Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the Mayor, Councillor Robinson and Councillors Bliss, Kevin Cluskey, Hands, McGuire, Owens, Pitt and Anne Thompson. 

In accordance with Paragraph 9 of the Council’s Code of Conduct, the following declarations of personal interest were made and the Members left the room and took no part in the consideration of the item:-

In accordance with Paragraph 9 of the Council’s Code of Conduct, the following declarations of personal interest were made and the Member concerned remained in the room, took part in consideration of the item and voted thereon:-

Minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2017

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 16 November 2017 be approved as a correct record.

Chris Broadbent, CEEQUAL Director to present an award in relation to Sefton’s Broom’s Cross Road scheme

The Deputy Chair indicated that it gave him great pleasure to welcome Mr Chris Broadbent, CEEQUAL Director who was in attendance to present the CEEQUAL award to the Leader of the Council, in relation to Sefton’s Broom’s Cross Road Scheme.

The Deputy Chair indicated that Members would recall that the A5758 Broom’s Cross Road scheme opened in August 2015. At the start of the design and build contract, the scheme was registered with CEEQUAL (the Civil Engineering Environmental Quality scheme), the assessment and awards scheme for improving sustainability in civil engineering and infrastructure. Following a detailed assessment last year the scheme was awarded an Excellent rating.

The Deputy Chair indicated that it gave him great pleasure to welcome Mr Chris Broadbent, CEEQUAL Director, who was in attendance to present the CEEQUAL Excellent award for the A5758 Broom’s Cross Road scheme to the Leader of the Council; and invited Mr Broadbent to say a few words about  CEEQUAL and the award for Broom’s Cross Road and to present the award.

Mr. Broadbent gave a brief background on the scheme, in that it had been developed by Sefton Council and the Department for Transport.  He stated that Balfour Beatty was appointed by the Council to construct the scheme, supported by designer Jacobs, who undertook the environmental impact assessment for the scheme.

Mr Broadbent reported on the overall key achievements of the scheme as:

• 99.9% of demolition and deconstruction waste was re-used or recycled.
• 45% of materials were reused or recycled (by volume, excluding bulk fill and sub base).
• Over 60% of bulk fill and sub base was site-won.
• Local companies benefited from £2.4m of business.
• 71 Sefton residents were employed on the site at some point during the works.
• 39,000 new trees and shrubs and 2.4km of hedges were planted.

Mr. Broadbent referred to the active and leading role Sefton Council had taken throughout the development and construction of the project. It was reported that the major scheme business case was prepared in-house by the Council and was successful in securing the funding commitment from Central Government. From the outset, the Council recognised the importance of the environmental aspects of the project. The scheme was built on agricultural land in the green belt, so the design had to integrate the scheme into the existing landscape and incorporated appropriate and effective environmental mitigation measures. Part of the justification for the scheme was to deliver environmental improvements for local communities, in terms of traffic, noise and air quality, ensuring that the environmental improvements would not be achieved at great cost to the local landscape and wildlife.

The Council also made it clear from the outset that they wished to see opportunities given to local people and businesses from the project. During the construction, six local companies benefited from £2.4m of business and 71 Sefton residents were employed on the site at some point during the works.

There was only a limited number of historical features in the vicinity of the scheme, but considerable attention  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Death of Former Councillor Pat Ball

The Deputy Chair reported that former Councillor Pat Ball died on 19 January 2018.

Pat Ball was elected to Dukes Ward on 6 May 2011 and served that Ward until her resignation from the Authority on the grounds of ill health on 21 September 2017.

A tribute to Pat Ball was made by Councillors Dutton, David Barton, Dawson, Marianne Welsh, Pugh, Bennett and the Councillor Maher, Leader of the Council.

The Council then stood for a one minute silence as a mark of respect for Pat Ball.

Varied Agenda

The Deputy Chair reported that he had agreed to vary the Agenda and announced that Item 19, Notice of Motion by Councillor John Joseph Kelly – A Curriculum to Prepare Young People in Sefton for Life would be considered as Agenda Item 15.

