Agenda item

That this Council:-

(a)       notes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement in the 2012 Budget, in which he announced a series of ill thought through measures such as pasty tax, caravan tax and the charities tax which have now resulted in a series of embarrassing u-turns, also included the Government’s desire to introduce ‘more market facing’ public sector pay which could mean regional or local public sector pay;

(b)       further notes this recommendation has come in advance of the Pay Review Bodies reporting on the issue in July and September 2012;

(c)        further notes there has been no independent assessment of the impact and consequences this policy could have for public services or the economies of low pay regions;

(d)       believes that the Government’s claim that public sector pay is ‘crowding out’ the private sector is not supported by evidence, particularly at a time of high unemployment, when there are currently 7.5 Job Seeker’s Allowance claimants for every job vacancy across Sheffield;

(e)       believes public sector employers already have some flexibility to adjust pay in response to local conditions, and higher rates are paid in London and the South East;

(f)         acknowledges that workers in Sheffield are paid £28 less per week than the British average;

(g)       notes that this will have a disproportionate impact on women, as 65% of public sector workers are female;

(h)        believes that this is yet another Government proposal which will have a harmful effect on Sheffield’s economy;

(i)         fears that lower pay in Sheffield could lead to many public sector workers moving to other areas where they could earn more for doing the same job;

(j)         is concerned reducing the pay of the 82,900 public sector workers in Sheffield  will dramatically reduce spending power and have a negative impact on the private sector;

(k)        believes this policy will not improve the pay of private sector workers but instead could encourage further depression of wages in all sectors;

(l)         is further concerned that if the Beecroft report, commissioned by the Department of Business Innovation & Skills and prepared by venture capitalist and millionaire donor to the Conservative Party, Sir Adrian Beecroft, was implemented in full we would see the biggest ever attack on the rights of people at work;

(m)      notes that Beecroft proposes scrapping Unfair Dismissal, and in his original report, which was leaked to the national media, states that this would allow employers to sack employees “simply because they did not like them”;

(n)        further notes that there is no evidence to support the recommendations of the Beecroft report and believes that Britain is not in recession because of employment regulations but because of the Government’s economic policies;

(o)       supports Early Day Motion (EDM) 132 which calls on the Government not to proceed with the Report’s recommendation for no fault dismissal; and

(p)       resolves that the Chief Executive writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chief Secretary to the Treasury stating this Council’s opposition to plans for regional public sector pay and the recommendations of the Beecroft Report which threaten to attack the rights of people at work.

(a)       notes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement in the 2012 Budget, in which he announced a series of ill thought through measures such as pasty tax, caravan tax and the charities tax which have now resulted in a series of embarrassing u-turns, also included the Government’s desire to introduce ‘more market facing’ public sector pay which could mean regional or local public sector pay;

(b)       further notes this recommendation has come in advance of the Pay Review Bodies reporting on the issue in July and September 2012;

(c)        further notes there has been no independent assessment of the impact and consequences this policy could have for public services or the economies of low pay regions;

(d)       believes that the Government’s claim that public sector pay is ‘crowding out’ the private sector is not supported by evidence, particularly at a time of high unemployment, when there are currently 7.5 Job Seeker’s Allowance claimants for every job vacancy across Sheffield;

(e)       believes public sector employers already have some flexibility to adjust pay in response to local conditions, and higher rates are paid in London and the South East;

(f)         acknowledges that workers in Sheffield are paid £28 less per week than the British average;

(g)       notes that this will have a disproportionate impact on women, as 65% of public sector workers are female;

(h)        believes that this is yet another Government proposal which will have a harmful effect on Sheffield’s economy;

(i)         fears that lower pay in Sheffield could lead to many public sector workers moving to other areas where they could earn more for doing the same job;

(j)         is concerned reducing the pay of the 82,900 public sector workers in Sheffield  will dramatically reduce spending power and have a negative impact on the private sector;

(k)        believes this policy will not improve the pay of private sector workers but instead could encourage further depression of wages in all sectors;

(l)         is further concerned that if the Beecroft report, commissioned by the Department of Business Innovation & Skills and prepared by venture capitalist and millionaire donor to the Conservative Party, Sir Adrian Beecroft, was implemented in full we would see the biggest ever attack on the rights of people at work;

(m)      notes that Beecroft proposes scrapping Unfair Dismissal, and in his original report, which was leaked to the national media, states that this would allow employers to sack employees “simply because they did not like them”;

(n)        further notes that there is no evidence to support the recommendations of the Beecroft report and believes that Britain is not in recession because of employment regulations but because of the Government’s economic policies;

(o)       supports Early Day Motion (EDM) 132 which calls on the Government not to proceed with the Report’s recommendation for no fault dismissal; and

(p)       resolves that the Chief Executive writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chief Secretary to the Treasury stating this Council’s opposition to plans for regional public sector pay and the recommendations of the Beecroft Report which threaten to attack the rights of people at work.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, seconded by Councillor Simon Clement Jones, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

(1)       the deletion of all the words in paragraph (a) and the substitution of the following words therefor:-

(a)       recalls the policy of the previous Government to introduce flexibility in regional pay bargaining and notes reports that Government figures are considering extending this policy;

