Two motions were submitted for debate in accordance with Council Procedure Rules as follows:
The first Motion
-
Proposed by Councillor Tony Newman
Seconded by Councillor Hamida Ali
"This Council believes that the continuing economic success of Croydon, in terms of delivering ongoing growth, inward investment and local jobs for Croydon residents is best secured by the UK remaining a member of the European Union."
Councillor Newman speaking for the motion said that Croydon was London growth borough with new homes to be built and businesses investing in the future of the town. He went on to say that the Referendum to be held on June 23rd could put that growth and investment at risk and that a no' vote could led to years of economic uncertainty. He went on to say that whilst the EU was not perfect and needed to continue to reform and modernise however in terms of security, protecting workers rights, continuing to secure the peace in Europe and protecting growth and jobs is that the UK would better in and able to influence it's future development than out of it.
Cllr Newman went on to say that the campaign for remaining in Europe was being led by the Prime Minister and Chancellor, and unites many politicians, the Trade Unions, CBI and all 3 Croydon MPs. He went on to say that it was important that Croydon's voice was heard, it was important Croydon residents heard the economic arguments for a yes' vote.
In summing up Cllr Newman said that it was time to put party politics aside and make sure a clear message is sent to Croydon residents that a yes vote was protecting the right of workers, growth and investment and securing a safe Croydon.
Councillor Ali seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak until later in the debate.
The Mayor advised that she had been notified of a Notice of Amendment to the Motion, this had been circulated.
Councillor Jason Perry, moved the amended motion, which was to be seconded by Councillor Vidhi Mohan.
The amended motion read:
"This Council believes that the continuing economic success of Croydon, in terms of delivering ongoing growth, inward investment and local jobs for Croydon residents, is best secured by a competent Local Authority working in conjunction with national and regional Government, the UK remains a member of the European Union."
Cllr Perry expressed his disappointment that his original amendment had been ruled out of order as it sought to bring to the debate back to local issues. He questioned the open and transparency of the process regarding amendments to the Motions and he said that the changes made to the motion had made it pointless and illiterate. He went on to say that the conservative group would take no further part in the censored debate and take no part in the vote.
Councillor Mohan declined to second, but did not withdraw the amendment.
Councillor King speaking to the original Motions said that in 2014 the Labour Administration were voted in under their Ambitious for Croydon' manifesto, and that it was not just for the Croydon of today but also for the future. He went on to say that over the next 15 years Croydon would deliver a £5ΒΌ billion regeneration programme that would create 9000 new homes and 23000 new jobs. Cllr King said that the Towns prosperity not guaranteed if there was a withdrawal from the EU and quoted Richard Plant, Chairman of Develop Croydon who had said that "anything that hurts London, hurts Croydon". Cllr King said that the government had said that voting to leave Europe could lead to years of uncertainty, reduce investment and cost jobs. Cllr King said that the majority of CBI leaders backed to stay in Europe. He went on to say that the EU was the biggest trading partner for UK businesses. In summing up Cllr King said he was passionate about the future of Croydon and hoped that on 23 June Croydon residents vote yes'.
Councillor Quadir declined to speak.
Councillor Mohan declined to speak.
Councillor Hamida Ali, speaking in favour of the original Motion said that the referendum was hugely significant constitutional question for the Country. Councillor Ali said she wanted to focus on what membership of the EU meant to workers across Croydon; these include, paid leave, daily and weekly rest breaks, equal pay, maternity rights, parental leave and anti-discrimination laws. Cllr Ali said that these rights that protected everyone were all on the ballot paper in June and leaving the EU could put these rights at risk.
The amendment to the unseconded motion was put to the vote and lost. The Conservative Group did not vote.
The original motion was put to the vote and was carried by those voting. The Conservative Group did not vote.
The second Motion
2. Proposed by Councillor Lynne Hale
Seconded by Councillor Chris Wright.