Mayor of Sefton’s Charity Ball

The Deputy Chair reminded Members of the Council that the Mayors Charity Ball was taking place on 17 March 2018 and that tickets were on sale from the Mayoral Office.

To deal with matters raised by members of the public resident within the Borough, of which notice has been given in accordance with the procedures relating to public questions, motions or petitions set out in Paragraph 36 to 46 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules in Chapter 4 of the Council Constitution.

The details of a public petition received are set out in the attached note.

(Details of any further petitions notified or questions submitted by members of the public will be circulated at the meeting).

The Deputy Chair reported that in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme set out in Chapter 12 of the Council Constitution, one public petition had been submitted for consideration at the Council meeting.

The Council heard representations from Ms. M. O’Mahoney of Frack Free Formby on behalf of a deputation who had submitted a petition containing 3,608 signatures which stated:

“We the undersigned urge Sefton MBC to put an immediate ban on any type of conventional or unconventional oil or gas exploration to protect our environment and promote renewable energy. We urge the Council to make Sefton a frack-free zone”.

Members of the Council thanked Ms. O’Mahoney for making her representations.

It was moved by Councillor Maher, seconded by Councillor Bennett and

RESOLVED:

That the petition be noted and taken into account during the consideration of the Motion under Minute No. 82 below.

To receive and consider questions to Cabinet Members, Chairs of Committees or Spokespersons for any of the Joint Authorities upon any matter within their portfolio/area of responsibility, of which notice has been given by Members of the Council in accordance with Paragraph 48 to 50 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules, set out in Chapter 4 of the Council Constitution.

The Council considered a schedule setting out the written questions submitted by:

together with responses given.  Supplementary questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 14 were responded to by Cabinet Members for Regeneration and Skills, Regulatory, Compliance and Corporate Services, Communities and Housing and Health and Wellbeing.

Report of the Head of Corporate Resources

Report of the Head of Corporate Resources

Further to Minute No. 108 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 11 January 2018 the Council considered the report of the Head of Corporate Resources that provided details of the consultation proposing various options for revising the existing Council Tax Reduction Scheme and making recommendations to revise the scheme accordingly for 2018/19; that recommended an updated Council Tax Base for Sefton Council and each Parish Area for 2018/19; and noting that the proposed changes did not affect any person of state pension credit age.

A decision on these matters were required as follows:-

Council Tax Reduction Scheme

Each financial year the Council must consider whether to revise or replace its Council Tax Reduction Scheme. The Council must approve and adopt the 2018/19 Council Tax Reduction scheme by 31 January 2018, to take effect from 1 April 2018.

Any decision to revise or replace the scheme would require compliance with statutory provisions in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 2012 (Chapter 17), schedule 4.

There are two major drivers for changing the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTR) in 2018/19. Firstly, the Government is making significant welfare reform changes between April 2016 and April 2019 and secondly, the Full Service roll out of Universal Credit from October 2017. As the CTR Scheme operates within these frameworks, these changes will have an impact upon the operation and cost of the Council’s local scheme.

As a result of these changes the Council has reviewed its local scheme with the following key objectives:-

• Align key welfare reform changes to the CTR scheme;
• Maintain fairness, consistency and at the same time cost of the CTR scheme;
• Work more effectively with Universal Credit, recognising that UC makes provision for children, disability, housing and caring responsibilities; and
• Deliver administrative efficiencies where possible in support of the scheme.

Council Tax Base

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012, the Council is required to set a tax base for both Sefton Council and for each Parish Area for 2018/19.

It was moved by Councillor Lappin, seconded by Councillor Maher and

RESOLVED That:

Joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Head of Regulation and Compliance

The Council considered the joint report of the Chief Planning Officer and the Head of Regulation and Compliance that sought a review and update of the Council’s Constitution in respect of issues associated with planning applications and the Neighbourhood Plan, the cessation of Area Committees and the Petitions Scheme.

It was moved by Councillor Roche and seconded by Councillor McGinnity:

That

 Following debate on the report, an amendment was moved by Councillor Weavers, seconded by Councillor Brodie-Browne that Recommendation (4) of the report be amended by reducing the threshold number of signatures required to trigger a debate at full Council from 1000 to 500 signatures. 

