Agenda item

Living Wage

It was moved by Councillor Sarah Jane Smalley, seconded by Councillor Brian Webster, that this Council:-

(a)       notes from The Convenient Truth by Wilkinson and Pickett, published by the Fabian Society, that “Although economic development is what has transformed the real quality of life during the last couple of centuries…. evidence shows very clearly that in the rich countries economic growth no longer drives measures of wellbeing” and “Greater equality is then a key objective, not only because it reduces social dysfunction and improves health and wellbeing, but also because it makes it possible to overcome some of the main obstacles to sustainability”;

(b)       notes research from The Equality Trust, which states that the wealth of Britain’s richest 100 people now almost equals that of a third of all households put together;

(c)        notes Joseph Rowntree Foundation Research published in January which shows that eight million people are living on family incomes considered inadequate for a “socially acceptable standard of living”, a rise of almost a third since 2009;

(d)       notes the work which has been done to date in Sheffield to reduce inequality;

(e)       welcomes the fact that Sheffield City Council has a pay ratio of 1:10;

(f)        welcomes the launch of the “Our Fair City” campaign;

(g)       notes the Sheffield Fairness Commission recommendation that “substantial progress” be made on paying a Living Wage in the public sector by 2015 (including contractors) and for all employers in the city to be paying the Living Wage by 2023;

(h)       notes with concern that whilst Sheffield City Council has implemented a Living Wage for the staff it directly employs, work remains “on-going” with contractors and no firm overall or time-commitment has been made to ensure all contractors adopt the Living Wage;

(i)         praises Glasgow City Council for now obliging all its contractors to pay the Living Wage;

(j)         notes that Brighton and Hove City Council is accredited as a Living Wage Employer by the Living Wage Foundation, which means that they have a plan for ensuring that all contractors pay the Living Wage as and when contracts come up for renewal, and that new contractors pay the Living Wage;

(k)        makes a real commitment to reducing inequality in Sheffield by requesting that the Administration puts a plan in place to become accredited as a Living Wage Employer by the Living Wage Foundation; and

(l)         encourages its partners on the Sheffield First Partnership Board, including the Sheffield Universities, to commit to reducing inequality in Sheffield by ensuring that they have pay ratios of 1:10 or less.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Ben Curran, seconded by Councillor Mazher Iqbal, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.        the insertion, after the words “Fabian Society” in paragraph (a), of the words “which is affiliated to the Labour Party”;

2.        the deletion of paragraphs (h) to (k) and the addition of new paragraphs (h) to (j) as follows:-

(h)      welcomes the leadership demonstrated by the present Administration to implement the Living Wage within the Council at a time of unprecedented budget cuts;

(i)        reaffirms that significant progress has been made in implementing the Living Wage with contractors, noting that the vast majority of the Council’s major contractors are now paying the Living Wage for staff employed as part of that contract;

(j)        notes that the present Administration is already in dialogue with the Living Wage Foundation about Living Wage accreditation; and

3.        the relettering of paragraph (l) as a new paragraph (k).

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

It was then moved by Councillor Joe Otten, seconded by Councillor Richard Shaw, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)      believes that economic growth is vital in extending opportunity and giving everyone a chance to get on in life;

(b)      believes that if Sheffield were more successful in attracting big money investment employing highly paid workers, this would be good for the city's economy and people; and

(c)       is concerned that if economic growth was curtailed as a matter of policy, deficit financing of public spending would be much more difficult, and so a low growth policy would have to be accompanied by immediate swingeing cuts to public spending to prevent a debt crisis, and would forego the proceeds of a growing economy in the future being used to improve public services.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-