TDC Equal Civil Marriage Debate Transcript

Chair (Cllr Doug Clark): Agenda item 8a - Notice of Motion - the Equal Civil Marriage. I call upon Cllr Driver.

Cllr Ian Driver: Thanks Chair. This motion is about fairness and equality. Nothing more and nothing less and there are two fundamental questions that we need to be concerned about, should two people of the same sex have a legal right to get married, and can a married person who changes his or her gender remain married? In probably one of the most unique examples Ive seen recently of cross party political agreement, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Caroline Lucas all agree that same-sex marriage should be made legal and they all agree that anyone who changes gender when they’re married can remain married. And opinion poll after opinion poll shows that a majority of British people agree with the Government proposals to update and modernise civil marriage. Mr Chairman, we live in modern times and people are becoming more intolerant, more tolerant and more inclusive than they used to be and I welcome that. And its only a small minority of people who don’t agree with the Government. People who are not happy about the proposals for inclusion, for acceptance, for social progress and one of the things, one of the big objections that these people bring up, is that people already have the benefits of civil partnerships and that provides recognition legally for same-sex relationships, so why go any further than we are at the moment?

Well, Stonewall for example, they represent 3.7 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the United Kingdom and they have said that having separate and different legal processes for same-sex couples is reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa. It’s discriminatory, its morally and ethically wrong and they also say that civil partnerships perpetuate a damaging and prejudicial belief that same-sex relationships are less valuable, less important than heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage. Mr Chairman, love and commitment are part of the human condition and I say that same-sex couples should have exactly the same civil marriage rights as heterosexual couples and not be forced to accept second best as they are at the moment. Now, many religious leaders say that same-sex marriages are against their teachings (timer chimes) and should not be allowed. 

Sorry. I think Ive got five minutes not three minutes. (Chair: Yes carry on) Can I carry on? Yep. As I said, many religious leaders are saying…sorry?

Chair: You do have three but carry on.

Driver: I have five I believe for moving a motion…its five

Chair: Five for the Leader.

Harvey Patterson (Officer): The Leader and Chairman of Committee have five, as you are neither, its three.

Driver: Ill quickly get on and make my point. Lots of religious leaders object on the grounds that their teachings don’t allow same-sex marriages. Well, the Government has made it perfectly and absolutely clear that their change in legislation does not affect the rights of churches and religions. It doesn’t force them to marry people of the same sex and my closing point is this, that same-sex marriage already exists in 12 countries across the world and I am unaware of a single shred of evidence to suggest that the churches in these twelve countries are under any pressure to introduce same-sex marriage, so to say that civil marriage affects the rights of the church is wrong and is a smokescreen. So I say that... [Chair: Cllr Driver] you should support the motion tonight. Thank you

[APPLAUSE]

Chair: Do I have a seconder? Thank you.  Now would members please note that the Council alone has the ability to decide whether or not it supports this motion.  The motion cannot be referred to Cabinet or Committee of the Council. That being the case, if Council decides not to debate the motion, the motion will fall. Do I have a proposal that the motion be debated?

Cllr Peter Campbell: I propose the motion be debated.

Chair: Do I have a seconder?

Cllr Michelle Fenner: Thank you Mr Chairman and I would like to say that as a new, progressive and inclusive administration at TDC, we always take consultation seriously and we encourage… (Chair: You can speak in the debate) I am seconding the debate. I am seconding the fact that we are debating this motion and I am explaining why I want to second the debate. I can. I would like to explain that we do encourage debate

Chair: You cant explain it now but you can explain it later if it is debated. So you seconded it and that’s it…would you please sit down?

Cllr Fenner: I am not seconding at this stage the motion itself. I am seconding the fact that we do want a debate of this motion in this Council and I am trying to explain…

Chair: We have a proposal that it is debated and it is seconded by (Fenner: By me). Yes, that’s quite clear and so I can determine that fact, whether it can be debated or not. So all those in favour that the matter be debated please show…please be quiet in the public gallery because I don’t want to have to clear the gallery but I will if you interrupt…against…abstentions…the motion is carried.

Now I’d advise members that in the interests of management of time, I have ruled out repetition in debate. I call upon the Leader. Sorry, I call upon Cllr Bayford.

Cllr Bob Bayford: Ex-Leader Chairman. What I would like to do and I have to address the Chair but I’m really speaking to the public gallery I’m going to use probably most of my three minutes explaining why the Group this side didn’t vote for the debate. The Conservative Group…

Cllr Fenner: Chair. I’m sorry but there’s a position there. If the Leader of the Opposition explaining why he didn’t want a debate and I wasn’t able to explain why.