Following debate the amendment was carried unanimously and became the Substantive Motion.

Following debate and in accordance with Paragraph 94 in the Council Constitution, the voting on the Substantive Motion was recorded and the Members of the Council present at the time, voted as follows:

FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION:

Councillors Atkinson, Bradshaw, Brennan, Burns, Byrom, Carr, Carragher Linda Cluskey, Cummins, Fairclough, Friel, Grace, Hardy, John Kelly, John Joseph Kelly, Lappin, Dan. T. Lewis, Maher, McGinnity, McKinley, Moncur, Murphy, Brenda O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Page, Roche, Roscoe, Sayers, Spencer, Thomas, Tweed, Veidman, Webster, Bill Welsh and Marianne Welsh.

AGAINST THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION:

Councillors Ashton, David Barton, Jo Barton, Bennett, Booth, Brodie-Browne, Dawson, Dodd, Dutton, Gannon, Jamieson Jones, Keith, Daniel Lewis, McCann, O’Hanlon, Preece, Pugh, Pullin, Shaw, Lynne Thompson and Weavers.

The Deputy Chair declared that the Substantive Motion was carried by 35 votes to 22 and it was

RESOLVED: That

Report of the Head of Corporate Resources

Further to Minute No. 28 of the meeting of the Pay and Grading Committee held on 11 January 2018 the Council considered the report of the Head of Corporate Resources that recommended a Pay Policy for the Council as required by the Localism Act 2011.

The report indicated that HM Treasury had consulted on reforms to public sector exit payments and on 26 September 2016, the Government announced its intention to make further changes to public sector exit payments including: a minimum tariff of three weeks' pay per year of service; a cap of up to 15 months' salary on all redundancy payments; a maximum salary for the calculation of exit payments of £80,000; and a tapering amount of lump sum compensation an individual is entitled to receive as they get close to the normal pension age of the pension scheme to which they belong.

The report concluded that the proposals were not yet law and final regulations were awaited; and accordingly, it was recommended that when the final legislation was known, authority be granted to the Pay and Grading Committee to deal with any necessary amendments to bring the Authority into compliance with any statutory measures if such statutory review comes into place before Council had an opportunity to consider next year’s Pay Policy.

It was moved by Councillor Lappin and seconded by Councillor Maher:

That

An amendment was moved by Councillor Shaw, seconded by Councillor Pugh that the Report be amended as follows:

Adding the following words to the beginning of Recommendation (1)

That, subject to:

Following debate and on a show of hands the Deputy Chair declared the amendment lost by 37 votes to 20.

Following debate and on a show of hands, the Deputy Chair declared the original Motion was carried by 50 votes to 4 with 1 abstention and it was

RESOLVED:  That

Report of the Head of Regulation and Compliance

Further to Minute No. 103 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 11 January 2018 the Council considered the report of the Head of Regulation and Compliance that sought approval of a Programme of Meetings for the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

It was moved by Councillor Grace, seconded by Councillor Lappin and

RESOLVED:

That the Programme of Meetings for the Council, Member Briefing Sessions;  Regulatory Committees; and Overview and Scrutiny Committees  for 2018/19 as set out in Annexes B and C of the report be approved.

To consider any changes to the Membership of any Committees etc.

Councillor Grace proposed the following changes:

Councillor Keith proposed the following changes:

Councillor Jamieson proposed the following changes:

RESOLVED:

That the changes to the membership of the Committees and the appointment to the Liverpool Women’s Hospital be approved.

Report of the Leader of the Council

The Council considered the report of the Leader of the Council setting out the details of an urgent matter dealt with in accordance with Rule 46 of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules in Chapter 6 of the Council Constitution.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

To consider the following Motion submitted by Councillor John Joseph Kelly:

A Curriculum to Prepare Young People in Sefton for Life

This Council believes that as part of the Sefton 2030 Vision young people need to be better prepared for their transition into adulthood to achieve the goals set in this vision. This can be done through existing provision for young people for example, via schools and youth provision.

