The following Motions have been submitted in pursuance of Council Procedure Rule 11:
a) Motion submitted by Councillor Tess Gandy
This Council believes that:
1. Councillors across the UK work hard to serve their local communities and help direct the delivery of essential public services. To Build Back Better we must tackle tax avoidance and pioneer the promotion of responsible tax conduct.
2. This Council is diligent in the way it operates. East Suffolk Council sets a high standard in how we administer our tax affairs; we comply with all Financial Regulations including tax regulations and Cabinet Office procurement policy, which sets national standards for tax compliance as part of supplier qualification.
3. Social value is becoming an increasingly important factor in our procurement considerations so ‘good’ tax conduct should be a core public procurement consideration as part of maximising social value, giving weight to suppliers that have sound economic and financial standing
This Council resolves to:
1. Lead by example and communicate our expectations of good practice in tax conduct right across our activities including;
- Ensuring contractors implement IR35 robustly and pay a fair share of employment taxes
- Shunning the use of offshore vehicles for the purchase of land and property especially where this leads to reduced payments of stamp duty
- Undertaking due diligence to ensure that not-for-profit structures are not being used inappropriately as an artificial device to reduce the payment of tax and business rates
- Ensuring that there is clarity on the ultimate beneficial ownership of suppliers and their consolidated profit & loss position when negotiating contracts over £25,000, so they are fully transparent in their financial reporting
2. Support calls for urgent reform of UK law to enable local authorities to better penalise poor tax conduct and reward good tax conduct through their procurement policies
3. Use the East Suffolk Social Value and Sustainable Procurement Policy agreed at Cabinet on July 7th 2021 to integrate tax status further into our procurement process with the Fair Tax Mark being used as positive evidence of social value
4. Work with East Suffolk businesses to promote Fair Tax Mark certification
5. Encourage other public sector bodies to adopt a similar approach
6. As supporters of responsible tax conduct, consider supporting the ‘Councils for Fair Tax’ declaration as proposed by the Fair Tax Foundation
https://fairtaxmark.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Declaration-19-09-.pdf
7. Report on the implementation and progress of actions agreed as part of the budget on an annual basis.
b) Motion submitted by Councillor Tom Daly
This Council commits to making our roads safer residents and visitors, as far as is possible within a District Council’s operations, in line with the amendments to the Highway Code, laid in Parliament on 1 December 2021, that introduce a “hierarchy of road users”: stating that road users most likely to be injured in the event of a collision are pedestrians, in particular children, older adults and disabled people, followed by cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists. This Council will:
1. Use social media to publicise road safety education and safe cycling practices.
2. Write to the PCC and ask for confirmation that the Suffolk Constabulary is prepared to increase and prioritise enforcement activities across all speed limits (including 20mph) where there is clear evidence of significant non-compliance or an injury collision history, and ensure that all officers act in line with this policy.
3. Write to the County Council and ask them to commit to keeping cycle paths and footpaths clear, especially along busy roads, to keep traffic, cyclists and pedestrians separated.
8
a) Motion submitted by Councillor Tess Gandy
The Chairman invited Councillor Gandy to read out her Motion.
Councillor Gandy proposed her Motion and then read out the following:
"This Council believes that:
1. Councillors across the UK work hard to serve their local communities and help direct the delivery of essential public services. To Build Back Better we must tackle tax avoidance and pioneer the promotion of responsible tax conduct.
2. This Council is diligent in the way it operates. East Suffolk Council sets a high standard in how we administer our tax affairs; we comply with all Financial Regulations including tax regulations and Cabinet Office procurement policy, which sets national standards for tax compliance as part of supplier qualification.