Cllr Bayford: We are having a proper debate

Chair: We are in debate now.

Cllr Bayford: As I said, I have to address the Chair but Im actually speaking as much to the public gallery as I am to the Chairman. The Conservative Group discussed at length the question of whether this motion should be put at a Council meeting. We agreed unanimously that regardless of Member’s individual views on the subject, it is not within our brief as local District Councillors to debate matters over which we have no authority. We are not an authorised body for conducting marriages or civil partnerships. That responsibility lies with Kent County Council. For that reason alone there was absolute agreement at out Group Meeting that we should oppose this motion being put, but I want to stress that to suggest our reluctance to debate this motion reflects our personal views on the subject would be to completely misrepresent the Conservative Group’s position. We agreed unanimously that should there be a vote for debate, that each Councillor on this side of the Chamber would enjoy the same freedom to express their views as those who voted for the debate so the Conservative Group have no whip on this motion. We merely seek to separate the appropriateness of the subject for District to debate from the subject of any ensuing debate. So I hope that explains why we’ve done what we’ve done.

In the time remaining, I will attempt to put my personal view. I personally have no strong feelings about equal marriage, one way or the other. I believe, contrary to what Cllr Driver may have said, that civil partnerships do confer most of the rights and benefits associated with marriage but I’m also aware that many people have strong faith-based views on the issue and believe that those views should be respected. That said, I don’t believe that I can vote on this matter. I find myself in a dilemma, because as a Councillor my vote should represent the views of my constituents but I know for a fact that amongst those people there is a wide range of views on the subject. A vote one way or the other would do an injustice to a significant section of that group. Furthermore, I don’t think that I was primarily elected to speak on their behalf on moral or ethical matters and therefore my personal views in this debate I think are irrelevant and for those reasons, I will abstain when it comes to the vote. Thank you Chairman.

Chair: Cllr Will Scobie.

Cllr Will Scobie: In difference to the previous speaker I do actually have strong opinions on this and I will be voting accordingly. I agree that as Councillors we should pay our respects to what the communities think, but we also have political parties and our own personal views and it should be a complete union of those three different parts, which we should base our vote on. Despite a lot of progress in the last 20 years, homophobic discrimination still exists. Rather than speaking in hyperbole and wild generalisations, lets first look at some of the statistics of this discrimination before we continue into the main debate. Susan Burden in her 2005 book Rethinking Sexual Identity in Education, conducted a study which found that homosexuality is the third leading cause of suicide in the 15-24 age bracket. This is backed up by the Steven Lee and Marvin Fine in their 2001 book Handbook of Diversity of Parent  Education, which furthers this point by finding that 30% of annual youth suicides are LGBT related. In their analysis they also found that LGBTs are three times more likely to attempt suicide because of their sexuality, that 45 per cent of gay men and 20% of gay women have experienced verbal or even physical assault because of their sexuality and of the Homeless Youth Today study found 42 per cent of them identified themselves as LGBT and 25% of these youths said they had been forced out of their homes and of their own families because of their sexuality.

Susan Burden also looked into this statistic that found that one child in four is forced out of their homes because of their sexuality and it is true that we are moving in the right direction with regards to tolerance for different people yet we must continue to fight for equality because these statistics demonstrate that homophobic ideals are still prevalent in our society. We live in a hetero-normative society where everybody is presumed straight unless proven otherwise, where a non-heterosexual relationship holds no value to the majority, and where society fails to challenge homophobic remarks which in turns gives validation to the homophobic beliefs held by some. Freedom from intolerance is not an ideal that we can selectively implement. It is the birthright for all. Homophobia is the last accepted form of discrimination.

The main justification that we hear for not having equal marriage is predicated solely on the religious definition of what marriage is. However, marriage has evolved beyond that in society and you can now get married outside of a church with your own vows and no input whatsoever from organised religion. To follow this religious argument, you would therefore negate all marriages that took place outside of religious institutions because they too do not follow the religious definition of marriage being a union between two people before God. Legal marriages happen in registry offices every day and they have nothing to do with religion, and by excluding homosexuals from having this legal right to a civil marriage we are discriminating against homosexuals and destroying the notion that this country is founded upon equal rights for all. I come from a political party founded on social justice, equality and I will be proud to vote in favour of this motion.[APPLAUSE]

Cllr Kim Gibson: Thank you Chair. As we’ve heard and I know you don’t want me to repeat but basically I have to read from my phone I’m afraid, during the Prime Ministers speech he did say that one of the main things was that saying your vows in front of people keep families together more. We believe this is one of the things that we exist on and the other thing really I shouldn’t read from that, is that we are talking about equality and I know that I myself do go to church and I did have thoughts about this moral side of it but this is nothing to do with the churches. This is about law, this is about equality in law. The churches will still make their own rites, some churches still don’t marry divorced people, that is their right to choose and they would still have their right. We need to get away from this idea. It’s not moral in the sense that this is law. Do we have equality in law? I believe we should have. I will be voting for this. Thank you.