This Council notes that for the last two years Curriculum for Life has been voted in the top 3 in the annual Make Your Mark Ballot. This ballot asks young people to vote for a topic from a list of 10 issues as part of the National UK Youth Parliament Work. In 2017 out of 5,929 votes cast 1,002 were received for this issue.

There are currently 12 statutory subjects that have to be taught and assessed in schools. Personal, Health, Social and Economic Education (PHSE) is a non-statutory subject. We believe that to give young people the best start in life a Curriculum for Life is an important part to support young people to reach their full potential.

From the Make Your Mark Results and through conversations the Youth Cabinet have had with other young people, we recognise that PHSE education is often squeezed from the curriculum in many schools or taught very irregularly which is not recommended by experts such as the PHSE association.

Sefton Youth Cabinet through consultation with their peers, via school and online, believes there should be 9 key Curriculum for Life topics taught to all young people in Sefton.

Sefton Youth Cabinet has looked closely at these 9 topics and identified the reasons why they are important and should be part of the Curriculum for Life. They chose these topics as they believe these are the skills essential for the transition into adulthood and to fulfil their potential in society. The following 9 Topics appear in no particular order or priority:

1.       Media: We believe young people need to be taught the skills that empower and enable them to use the media to inform their views and opinions rather than ‘solely believing what they see and read is correct’. We are also asking for more positive news stories about young people to reach the public domain.

2.       Drugs and alcohol: It is currently a difficult time for some young people in relation to understanding drugs and alcohol. Drugs can be widely available. We believe we should be taught about the effects of drugs and alcohol.  However, if young people still decide to take them, they should know how to do so in a safe and responsible manner.

3.       Sex and Relationships: The potential impact of the lack of a good sex education can be life changing. Young people’s sex education needs to include use of contraceptives, consent, sexuality and gender, healthy relationships and STI’s. We understand this may be difficult in religious schools.  However, every young person should know where to attend to receive this  ...  view the full agenda text for item 80.

It was moved by Councillor John Joseph Kelly and seconded by Councillor Lappin:

A Curriculum to Prepare Young People in Sefton for Life

This Council believes that as part of the Sefton 2030 Vision young people need to be better prepared for their transition into adulthood to achieve the goals set in this vision. This can be done through existing provision for young people for example, via schools and youth provision.

This Council notes that for the last two years Curriculum for Life has been voted in the top 3 in the annual Make Your Mark Ballot. This ballot asks young people to vote for a topic from a list of 10 issues as part of the National UK Youth Parliament Work. In 2017 out of 5,929 votes cast 1,002 were received for this issue.

There are currently 12 statutory subjects that have to be taught and assessed in schools. Personal, Health, Social and Economic Education (PHSE) is a non-statutory subject. We believe that to give young people the best start in life a Curriculum for Life is an important part to support young people to reach their full potential.

From the Make Your Mark Results and through conversations the Youth Cabinet have had with other young people, we recognise that PHSE education is often squeezed from the curriculum in many schools or taught very irregularly which is not recommended by experts such as the PHSE association.

Sefton Youth Cabinet through consultation with their peers, via school and online, believes there should be 9 key Curriculum for Life topics taught to all young people in Sefton.

Sefton Youth Cabinet has looked closely at these 9 topics and identified the reasons why they are important and should be part of the Curriculum for Life. They chose these topics as they believe these are the skills essential for the transition into adulthood and to fulfil their potential in society. The following 9 Topics appear in no particular order or priority:

1.       Media: We believe young people need to be taught the skills that empower and enable them to use the media to inform their views and opinions rather than ‘solely believing what they see and read is correct’. We are also asking for more positive news stories about young people to reach the public domain.

2.       Drugs and alcohol: It is currently a difficult time for some young people in relation to understanding drugs and alcohol. Drugs can be widely available. We believe we should be taught about the effects of drugs and alcohol.  However, if young people still decide to take them, they should know how to do so in a safe and responsible manner.

