Agenda item

Notice of Motion given by Councillor John Booker

That this Council:-

 

(a)       requests that officers collate a detailed inventory of European Union (EU) funded ongoing and pending projects benefiting Sheffield, with the overview for post-“Brexit” continuity;

 

(b)       calls on the Government to ensure that the stated payment to the EU (of £350m before rebate/£240m after rebate, per week, of which £165m per week is returned "re-packaged" as EU funding to the UK), must be redistributed, post-“Brexit”, to demonstrably benefit every community within the UK, and believes that, in simple terms, the amount of money available to invest in the UK could increase significantly after “Brexit” in comparison to the current level of “so called EU funding";

 

(c)        calls on the Administration to work cross party to plan ahead for the city’s future regional needs, with close co-operation with Sheffield City Region, and make any new investment asset work;

 

(d)       further believes the £240m payment to the EU per week should, post-“Brexit”, be used to benefit all our ailing and failing industries, including agriculture and fisheries, the rusting steel industry, and a patched up NHS, as well as to help with social care, the overloaded and underfunded education system and maybe even a fresh review of "Clean Coal" in the UK, plus assist local projects such as the extension of Sheffield's Supertram network to Doncaster/Sheffield Airport, as well as the north of the city, including links to Deepcar, Stocksbridge, Grenoside and Chapeltown;

 

(e)       believes that it is grossly unfair that a few multi-national corporations have been able to access all the benefits of our thriving British consumer market without making a proper contribution to the cost of British society, and that the public has every right to be angry about this;

 

(f)        believes that, if the Labour Party’s ideology of nationalising some of these ailing industries has any credibility, the time is approaching for serious consideration on these issues, but that a more realistic regeneration measure would be low interest business loans, especially to a revived fishing fleet; and

 

(g)       wishes to see the restoration of full British tax sovereignty, which we lost when we signed up to the EU, and see a Treasury Commission set up to monitor the effectiveness of the new Diverted Profits Tax and to bring in any further measures necessary to prevent large multinational corporations using aggressive tax avoidance schemes.

Minutes:

13.1

It was formally moved by Councillor John Booker, and formally seconded by Councillor Jack Clarkson, that this Council:-

 

 

 

(a)       requests that officers collate a detailed inventory of European Union (EU) funded ongoing and pending projects benefiting Sheffield, with the overview for post-“Brexit” continuity;

 

(b)       calls on the Government to ensure that the stated payment to the EU (of £350m before rebate/£240m after rebate, per week, of which £165m per week is returned "re-packaged" as EU funding to the UK), must be redistributed, post-“Brexit”, to demonstrably benefit every community within the UK, and believes that, in simple terms, the amount of money available to invest in the UK could increase significantly after “Brexit” in comparison to the current level of “so called EU funding";

 

(c)        calls on the Administration to work cross party to plan ahead for the city’s future regional needs, with close co-operation with Sheffield City Region, and make any new investment asset work;

 

(d)       further believes the £240m payment to the EU per week should, post-“Brexit”, be used to benefit all our ailing and failing industries, including agriculture and fisheries, the rusting steel industry, and a patched up NHS, as well as to help with social care, the overloaded and underfunded education system and maybe even a fresh review of "Clean Coal" in the UK, plus assist local projects such as the extension of Sheffield's Supertram network to Doncaster/Sheffield Airport, as well as the north of the city, including links to Deepcar, Stocksbridge, Grenoside and Chapeltown;

 

(e)       believes that it is grossly unfair that a few multi-national corporations have been able to access all the benefits of our thriving British consumer market without making a proper contribution to the cost of British society, and that the public has every right to be angry about this;

 

(f)        believes that, if the Labour Party’s ideology of nationalising some of these ailing industries has any credibility, the time is approaching for serious consideration on these issues, but that a more realistic regeneration measure would be low interest business loans, especially to a revived fishing fleet; and

 

(g)       wishes to see the restoration of full British tax sovereignty, which we lost when we signed up to the EU, and see a Treasury Commission set up to monitor the effectiveness of the new Diverted Profits Tax and to bring in any further measures necessary to prevent large multinational corporations using aggressive tax avoidance schemes.

