Minutes:
(i) At item 11(3) on the Summons, the Council received a Motion in the names of Councillors Sue Anderson and Victoria Silver in the following terms:
“This Council notes with deep concern the huge cuts announced during the spending review contain measures that will hit women twice as hard as men in our communities in Harrow.
The Council believes urgent action is needed by the government to tackle the effect these cuts will have on households and female workers in Harrow - and across the country - because the clear effects will be damaging throughout our communities if the consequences of cutbacks on females and families are not significantly addressed.
The Council is resolutely committed to helping those in greatest need but the targeting of local government for cuts is tantamount to singling out women for the greatest hit as 75 per cent of local government workers nationally are women and the rolling back of public services hits women particularly hard because they tend to use services more frequently and more intensively, because of their sizable caring responsibilities.
The Council hopes the government will reconsider its plans because making women bear the brunt of cuts makes a mockery of its claimed commitment to fairness. We also hope the Council will commit to closely monitoring the impact of changes on women and families in the borough through proper impact assessments and evaluation.”
(ii) There was an amendment proposed in the names of Councillors Paul Osborn and Susan Hall, which sought to amend the Motion to read as follows:
“This Council notes with deep concern the huge cuts announced during the spending review contain measures that will hit women twice as hard as men in our communities in Harrow.
The Council believes urgent action is needed by the government to tackle the effect these cuts will have on households and female workers in Harrow - and across the country - because the clear effects will be damaging throughout our communities if the consequences of cutbacks on females and families are not significantly addressed.
The Council is resolutely committed to helping those in greatest need but the targeting of local government for cuts is tantamount to singling out women for the greatest hit as 75 per cent of local government workers nationally are women and the rolling back of public services hits women particularly hard because they tend to use services more frequently and more intensively, because of their sizable caring responsibilities.
The Council hopes the government will reconsider its plans because making women bear the brunt of cuts makes a mockery of its claimed commitment to fairness. We also hope the Council will commit to closely monitoring the impact of changes on women and families in the borough through proper impact assessments and evaluation
This Council should lead by example, therefore a full Equalities Impact Assessment should be completed and available for inspection before any decision can be made by Cabinet or by a portfolio holder.”
(iii) During the debate on this item, Councillor Brian Gate moved a Motion that the question now be put. Upon a vote this Motion was carried;
(iv) Upon a vote, the amendment at (ii) was lost;
(v) Upon a further vote the substantive Motion, was agreed.
RESOLVED: That the substantive Motion, as set out at (i) above, be adopted.
[Note: Councillors Husain Akhtar, Mrs Camilla Bath, Christine Bednell, Mrs Lurline Champagnie OBE, Kam Chana, Ramji Chauhan, John Cowan, Tony Ferrari, Stephen Greek, Susan Hall, Manji Kara, Jean Lammiman, Barry Macleod-Cullinane, Mrs Vina Mithani, Chris Mote, Janet Mote, John Nickolay, Joyce Nickolay, Paul Osborn, Richard Romain, Anthony Seymour, Lynda Seymour, Stanley Sheinwald, Yogesh Teli, Mark Versallion, Simon Williams and Stephen Wright wished to be recorded as having voted for the amendment to the Motion and against the adoption of the substantive Motion].