8
A Motion had been submitted by Councillor Peter Byatt in pursuance of Council Procedure Rule 11. This had been published on the agenda for the meeting.
Councillor Byatt advised that, following discussions with the other Group Leaders, a slight alteration to the amendment had been made, in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules and the consent of the Chairman. The altered Motion was displayed to Full Council:
"The following Motion has been submitted by Members in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11: Motion submitted by Councillor Peter Byatt:
In addition to modifying or enhancing the three priorities in the current East Suffolk Economic Growth Plan that facilitate and signpost businesses towards their own economic growth or encourage inward investment, East Suffolk Council, as an anchor institution, has the opportunity in its revised Delivery Plan to kick start economic recovery through its own procurement policies and via its purchasing decisions to encourage/support local economic recovery and to build overall community wealth within the community through its significant purchasing power.
Keeping money in the local economy as a way of driving positive economic and social outcomes is not new and has been championed and promoted by Preston Council since 2012 (‘The Preston Model’). Its progressive procurement is now being followed by other councils throughout the UK and the Welsh Government.
At its heart is inclusive economic growth. By encouraging anchors, such as Councils, to spend their money locally and socially, the concept of Community Wealth Building has:
• Developed the skills of local people within Preston and the wider Lancashire area;
• Created stable, well paying jobs;
• Reduced levels of in-work poverty;
• Kept money circulating in the local economy and
• Demonstrated the power of anchor institutions to realise good local economies for people and place.
Therefore, this Motion calls on East Suffolk Council to:
1. Convene a cross party Member/Officer Task and Finish Group, chaired by the Deputy Leader/Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development, and to task it with Investigate Community Wealth Building and embed it into our policies to enhance the quality of life and opportunities for people in East Suffolk
2. Instigate new procurement policies that drive local economic growth within its Economic Growth and Recovery Delivery Plan and which
Identifying where the council spends its budget procuring goods and services, money and how much is leaking out of East Suffolk;
Researching procurement and community wealth building best practice nationally .
Reviewing the Council’s procurement policies and practice,
Developing proposals for new procurement policies that will deliver a fully compliant procurement service leveraging maximum economic and social benefit for the Council and for residents and businesses of East Suffolk,
Reporting back to Cabinet
Leverage maximum local and economic benefit from East Suffolk’s spend on goods and services, shifting spend on local and socially responsible suppliers;
Encourage and monitor the percentage of suppliers that pay at least or in excess of the national living wage;
Develop the capacity of local business if local suppliers are limited in number;
Map where suppliers are located with ward level deprivation data and
Develop a social value framework to procurement that promotes local training and employment; supports the long-term sustainability of the VCSE sector; includes democratic forms of ownership such as co-operatives and promotes environmental sustainability.
3. Inspire other authorities in Suffolk to take up a similar stance
4. Encourage other anchor institutions within East Suffolk such as Scottish Power Renewables, EDF Energy, Felixstowe Port etc. to adopt similar this first steps to deliver on a community wealth building approach for long term social and economic gain throughout the District region."
The Chairman invited Councillor Byatt to address Full Council. Councillor Byatt referred to the social and economic shock which the Covid-19 pandemic had caused nationally and which, he said, would take years to fully recover from. Councillor Byatt referred to the number who had sadly died, others who had lost their jobs and the many businesses which might, sadly, be unable to continue to trade. Councillor Byatt said certain parts of the north of the District were already classed as amongst the most deprived neighbourhoods in England, with low wages, minimal opportunities and, in places, poor education and skills levels. Councillor Byatt recognised that pockets of deprivation existed throughout Suffolk including difficulties accessing services and low income levels. He stated that efforts to re-start the economy, to date, had focussed on infrastructure and "shovel-ready" projects to address an anticipated rise in unemployment. He referred to the LEPs observation that some 32,000 individuals had applied for Universal Credit for the first time in April 2020 and had forecast local unemployment to potential be between 6% and 25% by the end of the year.
Councillor Byatt said that discussions to look at this issue included how the local economy might be organised for the benefit of East Suffolk's residents. East Suffolk Council was, he said, revising its economic delivery plan to include an additional period of post-pandemic recovery. Councillor Byatt said he believed this was a golden opportunity to create a new East Suffolk normal which, he hoped, would help to tackle deprivation and provide additional resilience to weather future events. Councillor Byatt said that, in January 2020, he had indicated he wished to bring a significant budgetary proposal before Full Council and that this Motion was that proposal. He continued to say that, together, the Council should take this opportunity to focus on the positive benefits it could offer its residents by considering the multiple elements of community wealth building. He said that the Council should give the people of East Suffolk all the confidence that it could to make their lives fairer. He urged Full Council to commence the "levelling-up" now and commended the Motion.