3.       Sex and Relationships: The potential impact of the lack of a good sex education can be life changing. Young people’s sex education needs to include use of contraceptives, consent, sexuality and gender, healthy relationships and STI’s. We understand this may be difficult in religious schools.  However, every young person should know where to attend to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

The Deputy Chair announced that the Council Meeting would adjourn for a 15 minute comfort break.

To consider the following Motion submitted by Councillor Bennett

Fracking

This council

a)    Opposes fracking in the borough of Sefton, or fracking outside its borough, which could affect residents within our borough and call upon the government to reconsider its policy on fracking and to impose a moratorium on shale gas in the UK because:

·       This council considers it has a responsibility to tackle climate change and protect the environment and the wellbeing of local communities

·       This council acknowledges that exploration of unconventional fossil fuel undermines action on climate change and diverts resources away from investment in a safe and secure renewable energy future

·       This council considers that fracking has the potential to spoil our countryside and adversely affect our wildlife and habitat. 

·       This council notes the potential impact of fracking on highway safety, wildlife and habitat, visual impact, noise, air and geological issues related to mining;

b)    Note that given the ecological importance of many sites in Sefton to include SSSi’s and RAMSAR sites that any adverse effects relating to community, environmental, transport and health impacts of fracking need to be demonstrated beyond any doubt that any adverse affects can be eliminated;

c)     Commits to not allow any fracking activities, including survey work, on Council owned or controlled land and property;

d)    Requests that our officers take all reasonable steps to ensure that the environment of Sefton and the amenity of its residents are protected;

e)    Will support renewable energy in Sefton, particularly solar farms and off-shore wind turbines, where these are in keeping with local character. Fracking will only be supported if there is substantive evidence to demonstrate that it comprises sustainable development that the local community needs; 

f)      Notes that there are identified significant adverse impacts from shale gas exploration and exploitation, including water contamination and air pollution; 

g)    Requests the Chief Executive to write to Central Government to urge and request that they establish an overarching single body responsible for all aspects of fracking to remove the ability for various bodies to pass control of certain issues to other organisations; 

h)    Will take such action as necessary to protect the community’s interests where impacts of proposed unconventional oil and gas development, otherwise known as fracking, pose a threat to water resources, adversely affect traffic movements or require the movement of hazardous waste through the borough of Sefton; and

i)       Hopes that our commitment to cleaner, renewable energy in the future will show the rest of the country how important it is to protect our environment for future generations and to allow us to stand together with other forward thinking Local Authorities and urges other likeminded Councils to pass a similar Motion.

It was moved by Councillor Bennett and seconded by Councillor Gannon:

Fracking

Whilst we, as a Council, have previously passed a motion on fracking, we do not feel that this goes far enough.

This Council acknowledges the increasing growing public concern that unconventional gas extraction entails significant risks to the environment and to the health and wellbeing of neighbouring communities. These include, but are not limited to, earth tremors, potential air pollution, pollution of water resources and increased industrialisation of the countryside. There appears to be insufficient regulation and scrutiny of current unconventional gas extraction operations in the UK and as a consequence these operations risk irreversibly polluting fragile water courses and established nature and tourism activities.

The Council further recognises that fracking may have a detrimental effect on house prices, as well as building insurance within the vicinity of fracking wells.  Additionally, an investigation by Greenpeace found that many fracking licenses have been issued to companies linked to offshore tax havens, raising questions about the purported economic benefits of shale gas extraction and any potential tax benefits to the Treasury.

There is also concern that exploration and extraction of fossil fuels by unconventional means can undermine investment in a safe and secure renewable energy future. The Conservative Government have been diverting incentives and investment away from renewable energy sources, while at the same time encouraging and supporting non-renewables such as fracking.

It is the duty of this Council to protect the health and wellbeing of residents and the integrity of our natural environment and to play its part in supporting sustainable energy for all our future generations. Evidence  that fracking is dangerous to health, the environment, climate change, and all the other risks, is now so strong that many countries do not allow it including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who actually have the presumption against fracking “enshrined in planning policy”.

