Agenda item

(1) Motion by Councillor Mrs V C Ayling

 

Prior to discussion of this motion Councillors Mrs M J Overton MBE and Mrs H N J Powell declared an interest as they held paid positions in the LGA and left the meeting at 3.20pm for the duration of the debate.

 

It was moved and seconded that:

 

The Government has imposed savage cuts upon this council, and there are more to come. Front line services are in desperate straits, so to preserve what's left we must be absolutely ruthless in getting rid of unnecessary spending.

One area in particular stands out as being 'especially' in need of the chop - the Local Government Association. It costs this council, in cash terms alone, £60,000 a year - and add to this the time spent on expenses and officer time.

We're asking taxpayers to stump up an extra 3.9%, so we must ask, "what benefit does the LGA bring to this council, and more importantly, the taxpayers of Lincolnshire?"  It is little more than another bureaucratic talking shop which makes a lot of noise but achieves little. Could any of you here today justify it to your constituents whilst asking them for more money?

In this on-going Era of Austerity, we must now, more than ever, spend what little money we have for the benefit of our residents. The £60,000 would be far better spent on such things as adult or children's services. Officers could spend the time gained on making life better for 'all' the people of Lincolnshire, and have the satisfaction that they're really working for the people who pay their wages.

I therefore propose that Lincolnshire County Council agrees to leave the Local Government Association as soon as possible.

During debate, an amendment was proposed that the subject of the benefits of membership of the LGA be discussed by a scrutiny committee.  This was accepted by the mover of the motion and became part of the substantive motion.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

 

 

The Chairman determined that the motions by Councillors A Bridges and C Pain, and the amendment submitted by UKIP would be debated concurrently, but that there would be three separate votes.

 

 

(2) Motion by Councillor A Bridges

 

It was moved and seconded that:

 

The council welcomes The Prime Minister's decision to hold an in out referendum on our nation's membership of the EU so that we can all have a vote on this vital issue.

In the ensuing negotiations the PM identified some clear objectives covering matters such as immigration, welfare and sovereignty which could form part of a revised relationship if we were to remain in.

 

Unfortunately, due to European intransigence the current "deal" offers very little in terms of delivering a sustainable and fair welfare and immigration policy for the UK or the ability to repatriate some powers back to this country.

 

Lincolnshire, particularly on the east coast has seen unprecedented rise in economic migration which inevitably has put pressure on public services many of which this council provides. It has also undermined social cohesion and confidence in some areas.

 

It is accepted that most migrants come to provide necessary labour and contribute in many ways. However, as the EU has totally failed to deal satisfactorily with mass migration from outside Europe it is vital that this country is able to control its borders before the situation becomes untenable.

 

We also need to reduce unnecessary interference and bureaucracy from the EU in order to successfully grow the Lincolnshire economy which does not seem currently likely.

 

This Council therefore resolves

 

That the current UK/EU deal does not offer a good opportunity for Lincolnshire and unless a better arrangement can be negotiated, the United Kingdom would be better placed to grow and develop outside the European Union.

 

 

An amendment (i) was proposed and seconded by UKIP as follows:

 

The council welcomes The Prime Minister's decision to hold an in out referendum on our nation's membership of the EU so that we can all have a vote on this vital issue.

In the ensuing negotiations the PM identified some clear objectives covering matters such as immigration, welfare and sovereignty which could form part of a revised relationship if we were to remain in.

 

Unfortunately, due to European intransigence the current "deal" offers very little in terms of delivering a sustainable and fair welfare and immigration policy for the UK or the ability to repatriate some powers back to this country.

 

Lincolnshire, particularly on the east coast has seen unprecedented rise in economic migration which inevitably has put pressure on public services many of which this council provides. It has also undermined social cohesion and confidence in some areas.

 

It is accepted that most migrants come to provide necessary labour and contribute in many ways. However, as the EU has totally failed to deal satisfactorily with mass migration from outside Europe it is vital that this country is able to control its borders before the situation becomes untenable.

 

We also need to reduce unnecessary interference and bureaucracy from the EU in order to successfully grow the Lincolnshire economy which does not seem currently likely.

 

This Council therefore resolves:

 

That the current UK/EU deal does not offer a good opportunity for Lincolnshire and unless a better arrangement can be negotiated, the United Kingdom would be better placed to grow and develop outside the European Union.

That the current UK/EU deal does not offer a good opportunity for Lincolnshire. Therefore this council supports a vote to leave the European Union.

 

(3) Motion by Councillor C Pain

 

It was moved and seconded that:

 

Lincolnshire, particularly on the east coast, has seen an unprecedented rise in economic migration which inevitably has put pressure on public services, many of which this council provides. It has also undermined social cohesion and confidence in some areas.