Chair: Cllr Fenner.

Cllr Michelle Fenner: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to address the issue first of all of whether it is appropriate for TDC to take part in this consultation. It is a consultation set up by the Government and they invite representations from any group so in this sense TDC representing through its elected Members, the local community has a valid point to make in this consultation. We are a progressive and inclusive administration. We welcome the debate on equal marriage and the consultation that is taking place. We want to advance the equalities and diversity agenda, not just within the Council but within our local community. And it is a moral issue, it is a moral issue in the sense that its to do with equalities. This is why the Labour Group was happy for me to second the motion presented it for the debate. Some people try to stop the debate, some people try to muddy the water in this debate by introducing the definition of marriage through religious beliefs. This consultation is to do with civil ceremony with implications in fighting against discrimination and what I can only describe as the forces of conservatism which stops society from moving on.

Civil partnership and marriage are two separate institutions with two separate legal situations. Separate is not equal and as long as civil partnership is for same-sex couples only and is the only form of legal recognition available to them, informing an employer or a service provider of a civil partnership is equivalent to declaring sexual orientation and that amounts to discrimination. The theory is that there is similar rights though Cllr, that it was argued earlier that most rights, but the reality is different. Often for instance when filling out a form we are asked for the name of our spouse, not of our partner. There are some difficulties that have been reported when dealing with pension benefits or when travelling abroad when a civil partnership is not recognised. There is also a problem with transgender people [timer chimes] who currently have to end their civil partnership or their marriage. Transgender people applying for gender recognition are forced to end any current marriage or civil partnership. The process for starting a new marriage or civil partnership is bureaucratic and humiliating therefore if this motion is agreed and voted on tonight we will send our motion to Central Government as part of the consultation process. The old adage “Live and let live” is not enough.

Chair. That’s sufficient thank you. You’re well over your time. Cllr Clive Hart.

Cllr Clive Hart: Thank you Chairman. I would have to argue with Cllr Bayford who says this is not a matter for, wasn’t elected to discuss this or make any sort of decisions. Just when questions get awkward or difficult, that is no time to shirk them or shy them, and try to bury it on the basis that you weren’t elected for it, that’s exactly what we were elected to do. It’s certainly what I stood for as a Labour Councillor for equality. It’s absolutely what I stand for. It’s at the core belief of the Labour Party for equality, and it’s also a core belief of this new administration to have an open and transparent debate on anything we possibly can within the scope of our Council, so our Group was indeed all voted unanimously to debate this issue, absolutely unanimously, we are not whipped on how we vote with the final vote on how things go, but what I would say is that as Labour Councillors, all our Labour Councillors are firmly minded for equality, it’s our core value and that’s what will guide the way I vote. Thank you, Chairman.

Chair: Thank you. Cllr Wells.

Cllr Chris Wells: Thank you Mr Chairman. I apologise in advance, I’m going to spoil the party. I am personally deeply concerned about both the Government consultation and the manner in which this issue has been exploited locally. I wish to formally record my disappointment that as Chairman of the Council sir, you have allowed this debate this evening when it is clear that no member, no member has any remit from their electorate on this matter. What has gone before and been said so far and what is to come afterwards are no more than the personal views of each member. It would have been far better to have simply made the public aware of the consultation and how and where they could record their views as we did with animal exports and those of us who have read the consultation and responded to it can attest the consultation itself as a document, it’s framed more for personal response than anything else. Why this Council with no power over registrars and operations is pushed to consider this is a story of two Councillors, both of whom have already abandoned the ticket on which they were elected after less than a year. They seek to define difference between themselves, the voters and colleagues have variously abandoned. It’s the tale which must cast doubt on the individual integrity and commitment, ironically the key elements of successful marriage, the issue they have chosen to exploit.