3. Social value is becoming an increasingly important factor in our procurement considerations so ‘good’ tax conduct should be a core public procurement consideration as part of maximising social value, giving weight to suppliers that have sound economic and financial standing
This Council resolves to:
1. Lead by example and communicate our expectations of good practice in tax conduct right across our activities including;
- Ensuring contractors implement IR35 robustly and pay a fair share of employment taxes
- Shunning the use of offshore vehicles for the purchase of land and property especially where this leads to reduced payments of stamp duty
- Undertaking due diligence to ensure that not-for-profit structures are not being used inappropriately as an artificial device to reduce the payment of tax and business rates
- Ensuring that there is clarity on the ultimate beneficial ownership of suppliers and their consolidated profit & loss position when negotiating contracts over £25,000, so they are fully transparent in their financial reporting
2. Support calls for urgent reform of UK law to enable local authorities to better penalise poor tax conduct and reward good tax conduct through their procurement policies
3. Use the East Suffolk Social Value and Sustainable Procurement Policy agreed at Cabinet on July 7th 2021 to integrate tax status further into our procurement process with the Fair Tax Mark being used as positive evidence of social value
4. Work with East Suffolk businesses to promote Fair Tax Mark certification
5. Encourage other public sector bodies to adopt a similar approach
6. As supporters of responsible tax conduct, consider supporting the ‘Councils for Fair Tax’ declaration as proposed by the Fair Tax Foundation https://fairtaxmark.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Declaration-19-09-.pdf
7. Report on the implementation and progress of actions agreed as part of the budget on an annual basis."
Councillor Byatt seconded the Motion and he reserved his right to speak.
The Chairman then invited Members to consider whether to debate the Motion this
evening or not.
Councillor Gallant stated that the Motion was interesting however, it was simply not feasible for Members to conduct a meaningful debate in a realistic timeframe this evening. He stated that Members had been presented with a range of assertions and lobbying requests. Members were unable to fully consider implications, contrary viewpoints or alternatives due to the complex nature of the Motion. If Members were to do justice to the subject, then a significant amount of time and research resources need to be made available. Councillor Gallant therefore proposed that this Motion was not debated this evening but was referred to the Audit and Governance Committee for due consideration and that a report comes back to Full Council, together with any recommendations that they feel were appropriate. Councillor Gallant stated that it was his expectation that any such recommendations were fully researched, costed and evidenced.
Councillor Gallant clarified that he proposed that, in line with paragraph 11.5 of East Suffolk Council's Constitution, that this Council declined the opportunity of debating this Motion this evening and refers the Motion to the Council's Audit and Governance Committee, to fully explore and debate the matter and to bring recommendations back to a subsequent meeting of the Council. He then called for a seconder. Councillor Rivett duly seconded the proposal.
Councillor Lynch, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, stated that he agreed with the Motion being referred to the Committee. He confirmed that the Motion was a large and technical subject. He would raise this matter at the Audit and Governance Committee meeting in March 2022, to seek their agreement and a date for adding this item to their work programme. He noted that since 2014, when the Fair Tax Mark was created, only 17 Councils had achieved that standard, therefore this Council would need to know more prior to making an informed decision. There would be a lot to consider and a detailed response would not be quick or easy to provide.
Councillor Gandy confirmed that she fully understood the Motion and its implications for the Council. She confirmed that it was indeed, a complex issue. She agreed that it was an appropriate response to refer the Motion to the Audit and Governance Committee for further consideration.
Councillor Byatt thanked Councillor Lynch for agreeing to take the Motion to the Audit and Governance Committee. He offered to provide additional information to support future Motions, if that would enable Motions to be reduced in size.
The Chairman reminded Members that reading out the Motions was for the benefit of the public watching the meeting at home. As there was no further comment or questions, the proposal to refer the Motion to the Audit and Governance Committee had already been moved and seconded. The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal and it was unanimously
RESOLVED
That the Motion be referred to the Audit and Governance Committee for further consideration and that a report would be brought back to Full Council, with any recommendations made by the Audit and Governance Committee.
b) Motion submitted by Councillor Tom Daly
The Chairman invited Councillor Daly to read out his Motion.
Councillor Daly proposed his Motion and then read out the following:
"This Council commits to making our roads safer residents and visitors, as far as is possible within a District Council’s operations, in line with the amendments to the Highway Code, laid in Parliament on 1 December 2021, that introduce a “hierarchy of road users”: stating that road users most likely to be injured in the event of a collision are pedestrians, in particular children, older adults and disabled people, followed by cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists. This Council will:
1. Use social media to publicise road safety education and safe cycling practices.
2. Write to the PCC and ask for confirmation that the Suffolk Constabulary is prepared to increase and prioritise enforcement activities across all speed limits (including 20mph) where there is clear evidence of significant non-compliance or an injury collision history, and ensure that all officers act in line with this policy.