The list of places banning, or refusing to permit, fracking is increasing all the time.  At the last check places that had done this either permanently or temporarily (e.g. issued a moratorium) included: Ireland – banned, France – banned, Netherlands, Germany, Bulgaria – banned, Spain – voted to ban and regional bans, The state of Victoria (Australia) banning unconventional gas; moratorium on conventional onshore gas

In the U.S., the country that has most experience of fracking the following states have banned fracking: New York State, the state of Vermont, the state of Maryland, Beverley Hills – the California Municipality built above the Beverly Hills Oil Field, the town of Denton, Texas, “the birthplace of fracking” although this was later overturned by the governor of Texas.

In a report by Public Health England, Review of the Potential Public Health Impacts of Exposures to Chemical and Radioactive Pollutants as a Result of the Shale Gas Extraction Process, Health officials said their initial review suggested the risks to people’s health were low - but only so long as the process is “properly run and regulated”, however evidence from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

To consider the following Motion submitted by Councillor Dawson:

An Integrated Care and Health Service

This Council welcomes the decision of the government to merge responsibility for Health and Social Care in England within one Department. 

Council is, however, concerned that the stewardship of responsibility for Health Services in England remains with the man who co-authored a book which advocated increasing privatisation and fragmentation of the NHS, saying:

"The problem with the NHS is not one of resources."

"We should fund patients, either through the tax system or by way of universal insurance, to purchase health care from the provider of their choice,” 

and 

"Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain." 

. . .and that the ?NHS is struggling under increasing pressure to fragment further as well as under the pressures of paying crippling PFI payments. 

Council welcomes the devolution of integrated Health and Social Care provision to Greater Manchester and to Scotland and urges the government to take steps which mirror the potential for similar arrangements to be introduced in the Greater Merseyside area.

Council is concerned, however, about the conflicts which hinder the effective integration of a fragmenting national Illness Service, which is funded and provided in one manner, and disseminated locally-funded Care services which are funded and delivered in completely different processes. Council urges parliamentarians of all parties to work together constructively together across party lines to create a high quality effective efficient and integrated Health and Care service for all parts of England - and for local government to be funded appropriately to provide for care services.

Council notes the present overspend on its own Sefton MBC Community Care services of one million pounds which is only being covered by significant cutbacks on employment of staff across the Social Services Department.

Council notes with concern the manner in which the Southport & Ormskirk NHS Trust limps on with a massive financial deficit under expensive temporary senior management, including the same A&E and ambulance problems which have beset the Southport Hospital on a regular basis in recent years. Council is also concerned at the eerie silence which has fallen over the local 'Sustainability and Transformation Review' and asserts the rights of NHS communities in significant metropolitan towns such as Southport to have acute health services provided in a manner which properly balances accessibility and clinical need rather than balance sheets. 

Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister to invite her to attend Southport hospital to discuss with clinicians and patient, carer and community representatives from Southport and Formby the true challenges which confront our Health and Care system locally and which might re-emerge 'strong and stable.

It was moved by Councillor Dawson and seconded by Councillor Brodie-Browne:

An Integrated Care and Health Service

That this Council welcomes the decision of the government to merge responsibility for Health and Social Care in England within one Department. 

Council is, however, concerned that the stewardship of responsibility for Health Services in England remains with the man who co-authored a book which advocated increasing privatisation and fragmentation of the NHS, saying:

"The problem with the NHS is not one of resources."

"We should fund patients, either through the tax system or by way of universal insurance, to purchase health care from the provider of their choice,” 

and 

"Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private and public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain." 

. . .and that the ?NHS is struggling under increasing pressure to fragment further as well as under the pressures of paying crippling PFI payments. 

Council welcomes the devolution of integrated Health and Social Care provision to Greater Manchester and to Scotland and urges the government to take steps which mirror the potential for similar arrangements to be introduced in the Greater Merseyside area.

Council is concerned, however, about the conflicts which hinder the effective integration of a fragmenting national Illness Service, which is funded and provided in one manner, and disseminated locally-funded Care services which are funded and delivered in completely different processes. Council urges parliamentarians of all parties to work together constructively together across party lines to create a high quality effective efficient and integrated Health and Care service for all parts of England - and for local government to be funded appropriately to provide for care services.