 

 

13.2

Whereupon, it was formally moved by Councillor Joe Otten, and formally seconded by Councillor David Baker, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

 

 

 

1.          the deletion of paragraph (b) and the addition of a new paragraph (b) as follows:-

 

(b)       notes that the UK economy is down to 6th in the world from 5th prior to the EU referendum and there is still no plan to minimise the economic damage resulting from the “Brexit” vote;

 

2.          the deletion of paragraphs (d) to (g) and the addition of new paragraphs (d) to (f) as follows:-

 

(d)       calls for regional development funding to be maintained in spite of the “Leave” vote, focussing on the transport, infrastructure and skills agenda of the Sheffield City Region;

 

(e)       welcomes the European Commission's intervention against tax arrangements between Apple Inc. and the Republic of Ireland, as an example of how governments can better stand up to corporations when they co-operate more closely, and calls for international co-operation against tax avoidance to be maintained in spite of the “Brexit” vote; and

 

(f)        believes that the nationalisation of Northern Rock Bank was an appropriate response to a particular crisis, but that nationalisation and "turning the clock back" is usually the wrong way to deal with a failing industry.

 

 

13.3

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

 

 

13.3.1

(NOTE: Councillors Magid Magid, Douglas Johnson, Robert Murphy and Alison Teal voted for part 1 and paragraphs (d) and (e) of part 2 of the amendment, and against paragraph (f) of part 2 of the amendment, and asked for this to be recorded.)

 

 

13.4

It was then formally moved by Councillor Mark Jones, and formally seconded by Councillor Andy Bainbridge, 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)       notes that the previous Full Council meeting resolved that officers would examine the implications of the “Brexit” vote for Sheffield and awaits the outcome of this report, which will present a detailed evaluation of the situation facing the city and will inform judgements about the needs of the city going forward;

 

(b)       formally requests that UKIP MEPs undertake a full and thorough review of all monies that Sheffield has received from the European Union (EU) and identify what ongoing funding Sheffield is still a recipient of, or could be a future recipient of, and welcomes, although belatedly, that UKIP now concede that Sheffield does indeed benefit from EU funding;

 

(c)       believes that there is acknowledgement from the mover of the motion that leading “Brexit” campaigners spent months spouting untruths about the UK’s financial contribution to the European Union, through acknowledging that the country will not have an additional £350 million per week through leaving the EU as was erroneously claimed on endless occasions during the referendum campaign;

 

(d)       calls on the Government to work harder to deliver fair investment for all our communities and stop it’s unfair cuts which have disproportionately targeted northern cities;

 

(e)       notes that the recent deal that the present Administration has secured with a Chinese investor demonstrates that membership of the EU is not a barrier to securing investment from emerging economies and regrets that access to future EU funding may no longer be available to Sheffield City Region;

 

(f)        calls on all companies to contribute fairly to our nation’s wellbeing and calls on Government to encourage a balanced economic development;

 

(g)       believes it is imperative that Government provide greater funding to support Sheffield key industries, education sector and healthcare provision and further calls on the Government to invest in clean industries to secure our economic and environmental future, and requests all parties to work together to call on the Government to ensure that any economic downturn that is likely to result from our exit of the EU is not borne by our city;

 

(h)       believes that the robustness of the suggestion that a ‘revived fishing fleet’ as a ‘realistic regeneration measure’ for Sheffield or the wider city region is questionable, given that the region is landlocked, however, awaits with interest any detailed proposals that may be put forward by the mover of the motion to achieve this;

 

(i)        believes that Sheffield UKIP Councillors formally recognise that aggressive tax avoidance schemes damage our children’s education, our nation’s healthcare provision and our social cohesion, and calls on the Government to invest proceeds secured from tax avoidance fairly;

 

(j)        fully agrees that the public are right to be angry about multinational corporations who have been able to enjoy the benefits of the British consumer market without making a proper contribution, and is therefore astounded at interventions from senior “Brexit” figures such as Nigel Farage MEP who is reported to have praised the deal between the Irish government and Apple Inc., which did exactly that and also indicated he would support the UK following in similar footsteps;

 

(k)       expresses its opposition to these ideas, such as those which were reported to have been suggested by Nigel Farage to hand out big tax cuts to corporations following “Brexit” and would completely oppose the notion of the UK becoming a tax haven for multi-national companies, taking advantage of everything our country has to offer without making any meaningful contribution; and

 

(l)        believes that whilst it is welcome that there is now acknowledgement from some of the people who advocated “Brexit” that it will create challenges and leaves questions to answer, it is incumbent upon those that made the case for “Brexit” to actually start answering some of these questions and put forward a plan to address some of the challenges and uncertainties we are facing.