The Motion was seconded by Councillor Deacon who stated that it was his belief that there was no desire to return to pre-Covid-19 practices but to do things differently, to rethink and reform. Councillor Deacon hoped the Council's significant purchasing power could be utilised to retain funds within the local economy and to stop it leaving East Suffolk. He stated that the Council needed to ensure this happened so as to re-build the local economy and thereby achieve the most positive social and economic impact. Councillor Deacon said the Council should support the payment of decent wages and use its contracts to create stable well-paid jobs. He added that the Council's list of suppliers should be opened to local enterprises and operations.
The Leader of the Council said he was happy to support the premise of the Motion with a view to carrying our further investigation of what the Council can and can not do, what it already did, if that remains fit for purpose etc. He added that this was an ideal opportunity to do this, but with care, to ensure that inadvertently disadvantaging local businesses was avoided. The Leader of the Council said it was important to recognise that many local companies had a national trading footprint and it would be a travesty, he said, if the Council set an example to other local authorities which resulted in local companies missing out on business opportunities outside of the local area. He reiterated that he was in favour of looking at the possible opportunities to build the common-wealth sought by the Motion, but with caution and an aim to find ways to inspire others.
The Chairman invited questions, there being no questions, the Chairman invited Full Council to debate the Motion.
Councillor Elliott said he fully supported the Motion and endorsed the comments of Councillor Byatt and Councillor Deacon. He added that the Motion was a step towards a better world and the building of a green recovery.
Councillor Ritchie referred to the very considerable investment in off-shore wind energy on the east Suffolk coast and to the course introduced at Lowestoft College for people who wished to work in that industry. These were, he said, good job opportunities for young people and an excellent approach for the local economy. Councillor Ritchie also referred to the £67m funding for the construction of the Lowestoft Flood Barrier and tidal walls, he said the main contractor for this work had an excellent record for apprenticeships for local people and, he suggested, the contractor's workforce would put money back into the local economy. He concluded by saying that he also wanted the local economy to thrive but there was also a requirement to achieve best value when spending tax payers' money.
Councillor Kerry stated that, when and where possible through the procurement process, local contractors were used by the Council's housing team.
Councillor Smith-Lyte welcomed the Motion. She said that the Council needed to be sustainable in its approach to the local economy and not try to "build out of trouble". Councillor Smith-Lyte said it was important to preserve and protect east Suffolk's natural environment in order to retain and attract tourism. Councillor Smith-Lyte suggested that an East Suffolk £ be considered, similar to that in Totnes, so that money remained in the local economy.
Councillor Herring referred to the Preston Model and queried what had happened there; he added that although it may have been successful, he had some scepticism as the Motion proposed did not state or explain how Preston's economy had been approved as a result of the Model. Councillor Herring acknowledged the significant issues within Lowestoft, but said the Council was responsible for a wide area which had a successful local economy which had promoted itself to businesses and entrepreneurs, alongside an exceptional natural environment, but without what he considered to be protectionist policies. Councillor Herring said that, from the Motion, he was unclear what this Model would achieve for east Suffolk, or how it would deliver for Lowestoft.
Councillor Wiles said there were numerous changes which the Council could embrace, including its purchasing marketing emphasising best quality and value for money. With reference to Councillor Herring's comments, Councillor Wiles referred to a total protectionist approach to an economy and stated that he was confident that these were not successful in the long term. He added that, rather, the promotion to residents of "use local" would be beneficial.
Councillor Mallinder said that, where possible, the Council's procurement processes could encourage local businesses but of equal importance was the need to ensure value for money was also offered to tax-paying residents. He said he would welcome the Motion if it enabled an increased focus on local priorities.
Councillor Bird said the Motion was laudable, in principle, but that there were notable areas of caution around a potential protectionist economy route with negative impacts. He stressed that it was incumbent upon the Council to achieve value for money with tax-payers' money and that a local-only approach to procurement and purchasing might not always achieve that.
Councillor Burroughes said a balance needed to be struck between protectionism and an open, free economy. He said it was worth exploring the evidence of where it had been successful elsewhere. In conclusion, he said that the Preston Model needed to be explained further and any move in that direction needed to be evidence-based.
The Leader of the Council welcomed the valid and varied points raised by Members. He added that the Motion did not seek the adoption of a new policy or a change to current policy, but a review of what the Council currently did to make sure it remained fit for purpose and was future-proofed to enable it to continue to promote and enhance the local economy. He continued to say that if, having been reviewed, the current policy was fit for purpose and delivering against the Council's aims and objectives, there would not need to alter it.
Councillor Byatt thanked Members for their comments. He referred Council to the full report on the Preston Model which had, he said, helped to make Preston "the most improved city in 2018". However, in conclusion, he stressed that the purpose of the Motion was to seek the establishment of a cross-party Member/Officer Task and Finish Group to look at the potential for common-wealth building in the local economy. He asked that, if the Motion was carried, the Group be politically-balanced and include the Political Group Support Assistants. Councillor Byatt further asked that the decision on who would sit on the Task and Finish Group be delegated to the Group Leaders. If established, Councillor Byatt suggested that the Task and Finish Groups recommendations be submitted to Cabinet.
The altered Motion was proposed and seconded, therefore, the Chairman moved to the vote. By a majority vote, the altered Motion was carried.