Council notes the present overspend on its own Sefton MBC Community Care services of one million pounds which is only being covered by significant cutbacks on employment of staff across the Social Services Department.

Council notes with concern the manner in which the Southport & Ormskirk NHS Trust limps on with a massive financial deficit under expensive temporary senior management, including the same A&E and ambulance problems which have beset the Southport Hospital on a regular basis in recent years. Council is also concerned at the eerie silence which has fallen over the local 'Sustainability and Transformation Review' and asserts the rights of NHS communities in significant metropolitan towns such as Southport to have acute health services provided in a manner which properly balances accessibility and clinical need rather than balance sheets. 

Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister to invite her to attend Southport hospital to discuss with clinicians and patient, carer and community representatives from Southport and Formby the true challenges which confront our Health and Care system locally and which might re-emerge 'strong and stable.

During the course of the debate on the Motion Councillor Dawson indicated that he was happy to withdraw his Motion.

With the consent of the Council the Motion was withdrawn.

To consider the following Motion submitted by Councillor Thomas:

Period Poverty

The Council notes that it is time to end Period Poverty now. The issue has been brought to light due to the sensitive issue of young women’s ability to access products. They may well be living in low income homes, be in receipt of benefits or simply, for many, the monthly budget may not be able to spread as far as sanitary products.

The Dilemma is also compounded by the fear of not being able to participate in social and sporting activities, as there is inadequate protection available.

(1)        This Council notes that this is not a luxury item, it is a basic necessity and no girl or woman should be made to feel they cannot attend school or enjoy your social life because they are locked into Period Poverty.

(2)    It is recognised by the Council that the costs incurred by women who are on low income or receiving benefits who are unable to afford sanitary products will detrimentally impact on the social and mental health and well-being of these women.

(3)    This Council supports the notion that the Government’s Tampon Tax may be used to relieve the pressure on families and young women and it could be added to the breakdown of the Universal Credit award so that every woman in the UK may have access to much-needed sanitary products.

(4)    This Council requests that the Chief Executive writes to Jeremy Hunt, Minister for Health and Social Care and Esther McVey, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and call upon their support:

   •     to end “Period Poverty”;

   •     to establish if there is a dedicated amount within the Universal Tax Credit allocations to cover the cost of sanitary products for all women and if not why?

   •     to enquire where the money raised from the Tampon Tax has actually been spent.

It was moved by Councillor Thomas, seconded by Councillor Marianne Welsh and unanimously:

RESOLVED:

Period Poverty

The Council notes that it is time to end Period Poverty now. The issue has been brought to light due to the sensitive issue of young women’s ability to access products. They may well be living in low income homes, be in receipt of benefits or simply, for many, the monthly budget may not be able to spread as far as sanitary products.

The Dilemma is also compounded by the fear of not being able to participate in social and sporting activities, as there is inadequate protection available.

(1)        This Council notes that this is not a luxury item, it is a basic necessity and no girl or woman should be made to feel they cannot attend school or enjoy your social life because they are locked into Period Poverty.

(2)    It is recognised by the Council that the costs incurred by women who are on low income or receiving benefits who are unable to afford sanitary products will detrimentally impact on the social and mental health and well-being of these women.

(3)    This Council supports the notion that the Government’s Tampon Tax may be used to relieve the pressure on families and young women and it could be added to the breakdown of the Universal Credit award so that every woman in the UK may have access to much-needed sanitary products.

(4)    This Council requests that the Chief Executive writes to Jeremy Hunt, Minister for Health and Social Care and Esther McVey, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and call upon their support:

   •     to end “Period Poverty”;

   •     to establish if there is a dedicated amount within the Universal Tax Credit allocations to cover the cost of sanitary products for all women and if not why?

   •     to enquire where the money raised from the Tampon Tax has actually been spent.