"This Council believes that Croydon's libraries should be kept as centres of books and learning and not turned into bookish gyms or bookish cafes as they have been in Labour Lambeth. It also believes that Library branches should be run by professional staff and librarians and not run by volunteers alone."
Councillor Hale opened the debate saying that the future of libraries were in doubt as the Council launched its consultation, seeking to find volunteers to run them and putting at risk the professional library service that was valued by our communities. Cllr hale went on to say that whilst assurances had been given that no library would close, residents may not recognise them as centres of literature, literacy and learning. She went on to say that the administration appeared to want to turn the libraries into community hubs' run by volunteers that would include gyms or cafes in the buildings. Cllr Hale said that libraries were not a luxury but that they aided community cohesion and helped social mobility. They offered a sanctuary for the vulnerable and space to young people to learn quietly. In summing up Cllr Hale said that libraries build citizens, educate individuals and foster communities. She went on to say that professional library services should be preserved keeping literature and literacy at the fore front of the service for future generations.
Councillor Wright seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
The Mayor advised that she had been notified of a Notice of Amendment to the Motion, this had been circulated.
Councillor Timothy Godfrey, moved the amended motion, which was seconded by Councillor Toni Letts.
The amended motion read:
"This Council welcomes the administrations public library engagement, and believes libraries should be centres of books and learning. It also believes libraries should be supported by professional staff and librarians and not run by volunteers alone."
Councillor Godfrey, moving the amendment to the motion said that he wanted to reassure residents that the Labour Administration were committed to the libraries. Cllr Godfrey questioned why the opposition were now ready to embrace anything to do with culture and arts when they previously looked to reduce the cultural offer in the borough. He went on to say that cuts in government funding meant that the Council had to look at doing things in a different way. The consultation survey residents were being asked to respond to asked what they wanted from the library service. Cllr Godfrey said that the council would not be closing libraries but would look to invest in the library service in different ways.
In summing up Cllr Godfrey said that the Labour Administration wanted the library service to be the best in the country and that they should reflect the local communities and the needs of that community.
Councillor Letts, seconding the amendment to the Motion asked how the opposition would keep the service open bearing in mind that by 2019/20 the local government funding will be cut by 74%. Cllr Letts said some people may question the need for libraries in the wake of increased use of e-reading and other technology, but residents that Cllr Letts has spoken to have indicated they want more than just books at their library. They want them to be community meeting places and this council will work with a number of different agencies to do things in a different way to ensure that libraries are not closed.
Councillor O'Connell speaking to the original motion said that resident of all ages had a right to a full time library service. He understood the financial pressures the administration were facing but that these were the same that the previous Conservative administration had to deal with and they were still able to run a full time library service. Cllr O'Connell said that volunteers do a fantastic job but they need to be backed by a professional service. He went on to say that he supported the use of community space but not at the cost of cuts in the traditional library service.
Councillor Shafi Khan speaking to the amended motion said that a recent BBC investigation had indicated that 350 libraries had closed and almost 8000 jobs lost in the library service in the UK in the last 6 years due to government funding cuts. At the same time 15500 volunteers have been recruited under the banner of Big Society. Cllr Khan went on to say that the library service was facing a crisis due to cuts in funding. He went on to ask if it was a crisis or an opportunity to commercialise or outsource the library service. In summing up Cllr Khan said that libraries required proper government funding.
Councillor Wright seconding the original motion said that the library service could be described in two words, duty and expectation. Duty by Council to supply a library service as enshrined in Section 7 of 1964 Act. Expectation by the people of the borough that libraries will provide service that they expect books, reference books papers etc. Cllr Wright went on to say that in 2011 he chaired a meeting involving local residents concerning how the library service was run and the overwhelming response was that residents wanted the library service to remain the same. Cllr Wright asked why Cllr Godfrey had not arranged any such meeting as he would hear for himself that local residents wanted a library service run by professional staff and not turned into coffee shops and gyms.
The amendment to the motion was put to the vote and carried, with no votes against.
The amended motion then became the substantive motion; this motion was put to the vote and carried with no votes against.