, with CIL and S106 contribution obligations, developers often claimed that sites were no longer viable for them. The council?s first preference was for affordable houses to be included in a development but there was an option for us to take money from the developer and build off site. He explained that when affordable housing was built by a developer, the council purchased it at a discounted rate on behalf of a housing association. The Empty Homes Policy which members had approved earlier in the meeting was part of the wider strategy to tackle affordability and homelessness.

Councillor Hanson expressed his thanks to the council?s planning Enforcement and Monitoring Officer, Andrew Cowley, for liaising with the developers at Wesley Street Mill
for the preservation of an inscribed feature of the structure which was thought to be granite but turned out to be terracotta and on removal had disintegrated. It was now hoped that a replica in granite would be made and sited at the entrance to the development.

Councillor Martin queried why the borough did not have provision for travellers and suggested that a provision of temporary accommodation for travellers would boost the council?s New Homes Bonus. Councillor Hughes confirmed that a survey was underway to identify the need for facilities for travellers in Chorley, Preston and South Ribble.

Councillor Watts expressed his disappointment that the developers of the Brindle Road site seemed to be interpreting ?stone? as ?suitable materials?.

There were no questions.

Councillor Harrison thanked Councillor Mrs Noblet in her absence for the reply that she had sent to him following the last meeting and said that he would try to arrange a meeting with the relevant agencies to discuss the matter further.

Councillor Marsh expressed his thanks to Councillor M Gardner for the recent visit to Springfields which he and other members had found very interesting. Councillor M Gardner was pleased to be able to announce that he was in the process of arranging a visit to Heysham Power Station for any member who was interested and details would be circulated by Democratic Services in due course.

Councillor Otter invited Councillor Miss Walker to give an update on her activities as the Older People?s Member Champion. Miss Walker thanked members for supporting her nomination as the Older People?s Member Champion and outlined various meetings which she had attended in that capacity. She would be more than happy to provide individual members with information if they wished to contact her.

Notice of the following motion, to be proposed by Councillor Titherington and seconded by Councillor Foster, had been submitted in accordance with Standing Order 9(2).

?Financial Transaction Tax (FTT)
This Council is aware that it will see real term cuts in central grant of around 30% over the Comprehensive Spending Revue period by 2015 and notes the detrimental effect on jobs and living standards these cuts will have amongst our residents.
This Council asserts that there is an alternative to the draconian cuts inflicted on public services by the Government?s austerity programme namely by extending the current Financial Transaction Tax on shares to other asset classes, such as bonds and derivatives. The money raised could be used to reverse the ongoing shrinkage in central grants to our and other Councils.
Council therefore resolves to write to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Chancellor and Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government declaring this Council?s support for extending FTTs. ?
Councillor Titherington explained that he was bringing this motion to Council following a request from a ward resident who considered that the impact of the cuts upon ordinary people had not been fair. The resident recognised that this was largely due to the actions of central government in cutting grants to local authorities but believed that ?this Council should do more to speak up for alternative policy options to the austerity approach prescribed by Westminster?.

Councillor Titherington said that many people would have heard of the Financial Transaction Tax more by its other names; either the Tobin Tax, after the economist who first suggested it in 1974, or the Robin Hood Tax, designed to redistribute the wealth in the country in a more fair and just way.

He noted that the biggest portion of blame for the financial crisis lay with the banks and yet it was ordinary people who had to endure the burden of austerity rather than the bankers themselves. Whilst Council lauded its achievements in making efficiency savings in the face of an ever decreasing budget, it could not hide the effects that the impact of the cuts had had on jobs and living standards. Many local residents had also lost their jobs and were either under employed and having to survive on less money or having their benefits cut. At the same time, financial institutions seemed to be oblivious of the needs of the ordinary person or of the impact of their actions and this was simply not right.

He said that with this provided a viable, plausible and workable alternative to cuts, which was fairer, proportionate and more just. The Financial Transaction Tax involved a very modest tax on share, bond and derivative transactions in financial markets. As it applied only a tiny level for each transaction, it was targeted at high frequency gamblers on the markets, not investors like pension funds. It was suggested that such a tax could bring in up to ?20bn, equivalent to the total amount of council tax collected in this country in a year. This money could be used to help create thousands of jobs across the country and drive up employment in our own authority.

He concluded by saying that the wording of the motion was such that if it passed, the urgings for the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax would be directed at all the political parties so, in that sense, would not be seen as politically partisan.

Councillor Foster seconded the motion, echoing that it was not partisan and saying that the country was in the middle of quite possibly one of the worst periods of austerity known, with much more to come. Looking back, it was accepted that the global recession was caused by a failure of the banking sector. The working and middle classes of this country were suffering badly from the austerity measures being introduced whilst there was an upward spiral of wealth being created. It was time that this was addressed by the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax.

He said that the International Monetary Fund estimated that a tax rate of 0.005% on spot, forward and swap transactions would provide revenue of US$12.3 billion. Many countries around the world had already introduced a Financial Transaction Tax or were in the process of introducing one. The UK already had one in the form of Stamp Duty. France and Germany were looking to implement the EU Financial Transaction Tax, where revenues to the UK were estimated to be in the region of ?8.4 billion per year if implemented. The UK government currently opposed it and it had been muted that any Financial Transaction Tax was illegal. The legal opinion, supplied by the EU?s lawyers, stated that by allowing member states of the EU the new tax raising powers that they would need in order to impose this tax was incompatible with the current EU treaty, thus illegal. All that was required to make it legal was a new, revised EU treaty which gave taxation powers to individual EU members, something he suggested would be music to the ears of Conservative members and what all members would probably support. He concluded by saying that it was only fair that the financial institutions should pay tax on financial transactions and that the proceeds should be distributed among those that needed it the most.

Councillor Stettner suggested that the imposition of such a tax would result in many people receiving a lower pension due to the impact on pension funds.

Councillor Robinson rose to oppose the motion and highlighted the fact that the EU?s own legal advisers had found the draft legislation to be illegal under EU law.

A member of the public said that there was currently no financial transaction tax on shares but a stamp duty paid by the buyer and the seller, not the broker or the dealer and he suggested that unless all countries implemented a financial transaction tax it would not work.

Councillor P Smith said that he had almost been convinced that a financial transaction tax was a good thing until he had done some research which had led him to conclude that it was not. He suggested that the previous Labour government had had an incompetent Chancellor who had become Prime Minister and it was the Labour government which had made a mess of things. He would suggest that the tax should be known as the Dick Turpin tax.

Before moving to the vote the Mayor invited Councillor Titherington to sum up.

Councillor Titherington said that the global financial crisis was not caused by the Labour government. 78% of the responsibility lay with the banks which gambled with money that they did not have. He said that the EU Commissioner responsible for tax had rebuffed the suggestion that it would be illegal. He concluded by saying that pension fund investments would not be impacted by the imposition of such a tax but hedge funds would.

The Mayor invited members to vote on the motion.

RESOLVED: (YES ? 16, NO ? 26, ABSTENTION ? 0)
That the motion be lost.
?

RESOLVED (unanimously):
That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item of business as it involved the discussion of information which was defined as exempt from publication under paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 ?Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information))? and in which the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Robinson, presented the report which concerned the Council's claim against the Icelandic bank, Landsbanki. The report was seconded.

RESOLVED (unanimously :
That the recommendations outlined in the report be approved.