To consider the following Motion submitted by Councillor Hardy:

Antisemitic Hate Crime

This Council notes with concern that the Community Security Trust has reported a 30% increase nationally in antisemitic hate crime during the first 6 months of 2017.

The Council therefore welcomes the UK Government’s announcement on 11 December 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on antisemitism.  The Council also notes that the new definition has been adopted by the Government, Labour Party, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, Greater London Authority and Greater Manchester Combined Authority along with numerous other Councils across the country.

The Council notes the definition reads as follows:-:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The guidelines highlight manifestations of antisemitism as including:

• “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

This Council believes that everyone is equal irrespective of their race or religion.  This means that all forms of hate crime must be condemned.

This Council welcomes the cross-party support within the Council for combating antisemitism in all its manifestations. This Council hereby endorses the above definition of antisemitism as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

It was moved by Councillor Hardy, seconded by Councillor Friel and unanimously:

RESOLVED:

Anti-semitic Hate Crime

This Council notes with concern that the Community Security Trust has reported a 30% increase nationally in antisemitic hate crime during the first 6 months of 2017.

The Council therefore welcomes the UK Government’s announcement on 11 December 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on antisemitism.  The Council also notes that the new definition has been adopted by the Government, Labour Party, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, Greater London Authority and Greater Manchester Combined Authority along with numerous other Councils across the country.

The Council notes the definition reads as follows:-:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The guidelines highlight manifestations of antisemitism as including:

• “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

This Council believes that everyone is equal irrespective of their race or religion. This means that all forms of hate crime must be condemned.

This Council welcomes the cross-party support within the Council for combating antisemitism in all its manifestations. This Council hereby endorses the above definition of antisemitism as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

To consider the following Motion submitted by Councillor Lappin:

Governmental Failure to Equality-Proof Financial Reductions to Local Authority Finances

The Council congratulates Unite 567 Community Branch in terms of the work they have done in exposing the potential illegality of Governmental cuts to Local Authority Finances.

In particular, through the use of Freedom of Information requests to the Department for Communities and Local Government, Unite 567 Community Branch have received all Equality Impact Assessments which the Government carry out annually as they reduce local authority finances.  Equality Impact Assessments are an integral part of the 2010 Equality Act.  However, the Government have not complied with the terms of the Equality Act, as the EIAs carried out, instead of there being one for each Local Authority whose finances have been reduced, the Government have put the onus onto the Local Authority to produce their own.  Therefore, the Government could be acting illegally in terms of reductions to Local Authority funding.

This Council believes this issue needs to be given the fullest attention and publicity so therefore supports the efforts in this regard from Unite, TUC, Labour Councils and the Labour Party Front Bench, in order for challenges to be mounted to save Local Government as we know it.    

This Council requests that the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government requesting that the Government conducts full Equality Impact Assessments prior to determining future Local Government Settlements so that it is clear what the effects of austerity will have on local residents.

It was moved by Councillor Lappin, seconded by Councillor Moncur and unanimously:

RESOLVED:

Governmental Failure to Equality-Proof Financial Reductions to Local Authority Finances

The Council congratulates Unite 567 Community Branch in terms of the work they have done in exposing the potential illegality of Governmental cuts to Local Authority Finances.

In particular, through the use of Freedom of Information requests to the Department for Communities and Local Government, Unite 567 Community Branch have received all Equality Impact Assessments which the Government carry out annually as they reduce local authority finances.  Equality Impact Assessments are an integral part of the 2010 Equality Act.  However, the Government has not complied with the terms of the Equality Act, as the EIAs carried out, instead of there being one for each Local Authority whose finances have been reduced, the Government has put the onus onto the Local Authority to produce their own.  Therefore, the Government could be acting illegally in terms of reductions to Local Authority funding.

This Council believes this issue needs to be given the fullest attention and publicity so therefore supports the efforts in this regard from Unite, TUC, Labour Councils and the Labour Party Front Bench, in order for challenges to be mounted to save Local Government as we know it.    

This Council requests that the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government requesting that the Government conducts full Equality Impact Assessments prior to determining future Local Government Settlements so that it is clear what the effects of austerity will have on local residents.