 

 

13.5

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

 

 

13.5.1

(NOTE: Councillors Magid Magid, Douglas Johnson, Robert Murphy and Alison Teal voted for paragraphs (a) to (d) and (f) to (l), and abstained from voting on paragraph (e) of the amendment, and asked for this to be recorded.)

 

 

13.6

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

 

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

 

(a)       notes that the previous Full Council meeting resolved that officers would examine the implications of the “Brexit” vote for Sheffield and awaits the outcome of this report, which will present a detailed evaluation of the situation facing the city and will inform judgements about the needs of the city going forward;

 

(b)       formally requests that UKIP MEPs undertake a full and thorough review of all monies that Sheffield has received from the European Union (EU) and identify what ongoing funding Sheffield is still a recipient of, or could be a future recipient of, and welcomes, although belatedly, that UKIP now concede that Sheffield does indeed benefit from EU funding;

 

(c)       believes that there is acknowledgement from the mover of the motion that leading “Brexit” campaigners spent months spouting untruths about the UK’s financial contribution to the European Union, through acknowledging that the country will not have an additional £350 million per week through leaving the EU as was erroneously claimed on endless occasions during the referendum campaign;

 

(d)       calls on the Government to work harder to deliver fair investment for all our communities and stop it’s unfair cuts which have disproportionately targeted northern cities;

 

(e)       notes that the recent deal that the present Administration has secured with a Chinese investor demonstrates that membership of the EU is not a barrier to securing investment from emerging economies and regrets that access to future EU funding may no longer be available to Sheffield City Region;

 

(f)        calls on all companies to contribute fairly to our nation’s wellbeing and calls on Government to encourage a balanced economic development;

 

(g)       believes it is imperative that Government provide greater funding to support Sheffield key industries, education sector and healthcare provision and further calls on the Government to invest in clean industries to secure our economic and environmental future, and requests all parties to work together to call on the Government to ensure that any economic downturn that is likely to result from our exit of the EU is not borne by our city;

 

(h)       believes that the robustness of the suggestion that a ‘revived fishing fleet’ as a ‘realistic regeneration measure’ for Sheffield or the wider city region is questionable, given that the region is landlocked, however, awaits with interest any detailed proposals that may be put forward by the mover of the motion to achieve this;

 

(i)        believes that Sheffield UKIP Councillors formally recognise that aggressive tax avoidance schemes damage our children’s education, our nation’s healthcare provision and our social cohesion, and calls on the Government to invest proceeds secured from tax avoidance fairly;

 

(j)         fully agrees that the public are right to be angry about multinational corporations who have been able to enjoy the benefits of the British consumer market without making a proper contribution, and is therefore astounded at interventions from senior “Brexit” figures such as Nigel Farage MEP who is reported to have praised the deal between the Irish government and Apple Inc., which did exactly that and also indicated he would support the UK following in similar footsteps;

 

(k)       expresses its opposition to these ideas, such as those which were reported to have been suggested by Nigel Farage to hand out big tax cuts to corporations following “Brexit” and would completely oppose the notion of the UK becoming a tax haven for multi-national companies, taking advantage of everything our country has to offer without making any meaningful contribution; and

 

(l)        believes that whilst it is welcome that there is now acknowledgement from some of the people who advocated “Brexit” that it will create challenges and leaves questions to answer, it is incumbent upon those that made the case for “Brexit” to actually start answering some of these questions and put forward a plan to address some of the challenges and uncertainties we are facing.

 

 

 

13.6.1

(NOTE: Councillors Magid Magid, Douglas Johnson, Robert Murphy and Alison Teal voted for paragraphs (a) to (d) and (f) to (l), and abstained from voting on paragraph (e) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded.)