As this day has got closer, we have all heard the accusations of homophobia, the refusal to countenance any view not in accord with the campaigners’ demands, including a disgraceful public demeaning dismissal of a local priest’s mild contribution to debate. So let me deal with that first.  I have professionally worked with the LGBT groups in Manchester and Brighton and celebrated my own son’s civil partnership here in Thanet less than two years ago. So let’s get this straight and dispense with the Pavlovian automated response of homophobia that allows one to duck proper debate. I simply ask that the Council should listen to what I say next and weigh it carefully in their considerations. I currently oppose the introduction of civil marriage equality for two very simply reasons. Firstly, to an extent it reduces the role of marriage in our society, from a 3-dimensional form to a two dimensional institution. Traditionally, Marriage has been about the loving relationship of two people, and the family that is naturally created through that union. Families that, we are told by researchers, produce more stable, rounded and secure young people than other forms of union. [Loud Murmuring] The discourse of consultation and campaign which airbrushes the fundamental importance of children and their upbringing from marriage is and must be fatally flawed. All in this Chamber know only too well the problems that crumbling family life bring [Chair: Can you wind up now?] Equality and diversity are the watchbirds which underpin this and many other changes in society. My point is simple. The LGBT community already has equality before the law. [Public: Time!] Why is it such a terror to commit to diversity for others? Isnt that the very point heterosexuals are often berated with.

Chair: Thank you. Cllr Moores.

Cllr Simon Moores: Thank you Chair. Whether we like it or not this is a matter that will be decided by Members of Parliament. We need to remind ourselves as I’m sure speaking as I said beforehand, local Councils, District Councils such as ourselves is there to provide services, we provide services such as emptying the bins, providing entertainment on our sands, making Thanet a better place, it’s been argued it is not for us to actually make moral decisions on the part of the people we represent. Now the Government is seeking local authority responses to a government consultation and it says clearly that “Do you agree or disagree with enabling all couples, regardless of their gender to have a civil marriage ceremony?” and it further adds “Please explain the reasons for your answer. Please respond within 1,225 characters which is approximately 200 words”. I see nothing in the consultation which suggests that we here tonight should be having a debate on this matter. The consultation is about how we might best remove the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, not whether or not this should actually happen and I can’t see how Thanet District Council should respond to this, except to say that it’s not actually within our remit.

So I would urge members to think very clearly about this, we are a District Council, we are not Kent County Council, we’re not registrars for births marriages and deaths and we are not here to make moral decisions on part of the residents. We are here to clean their streets, we are here to collect their community charge, [shouting] we provide some 600 different services which are [Chair: Please be quiet in the public gallery] some 600 or so different services which our residents expect from us in return for the taxes they pay. The decisions on whether this should or should not happen, the implementation as part of the consultation is a matter for Members of Parliament. It is way beyond our pay grade and yes by all means let us consult on how we might best, and I stress how we might best implement this, not challenge it, not discuss it, but implement it and that’s all really our role happens to be. Thank you Chairman.

Chair: Cllr Mrs Johnston.

Cllr Iris Johnston: Thank you very much Chairman. There have been a number of times when the opposite side were in control there were consultations sent to this Council that never came before this Council for us to debate. I brought the one particularly on maternity issues at the QEQM and I asked a question then in opposition of the then Cabinet member and I got a silly answer. We took control and I then further went ahead to deal with this question of maternity services and the Officer told me that she had been instructed to write the answer herself. That is not how the Council works now. If a consultation and somebody asks us to do something as a Council and it comes to an Officer and I want it to be a named Officer as in the Chief Executive, it should then go to a Senior Management Team and should then go to the rest of the Council. So what I did over the maternity services was to send out a letter to all of you, very short notice to all of you and if you were all happy 56 we would send it as the Council response. Im telling you this very briefly as an example of how this Council should be dealing with consultations [Chair: Can we keep to the subject please?].

I'm coming to the subject cause this is extremely relevant, its extremely relevant and that Council I have read the document from your Government and your Coalition Government and it does say “local authorities including registrars”. We are consultees, we are a target for consultation. Now somewhere that application has come into this Council. I think Im reasonably on the ball but I didn’t know about it until I saw Cllr Drivers motion so I asked the question “When did it come into the Council? Has anyone seen it because I haven’t. So it’s something we have to get right Chairman, and you are our Chairman, get our house in order about consultations that come in. I have read the document from cover to cover, back and front. I am an Irish-Protestant. I come from 32 clergy background including the odd bishop so I know a little about religion but this is actuallyabout equal rights for people. Treating people equally. I looked into equal partnerships as opposed to equal marriage and there is definitely an issue. If you ever went for a job and the cheek of it they asked if you were married or single or divorced or anything else, you have to tick a box, but if you have to put in another line to say “civil partner” as you said Cllr Fenner, it immediately says what your sexual orientation is. None of their business. They used to ask you how many children you had and when I said five that was it. I’m sure Cllr Wells when you said twelve, you were finished [laughter] .

