Agenda item - Notices of Motion from Members of the Council under Standing Order 15

Notices of Motion from Members of the Council under Standing Order 15

Motion a)

 

From Councillor Robert King.

 

This motion is being proposed and seconded by the Labour and Co-operative parties because we still believe that tax enables the country to provide services from education, health and social care, to flood defences, roads, policing and defence. It also continues to help to counter financial inequalities and rebalance distorted economies. It is something we should all be proud to pay. The Fair Tax Mark is a great initiative to support those organisations that want to do the right thing and ensure we have an ethically sound economy.

 

It is also important that in all aspects of public life taxes are paid fairly, justly and the penalties for non-payment are enforced equally.  No matter how powerful an individual or company, everyone should be equal before the law. Where they break the law they should be punished equally as any other citizen for breaking the same laws and that this even applies to members of HM government.

 

This council notes that:

 

·       Corporate tax evasion and avoidance continue to have a damaging impact on the world’s poorest countries, to such a level that it is costing them far more than they receive in aid.

·       Even for wealthy countries it is a significant concern, for example it is costing the UK as much as £32bn a year HMRC estimated in 2021

·       This practice also has a negative effect on small and medium-sized companies who pay more tax proportionately, and consequentially impacts our local high streets

·       The UK Government has taken some steps to tackle the issue of tax avoidance and evasion by issuing Procurement Policy Note 03/14, which applies to all central government contracts worth more than £5m

·       RBC has implemented procurement processes that align to PPN 03/14

·       Polling from the Institute for Business Ethics finds that “corporate tax avoidance” has, since 2013, been the clear number one concern of the British public when it comes to business conduct.

·       Almost two-thirds (63%) of the public agree that the Government and local councils should consider a company’s ethics and how they pay their tax as well as value for money and quality of service provided, when undertaking procurement.

·       Between 2017-19 Around 17.5% of public contracts in the UK have been won by companies with links to tax havens. with a combined value of £37.5bn

·       The Fair Tax Mark certification scheme was launched in February 2014 and seeks to encourage and recognise organisations that pay the right amount of corporation tax at the right time and in the right place. It’s the only scheme of its kind in the UK bridging the gap between corporate responsibility and the wider tax justice movement.

·       The Fair Tax Mark offers a means for business to demonstrate good tax conduct, and has been secured by organisations with a combined annual income of £50bn and more than 6,500 outlets and premises, including many social enterprises and co- operatives.

 

This council believes that:

 

·       Paying tax is often presented as a burden, but it shouldn’t be.

·       Tax enables us to provide services from education, health and social care, to flood defence, roads, policing and defence. It also helps to counter financial inequalities and rebalance distorted economies.

·       As recipients of public funding, local authorities should take the lead in the promotion of exemplary tax conduct; be that by ensuring contractors are paying their proper share of tax, or by refusing to go along with offshore tax dodging when buying land and property.

·       Where substantive stakes are held in private enterprises, then influence should be wielded to ensure that such businesses are exemplars of tax transparency and tax avoidance is shunned - e.g., no use of marketed schemes requiring disclosure under DOTAS regulations (Disclosure Of Tax Avoidance Schemes) or arrangements that might fall foul of the General Anti-Abuse Rule.

·       UK cities, counties, Boroughs and Districts can and should stand up for responsible tax conduct - doing what they can within existing frameworks and pledging to do more given the opportunity, as active supporters of international tax justice.

 

Therefore this council resolves:

 

That the Corporate Management Committee form a report and recommendation for Full Council before the end of the municipal year which considers the following plan of action as recommended by the Fair Tax Mark organisation:

 

1.     Approve the Councils for Fair Tax Declaration:

1.1.  Lead by example and demonstrate good practice in our tax conduct, right across our activities.

1.1.1. Not use offshore vehicles for the purchase of land and property, especially where this leads to reduced payments of stamp duty.

1.1.2. Undertake 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.

1.1.3. Demand clarity on the ultimate beneficial ownership of suppliers and their consolidated profit & loss position.

1.2.  Promote Fair Tax Mark certification for any business in which we have a significant stake and where corporation tax is due.

1.3.  Support Fair Tax Week events in the area, and celebrate the tax contribution made by responsible businesses who say what they pay with pride.

1.4.  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.

2.     In addition to the actions recommended by the Fair Tax Mark the report should also explore the following:

2.1.  Use the Social Value Act to integrate tax status further into our procurement process.

2.1.1. The Fair Tax Mark would been used as positive evidence of social value above the PPN 03/14 standard.

2.2.  Work with Runnymede businesses to encourage the use of the Fair Tax Mark

2.3.  Go further than the declaration to ensure all council owned businesses are Fair Tax accredited and the council itself is as close to accreditation as is possible as a public sector organisation.