 

This has devastated Boston by increasing rental prices beyond affordability for locals.  It has pushed the hospital, Doctors surgeries, policing, schooling, services to a breaking point. The last census of the population is inaccurate as the majority of mass occupancy homes did not submit the number of people in their dwellings, this means that there are an estimated 10,000 plus EU Migrants in the Boston area that are unaccounted for, meaning that we are not funded by government for this extra amount of population.

 

Often the migrants themselves are working on minimal wage with no contract of employment plus they are deducted over half of their money for accommodation, transport and the right for casual employment.

 

There have been many incidences of these migrants being found living in glass houses or old caravans that are unsuitable / unfit to live in. The effect of Unlimited Mass EU Migration has devastated the local community by forcing families, who have always done this type of work, into permanent unemployment leaving their siblings to a life on benefit payment dependency.

 

The migrants themselves send the majority of their money out of the local community and country, stopping the redistribution of money in local businesses. Then if the EU migrants go home for two months per year, they can claim back all of the tax and NI that they have paid in our country. They then can come back the next year, hence having a total negative effect on society.  

 

A leading agricultural firm, are a prime example, where local people have always worked in the fields and pack houses, with some employees having worked there for 15-20 years. Then a large majority of its work force were needlessly made redundant and replaced with foreign labour. Locals have always gathered the produce from the fields and undertaken pack house work and still would do if given half a chance. In 2004 locals were doing piece work on the land were earning £14-£18 per hour whilst now EU Migrants are on day's pay less vast expense deductions.

 

At this firm they are charged for accommodation, bedding, transport etc and I roughly believe this levies the firm a further million pounds per year in monies. The cost to the local community is drastic.

 

The power industry have to pay all of their employees on NAECI (blue book) rates £15.28 per hour. EU companies quoting for the same work pay their EU employees far less with some paying minimum wage rate. Foreign Companies are quoting for the same jobs on power stations in the UK, but are paying the following reduction in pay to European workers.

Bulgarians pay £9.20 per hour

The Italians pay £7.56 per hour.

 

How can this be right that EU companies have the advantage of paying their employees less money on the same contracts and obviously making them more competitive than British ones?

 

Our off shore oil companies workers in Lincolnshire have also suffered similar disparities in wages.

 

The mass of Unlimited EU Migration into the UK has meant that the minimum wage has now become the maximum wage and that's if you're lucky enough to get employment. In fact the current EU Migration criterion is racist to all of those countries outside of the EU, especially to all of our friends in the Commonwealth Countries.

 

These actions have stopped local Cantonese and Indian restaurants recruiting suitable chefs and local people legitimately, bringing in their spouses from non EU countries.  

 

Zero hour contracts might suit students at University, but are no good for people trying to live and enjoy life in our country, it only helps fat cats to get richer whilst taking workers' rights back into the dark ages. 

 

We have the further issue that both David Cameron and the EU are pushing for both Turkey and Bosnia to enter the EU. This will mean that a further 80 million of their population will be entitled to come to the UK.

 

Once outside of the EU, we can install a full Australian Visa style points entry system into our country, but I feel that as the local County Council, we have to send this message to David Cameron, so that it will help inform him of the need to secure full UK border control. Whilst I feel his insistence of the UK being within the unelected control of the EU, with its associated consequences, it is against the will of the British public.

 

I have forwarded to councillors a range of information provided by Nottingham University and Professor Tim Congdon. Tim has worked hard over the years deploying in his own analysis the monetarist approach to macroeconomic policy. He has considerable experience working in the City of London and was the founder of the macroeconomic forecasting consultancy Lombard Street Research. Between 1993 and 1997, he was a member of the Treasury Panel that advised the Conservative government on economic policy.

 

I move that this Council urges the UK Government to adopt a Migration System so that EU Migrants are treated equally to non EU Migrants entering the UK, meaning that they need a work visa / work permits, allocated on a skill Points Based System (PBS) - Tier 1(high value); Tier 2 (skilled workers with a job offer); Tier 4 (students " who will pay the same amount as non EU students"). Tier 1 (unskilled) entry routes will no longer be open. This will involve re instilling full UK border control.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the amendment (i) was lost.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion (2) by Councillor A Bridges was carried.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion (3) by Councillor C Pain was lost.

 

RESOLVED

 

            That the current UK/EU deal does not offer a good opportunity for   Lincolnshire and unless a better arrangement can be negotiated, the         United Kingdom would be better placed to grow and develop outside        the European Union.

 

 

(4) Motion by Councillor S L W Palmer

 

We believe that this Council is facing unprecedented financial pressure with a perceived background of dissatisfaction with scrutiny and a disconnection of councillors not part of the administration.

It is therefore proposed that this Council establishes a cross party review to investigate all systems of governance available to recommend on best value, inclusion of all councillors in decisions and transparency to the residents of Lincolnshire that we are elected to represent.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was lost