So I’m sorry, I will be supporting this and will be supporting both parts of the answer and I’ll tell you why on the transsexual side of it and I really did question and worry about this one, because I’ve known people who have suddenly, 30 years into a marriage, decided they were actually women instead of men, and how does the other person the woman on the other side feel and what should happen, and what the reason [Chair: Wind up please] the reason I’m supporting it is that if you still love each other whatever your sexuality and two people who married 45 years ago and still love each other, if they have to divorce, that other person, the woman who’s already feeling upset, loses every right to the man’s pension. So we’ve got to support it. I’m doing it. I’m an old Irish Protestant. I have all of that background of clergy and everything else. It’s not a religious matter for me tonight, its an equality matter. [Applause]

Chair: Thank you. Cllr Worrow.

Cllr John Worrow: Yeah, thank you very much. It’s amazing how the Councillor for Westgate-on-Sea didn’t object to debating on live animal exports, I wonder why did you allow that to go ahead, why did you debate Margate football ground for example [Chair: Can you keep to the point please?]. I will keep to the point. For the benefit of Thanet’s unique version of the Conservative Party because they do not represent, I have spoken to people around the country that are Conservatives that find this situation quite embarrassing. When I was a Conservative before I resigned the whip, I was made to feel quite uncomfortable and on the 8^th December one of the reasons why I voted for a more progressive administration was because the behaviour, particularly of the so-called Conservative Cabinet, the unique version of the Conservative Cabinet, who do not represent the Conservatives throughout the country, who have no women, not one [Chair: Cllr Worrow, Cllr Worrow, you are wandering off the subject . Can you return to it?] They have not one single woman on the frontbench. That tells you what they think about equality.

I’m going to read a passage from our Prime Minister, David Cameron, OK? In his speech, David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the Conservative Party, the proper one, said “I once stood before a Conservative Conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on we are consulting on legal gay marriage and to anyone who has reservations I say, yes, its about equality. But its also about something else. Commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us, that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other". David Cameron said he doesn’t support equal marriage despite being a Conservative. He said he supports equal marriage because he’s a Conservative.

I know, from firsthand experience, from speaking to South Thanet MP Laura Sandys, that she, Laura Sandys, supports equal marriage. So Laura, if you are watching this webcast, I ask you to go public and declare your support for equal marriage because you’re a proper Conservative. You are not part of the unique version of the Conservative Party here in Thanet which I resigned from. As for Sir Roger Gale, he may be entitled to his opinion but at a time when so many young gay people are taking their lives and the likes of the Cllr for Westgate-on-Sea makes fun of gay people on the blog, at a time when young gay people are taking their lives, I think it’s very irresponsible for the MP for Thanet North to refer to people as “militant homosexuals”. You are sitting over there [timer chimes] and you know why. [Applause]

Chair: Cllr Mrs Tomlinson.

Cllr Shirley Tomlinson: Firstly thank you Chairman. Cllr Worrow has never talked to me about my views but I think he probably knows my view because I have very very many LGB and T friends [ Cllr Worrow: Ive got one friend…whoo!]  and I have black friends as well [Worrow: Im sure you do]. However I will be abstaining tonight because I have not got the views of all the residents that myself and Cllr Gregory represent. Probably a third, so I cant stand here and vote either for or against. I have a gay son-in-law, step son I mean, and I am very proud of him and I am proud of all my gay and lesbian friends. Thank you.

Chair: Right. Cllr Cohen.

Cllr Jack Cohen: Thank you Mr Chairman. When I look at what we’re discussing tonight is in two parts, a) and b), and I do hope we will be taking separate votes on these, Mr Chairman, because they are two different proposals and have different connotations to them. If you look certainly on the transsexuals side, there is a serious, shall we say, injustice with the possibility of loss of pensions and loss of security and even such things as inheritance tax and everything else, that could come into this, and it would be very sad if people after such a long association have to face this prospect.

As for the part a) of this supports the removal of the ban of same-sex couples being able to have a civil ceremony, yes. I look at it, but I look at it as a certain degree of concern because, as it is established, then comes in the question of equal rights, and we see all these equal rights and what happens with these equal rights not being able to remove from this country that it might be very undesirable and maybe equal rights does play a part here because once a person has a civil marriage, they then possibly have a strong entitlement to a religious marriage and that then the civil rights could be, civil equal rights could come in, and then we could be in a situation of where religious groups are really forced, almost virtually forced to go ahead, and that’s what really worries me. I worry really sincerely and I have very great reservations on that particular problem. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Chair: Thank you. Cllr Bruce.