3. Write to the County Council and ask them to commit to keeping cycle paths and footpaths clear, especially along busy roads, to keep traffic, cyclists and pedestrians separated. "
Councillor Thompson seconded the Motion and he reserved his right to speak.
The Chairman then invited Members to consider whether to debate the Motion this evening or not.
Councillor Gallant reported that this Motion and the recommendations contained within it, fell outside the scope of the Councils general activities. Road safety education and road craft training fell to the County Council to deliver. The priorities in respect of the deployment of Police Resources fell to the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable. The maintenance of Cycle routes was again a County Council function.
Councillor Gallant stated that he was not aware that any of the actions called for were not being carried out diligently or expeditiously. However, clearly the mover and seconder feel this is the case.
He stated that if a Ward Councillor feels that there is some specific area of concern, then they should use their contacts or the Highways reporting tool, which should be fruitful.
Councillor Gallant stated that the Council has a very able Transport Portfolio Cabinet Member, who can assist Members if they need it. He encouraged the mover and seconder of the Motion to speak directly to Councillor Brooks if they have specific areas of concern, that were not being addressed by our partners.
Councillor Gallant therefore proposed that, in line with paragraph 11.5 of our Constitution, that this Council declines the opportunity of debating this Motion this evening and refers the Motion to Cabinet who will direct the Cabinet Member for Transport to consider the matter and to report back to this Council on any actions that they deem to be required. Councillor Gallant then called for a seconder and Councillor Brooks seconded the proposal.
Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw stated that this Council should its platform to do what it could to support local communities and make it safer for people trying to walk and cycle in the district.
Councillor Topping reported that at a Planning Committee North meeting, there had been reference made to a number of Council policies including SCLP7.1 relating to sustainable travel and SCLP6.5 which related to the provision of covered cycle storage. She queried why the Council had a number of policies about matters for which it was not responsible?
Mr Bing, Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal and Democratic Services, provided clarification on the procedure, as Members were currently in the procedural debate about whether to discuss the Motion at this evening or not. They should not be debating the merits of the Motion at this time.
Councillor Yule commented that the Council's Walking and Cycling Strategy was still awaited and it was important to do something to help engage local residents. It was important for the Council to do what it could, for the benefit of residents. Councillor Yule stated she supported the Motion in principle.
Councillor Mapey stated that the Motion was outside of the Council's remit. He understood their sentiment but it was not appropriate to debate this Motion as it was not the Council's role.
Councillor Beavan stated that when the Cycling and Walking Strategy was published, it may be possible to debate issues and difficulties experienced when trying to walk and cycle.
Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that the Council was in danger of people thinking it was not taking the climate emergency seriously. The council needed to be seen to be doing things and this related to our constituents. The Council should be more ambitious generally.
Councillor Byatt stated that he understood the need to raise the profile of the contents of the updated Highway Code. It was very important to make pedestrians and cyclists safer. He felt that referring the Motion to Cabinet was a wise move, however Cabinet would be slightly limited in what it could do. It was not possible for the Council to dictate how the Police and Crime Commissioner spent his funding and for some people to request £600,000 be spent on speed cameras on the Kessingland bypass had been admirable but was unlikely to be successful. Suffolk County Highways should keep the highways in a good condition. If they did not, all Councillors were able to write to them to ask them to undertake maintenance and clearance, we all need to do our bit.
Councillor Thompson stated that he had tried to get things improved, via writing letters, however he felt that the Council needed to do more, by using its influence.
The Chairman commented that the Highways reporting tool was very useful and reports were generally picked up quickly and dealt with efficiently.
Councillor Daly stated that he felt very strongly about road safety. He was working closely with Snape Parish Council in relation to traffic issues outside the school. He stated that the Council needed to be proactive and support cycle safety.
As there were no further comments or debate, the proposal to refer the matter to the Cabinet had been moved and seconded, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED
That the Motion be referred to the Cabinet for further consideration. A report would be brought back to Full Council in due course.