2.4.  Encourage other public sector bodies to adopt a similar approach.

2.5.  Council asks the officers to publicise this policy and to report on its implementation annually as part of the budget.

 

Motion b)

 

 

From Councillor Rhys Davies.

 

This Council notes:

 

1.     The unilateral decision by Surrey County Council to return devolved on-street parking enforcement back to County control.

2.     That these services were previously provided by Runnymede Borough Council, along with other districts and boroughs, and could be highly responsive to the needs of residents and the concerns of Councillors, where they were fully resourced.

3.     Where streets faced parking overspill or parking stress, Councillors and residents are able to apply for a resident parking permit (RPP) scheme to ensure a level of specific control over the area or street considered.

4.     That in Runnymede 7 such schemes are presently in place in the following streets:

 

·       Burn Close

·       The Hythe

·       Hythe Road

·       Cumberland Street

·       Railway Terrace

·       Thorpe Road

·       Wick Road

 

5.     That the current permit charge is £80 for first permit issued to a household, £100 for second permit issued to a household and £130 for three or more permits issued to a household.

6.     That the revenue derived by these permits had previously gone into expanding the enforcement team in Runnymede and ensured residents had a better opportunity to park outside their own home and that parking safety was enhanced.

7.     That the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council has had a detrimental impact to this Borough’s ability to enforce these permits and generally maintain the same level of staffing in our parking team.

8.     That residents in Egham Hythe, Englefield Green West and Addlestone North where RPPs are in force are now paying the same price for a permit and a service which is less valuable than it was last year, with lower enforcement ability.

 

The Council resolves:

 

That the Leader write a letter to the Leader of Surrey County Council to make the following points, with group leaders who are agreement with the sentiments raised, invited to co-sign it:

 

1.     That this Council once again reiterates that it believes it is the wrong decision to return those devolved on street enforcement powers back to the County Council.

2.     That we request a revised and published timetable for completion and role out of the new service provided by Surrey County Council and that it be shared with this Council and our residents.

3.     That we reiterate this Council’s wish for all new and transferred staff to be employed with a local remit and base, to ensure their local knowledge is not lost in the new service.

4.     That Borough and District Councils in Surrey should be provided with a compensation fund from Surrey County Council, so funds can be distributed equally to all permit holders, given they have been receiving a worse service than they applied for because of the actions by Surrey County Council.

5.     That the Leader of Surrey County Council is asked to confirm that in future, in the spirit of providing good and efficient public services regardless of who provides them, no future unilateral decisions will be taken without consulting districts and boroughs where their services or roles will be directly affected.

Minutes:

Motion a)

 

The motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor R. King, subject to a referral being made to the Corporate Management Committee.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Davies.

 

The motion was debated by the Council.

 

A named vote was requested on the motion and the voting was as follows:

 

For the motion (12)

 

Councillors Berardi, Burton, Davies, Gillham, Jenkins, A. King, R. King, Mullens, Ringham, D. Whyte, S. Whyte and Williams.

 

Against the motion (22)

 

Councillors Saise-Marshall, Balkan, Bromley, Coen, Cotty, Cressey, Cunningham, Darby, Gill, T. Gracey, Heath, Howorth, Hulley, N. King, Lewis, Mann, Nuti, Prescot, Snow, Walsh, Willingale and Wilson.

 

Abstentions (1)

 

Councillor Harnden.

 

The motion was lost.

 

[Councillors Heath and Nuti left the meeting at this point.]

 

Motion b)

 

The motion, as set out in the summons, was moved by Councillor Davies, subject to a referral being made to the Corporate Management Committee.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor R King.

 

Councillor T. Gracey proposed that the fourth call in the proposed motion be amended as follows:

 

Original text:

 

“That Borough and District Councils in Surrey should be provided with a compensation fund from Surrey County Council, so funds can be distributed equally to all permit holders, given they have been receiving a worse service than they applied for because of the actions by Surrey County Council.”

 

Amended text:

 

"That Runnymede Borough Council encourages Surrey County Council to consider suitable compensation to those Runnymede residents who held a Residential Parking Permit, that the actions of the County have impaired the ability to enforce."

 

The proposed amendment was seconded by Councillor R. King.

 

The proposed amendment was put to the vote and carried.

 

A further amendment to include a sixth call requesting that Runnymede Borough Council review its own enforcement needs in light of Surrey County Council’s decision was proposed by Councillor Coen.

 

The proposed amendment was seconded by Councillor Balkan.

 

The proposed amendment was withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 17.17, as it could be taken forward as part of the relevant committee’s programme of work and not as part of a letter to the Leader of Surrey County Council.

 

The amended motion was debated by the Council.

 

The amended motion was carried.