Cllr Alasdair Bruce: Thank you Chair. Cllr Worrow’s made a rather sweeping accusation about Cabinet. He may wish to reconsider that because as he might recall he came to me and asked me about his preference. I gave him my opinion, unambiguous, he knows it today as it was when he first asked me and I shall be voting accordingly.

Cllr Worrow. I was referring to the…

Chair: No

Cllr Worrow: I was referring to the relevant Members of the Cabinet…

Chair. No, no no. Sorry, sit down please. Cllr Nicholson please.

Cllr Richard Nicholson: Yes, thank you Chairman. Much has been said about the morality of what is before us this evening, also about how can we vote because we haven’t talked to all our residents in our particular wards. No one in this Chamber has ever spoken to all their constituents on every subject. We’ve got about 80 in front of us this evening, I wonder how many of them find Members will stand up and say they’ve spoken to everyone in my ward who want my opinion on this. Partly here to make decisions, they’re not always easy decisions but we are here to make decisions. As to the morality, that morality has no place in Thanet and District Council, I think that’s a terrible thing to say, absolutely terrible and reminds me of the poem.  This is not word perfect by any means. Yeah, first of all they came for the Communists and I said nothing. Then they came for the mentally disabled and I said nothing. Then they came for the Socialists and I said nothing. Came for the Trade Unions and I said nothing, and on and on and on. And the point he was making was that eventually they came for me and he was a German Minister pre, in the Nazi era, died in a concentration camp because he said nothing, so I think people need to think long and hard before they think morals has got no part to play in our level of government or any level of government. I think we all have a duty to speak out and we should continue to do so. Thank you.

Chair: Cllr Harrison.

Cllr Mike Harrison: Yeah, I reiterate what Cllr Nicholsons said right at the beginning. I certainly, and Im sure that other Members in this Chamber haven’t consulted any of my constituents, I have actually spoken to a couple of mine about this issue but I haven’t spoken to them about the Draft Corporate Plan, the Housing Revenue Account, the Parking fees, the Strategic Assessment, the Community Safety bit, Ive not spoken to any of them about that, and Im sure that by saying that, Members opposite are taking the soft option. They are taking the cop-out. In fact if that’s the case, they should never ever vote on anything. Of course I suppose its no suprize to me that they take the soft option, they take the line of least resistance because it is a contentious issue by all means, and it is also an equality issue but I personally think it’s about more than equality. I actually think it’s about freedom of choice. People have freedom of choice to live in this country in the manner in which they see fit. Now by having civil partnerships and/or a marriage and both, either or whatever, it’s about making a commitment to somebody for the rest of your life.

Now, I’m going to a wedding on Sunday and as it happens its being held at a Barn near Rochester, but it’s a civil ceremony. But I’m sure my niece and her husband to be will be no less married on Sunday evening than they were than my nephew who got married in a church. They are married, end of story. It’s not a religious ceremony, it’s not about religion, it’s about the legal position of two people living together, joining together and making a commitment to each other. It’s a legal position and it’s the consequences of the legal position that I think we should be concerned about Chairman. As has been said, this is a request by Government to respond to a consultation. We can respond to that consultation as best we can and it is perfectly valid to do so. So I for one will be supporting this Chairman. I’m proud to support this and I’m not ashamed to say I support this for a long time as somebody who worked in an industry that for some reason seemed to attract quite a few gay people and having attended at least two gay weddings in my time I know how happy these people are and I’m sure there are some very strong relationships that last and last and last and you don’t have to be male and female to enter into that sort of a commitment. 

There are a lot of loving long lasting relationships and I think it’s incumbent upon us as politicians of whatever level to make sure those people that enter into a relationships are given some sort of legal protection in fact that’s a lot of what is having legal protection whether you die or your partner takes on your pension, or the fact that the reverse applies if you split up, there’s quite often unfortunately as I’m able to know at my cost, a dispute about property. Now, if you are in a legally agreed marriage [timer chimes] you also have some protection about property rights as well Chairman, So I think Council should support this we should send a really very strong message to the gay community in Thanet in general that you are now living in an area that is governed by an administration that believes in equality and freedom of choice [applause]

Chair: Cllr Gideon.