(2)       the deletion of the word “Government’s” in paragraph (d);

(3)       the deletion of all the words after the word “report” in paragraph (n);

(4)       the deletion of paragraph (h) and the relettering of paragraphs (i)-(n) as new paragraphs (h)-(m); and

(5)       the addition of new paragraphs (n), (o) and (p) as follows and the relettering of original paragraphs (o) and (p) as new paragraphs (q) and (r):-

(n)        welcomes reports that the Deputy Prime Minister has dismissed regional public sector pay plans;

(o)       further welcomes comments from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills describing plans contained in the Beecroft Report as “complete nonsense”;

(p)       praises the previous Administration for implementing a £250 pay award for low-paid council staff and recalls with disappointment that the current Administration did not adopt the intention of the previous Administration to proceed with the award as a two-year annual increase;

(With the consent of Council and on the advice of the Chief Executive, Paragraph 5 (p) of Amendment 1 above, as presented on the list of amendments submitted to the Chief Executive and circulated at the meeting, was altered, as follows:

The substitution (after the words “recalls with disappointment”) of the words: “… the decision of the current Administration not to proceed with the award as a two-year annual increase, as was intended by the previous Administration.” by the following words:

 “ … that the current Administration did not adopt the intention of the previous Administration to proceed with the award as a two-year annual increase …“. )

On being put to the vote, Paragraphs 5 (n) and (o) of the amendment were carried and all other paragraphs were negatived.

(Note: Councillors Jillian Creasy and Robert Murphy voted for paragraphs 1 and 2 and against paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the amendment and asked for this to be recorded.)

After a right of reply from Councillor Ben Curran, the original Motion, as amended, was put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED:  That this Council:-

(a)       notes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement in the 2012 Budget, in which he announced a series of ill thought through measures such as pasty tax, caravan tax and the charities tax which have now resulted in a series of embarrassing u-turns, also included the Government’s desire to introduce ‘more market facing’ public sector pay which could mean regional or local public sector pay;

(b)       further notes this recommendation has come in advance of the Pay Review Bodies reporting on the issue in July and September 2012;

(c)        further notes there has been no independent assessment of the impact and consequences this policy could have for public services or the economies of low pay regions;

(d)       believes that the Government’s claim that public sector pay is ‘crowding out’ the private sector is not supported by evidence, particularly at a time of high unemployment, when there are currently 7.5 Job Seeker’s Allowance claimants for every job vacancy across Sheffield;

(e)       believes public sector employers already have some flexibility to adjust pay in response to local conditions, and higher rates are paid in London and the South East;

(f)         acknowledges that workers in Sheffield are paid £28 less per week than the British average;

(g)       notes that this will have a disproportionate impact on women, as 65% of public sector workers are female;

(h)        believes that this is yet another Government proposal which will have a harmful effect on Sheffield’s economy;

(i)         fears that lower pay in Sheffield could lead to many public sector workers moving to other areas where they could earn more for doing the same job;

(j)         is concerned reducing the pay of the 82,900 public sector workers in Sheffield  will dramatically reduce spending power and have a negative impact on the private sector;

(k)        believes this policy will not improve the pay of private sector workers but instead could encourage further depression of wages in all sectors;

(l)         is further concerned that if the Beecroft report, commissioned by the Department of Business Innovation & Skills and prepared by venture capitalist and millionaire donor to the Conservative Party, Sir Adrian Beecroft, was implemented in full we would see the biggest ever attack on the rights of people at work;

(m)      notes that Beecroft proposes scrapping Unfair Dismissal, and in his original report, which was leaked to the national media, states that this would allow employers to sack employees “simply because they did not like them”;

(n)        further notes that there is no evidence to support the recommendations of the Beecroft report and believes that Britain is not in recession because of employment regulations but because of the Government’s economic policies;

(o)        welcomes reports that the Deputy Prime Minister has dismissed regional public sector pay plans;

(p)        further welcomes comments from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills describing plans contained in the Beecroft Report as “complete nonsense”;

(q)       supports Early Day Motion (EDM) 132 which calls on the Government not to proceed with the Report’s recommendation for no fault dismissal; and

(r)        resolves that the Chief Executive writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chief Secretary to the Treasury stating this Council’s opposition to plans for regional public sector pay and the recommendations of the Beecroft Report which threaten to attack the rights of people at work.

(Note: 1.The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Vickie Priestley) and Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Clive Skelton, Shaffaq Mohammed, Rob Frost, Colin Ross, Joe Otten, Penny Baker, Diana Stimely, Roger Davison, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Janice Sidebottom, Denise Reaney, Ian Auckland, Bob McCann, Anders Hanson, Katie Condliffe, David Baker, Alison Brelsford and Trevor Bagshaw voted for paragraphs (b) (c) (e) (f) (g), (i) to (m) and (o) to (r) and against paragraphs (a), (d), (h) and (n) of the above Motion and asked for this to be recorded.

2. Councillors Jillian Creasy and Robert Murphy voted for paragraphs (a) to (n) and (q) and (r) and against paragraphs (o) and (p) of the Motion and asked for this to be recorded.)