Cllr Jo Gideon: Thank you Chairman. I think it’s a great shame but it doesn’t surprise me sadly that the debate has become polarised in a sort of, if you believe in equality and progressive Government, then you must be a Labour Party member or Independent. If you’re not then you’re homophobic and you sit on the Conservative benches. [murmering] Sorry. Im sorry we actually have that part of the debate. It is very very sad and it does us no credit as Councillors. I think most people who know me know that and Cllr Driver will agree with this, that I have campaigned throughout my time as a Councillor on the equalities agenda. I have sat with Officers and have ensured as far as it was in my power that the Council treats people in Thanet…the equalities agenda is really important in its role as a Council. That is quite different from what we have before us tonight. My personal view is irrelevant here.

I stand here as a Ward Councillor and that I can tell you as a Ward Councillor that the representations I have had from my ward have sadly, sorry that’s less than you know what my view is, but have been entirely against the motion and therefore I think it would be dishonest of me in my role as a Ward Councillor to support the debate [Chair :Would you please be quiet in the public gallery?]. However then to categorise me, you know somehow a progressive as in some way not supporting equalities would be grossly unfair and I would say to everybody here is that, part of equalities, part of progressive community is actually being tolerant of other people’s views. Other people’s views, if they don’t agree with you on things are not necessarily wrong views and tolerance and equality are listening to other people and respecting diverse views, and I hope you reflect on that.

Chair. Thank you. I’ve got another two speakers and then I propose to go to Cllr Driver to wind the matter up.

Cllr Martin Wise: Thank you Mr Chairman. I find myself in a, beg your pardon, “speak to the Chair” [Cllr Fenner motioning at Cllr Wise], you want me to turn my back on you you mean? Or my back on the audience… Mr Chairman, turning my back on the people who have turned up to hear us tonight, I find myself in a rather difficult position because I am someone whose belief that marriage was a union between two people for the procreation and stability of children and now I am being asked to change the way that I’ve thought since I can remember. Beg your pardon? I am… [Chair: Cllr Wise, it’s not helping is it?] I’d like to barrack back actually, but I find myself in the position where I’m having to be forced to think over the last 6 weeks, two months, whatever because there doesn’t seem to be anything else going on in Thanet politics for the last 6 weeks, two months, certainly the debate that has come amongst the people…Have I? [Clark: Will you please address the Chair?]  People keep talking to me Chair [Well, just ignore them at the moment, Campbell – Not got the experience then] …are actually in a position where I’m considering whether I should change that view Chairman, the view I’ve held all those years, but does seem that the people who are trying to force this on me are trying to do it in a way that runs roughshot over what I believe, what millions of other people believe and have no interest or sensitivity of any of those views.

And I take great exception to the fact that these two mavericks in the Council who are unrepresentatives, unrepresentative in their wards have been allowed to bring this to the Council when frankly there are a million more important things for us that they could’ve brought to this, for example we could talk about people in the Third World that don’t have clean water to drink, or sanitation [Fenner: Its TDC, Clark: if the public gallery continues to upset this meeting, I shall clear the gallery, I don’t want to do that so please be quiet] There are a million things that we could talk about but this self important, self-righteous, self-absorbed group of mavericks have chosen to bring this to the Council. I tell you, I have changed my view Chairman. I am going to vote for the motion, because [applause] I believe that is the right thing but that should not make anybody believe that I believe the two people who brought this to the Council have had anything really positive to bring because I do not believe they have any integrity and I do not believe you are fit to sit in this Council. Don’t kiss me, Cllr Worrow.

Chair: Thank you. Cllr Green.

Cllr David Green: Thank you Chair. First of all I’d like to disassociate myself from some of the remarks that have been made in public by the person bringing this motion, firstly about Roger Gale and secondly about people with religious beliefs. I do not hold any of those views whatsoever. However I have listened to the arguments against this motion and the only one that I think still needs answering is this question about marriage being for the bringing up of children. Well, it made me think of at least two of my relations who in comparatively recent past, got married, both past the age of 60, in a church, and very happy they are through having done that.

So the question about whether marriage is for bringing up children is frankly rubbish and the church doesn’t recognise it either. So that made me think of what this civil partnerships thing is about. I mean if there really is very little difference between it legally and marriage , then the only effect it has is against equality and it discriminates against a minority group of people and therefore I’m against it. I’ve always been against discrimination, particularly discrimination against people for things they can do nothing about. That to me is morally wrong and that is why I will be voting for this motion. [Applause]

Chair: Thank you, Cllr Driver to wind up please.

Cllr Ian Driver: Thanks Chair. A lot of what I was going to say has already been said so I’ll try and be as brief as possible. I am quite disappointed by the lame excuses and the clever words and the ducking of the issues that many of the Conservatives have indulged in tonight and trying to suggest this is not a matter for Thanet Council to discuss. Chairman, there are several thousand LGBT people living in Thanet and to deny those people their democratic right to have a 30 minute debate does say a lot about the Conservative Party in Thanet, their attitude towards the LGBT community. That silence, that manipulation, that manoeuvering does say a lot about their attitude.

One thing that’s not been said and actually makes this issue very very relevant to Thanet Council is the local economy and the economic impact of equal marriage on Thanet and it’s been estimated that the average wedding, people spent  £15,000 a heck of a lot of money and by a very very conservative estimate, there’s probably gonna be at least, if this legislation is passed, 20 to 25 equal marriages taking place in Thanet every year, year in, year out and that’s £300,000 going into the pockets of local businesses creating local jobs, so anybody who opposes equal marriage, opposes the creation of local jobs and the stimulation of a local economy [applause]. Lets say another thing, if Thanet tonight passes this motion, it will be the first Council in England to do so, it will also be the first Council in Kent to do so and it will send out a message loud and clear that Thanet is an LGBT friendly place for people to visit, for people to set up businesses, for people to come and live and for people to bring up families, and I say[applause] I say if this motion is passed tonight, lets fly the rainbow flag on top of the Council. Lets fly the rainbow flag on the Turner Contemporary and tell the bigots and the homophobes that Thanet is no place for you. Grow up and get over it.

Chair: Thank you. I am now going to put it to a vote. 

Muddled Thoughts

I was going to transcribe the gay marriage debate but the quality of debate was so poor that it'd be a waste both of my time and those of readers. It was so poor that even when a Tory came out publicly in favour of the motion and argued that he was changing his mind he was still shouted at. If the campaigners were better behaved about this and calmer in their approach, its quite possible they could have persuaded more Members. 

As a result of a decision at last week’s Council meeting, Ian Driver rejoins Overview and Tom King joins Planning Committee. I get the feeling Overview members aren’t happy at this prospect but Im happy to see Tom in Planning. Overview this coming Tuesday and I will try to put together a little preview this weekend.

Will Scobie is likely to become Margate’s new Mayor on Monday. TIG has backed him as a “progressive” which doesn’t mean much as its just a buzzword, not to mention that none of the TIG members have a say in the matter. John Worrow’s "Leader's View" article proves that as ever with him, there’s a trap or tactic involved.

I’d be happier with the increase in the Councillor Allowances if it came coupled with an indication of when Labour will look to reduce Councillor numbers. Im not saying this to cause trouble because I agree entirely with that policy. Fifty-six is too many for a District of this size. I’d be even happier if it wasn’t such a large increase. Inflation isn’t going to average 3.5% over this year.

An interesting Planning application for the former Focus warehouse on Pyson’s Road has appeared, proposing the change of use of part of it into a children’s play area. Im half expecting to see it appear at a Planning Committee meeting.

Ahead of what I think might be Cabinet's consideration of more seagull proof bags next month, could I please be a little selfish and ask for some to go to Hawley Square? The seagulls look to be having too much fun with our rubbish…

Thanet Star asking for a mirror to be put on the exit of Tenterden Way onto Millmead Road because of the lack of visibility of traffic turning left into Tenterden. I had a mosey by the area yesterday and I can vouch for it. The streetlight, trees and the cars parked along the road, theres not much warning for traffic either way. Petition can be found here. 

Loose Ends (Margate Post Office update)

Couple of meetings over the next couple of evenings. First up Planning Committee where its a suprisingly short agenda tomorrow (Wednesday). I had the pleasure of going to the Site Visit for the Post Office item and its not easy to call.

Update - Post Office application proceeds after the two houses were removed from the application. I didn't really want to talk about how I felt before the Planning meeting, knowing some Committee members read this blog, but it was clear those houses were going to be very close to the Mosque and that there would have been big planning reasons against consent were those houses to remain in the proposal. The downside of this is that the contribution to KCC will now not be required as the development has less than 10 units. The application has to go before Secretary of State as TDC is the applicant.

I hoped to be at the Full Council meeting this Thursday but there's been a late change of plan and so I will have to rely on the Council's eventual webcast. The issue which has been designed to cause disruption from the start is Equal Civil Marriage. Free votes all round I would imagine and the motion passing, as it did in Southwark Council a few weeks ago.

Parking Fees comes to its conclusion, though with three possible endings. Options are; original linear charges, flat fee charging and pay by hour with linear charges. Ive lost track of who wants what and I think everyone will be glad to be done with this issue, if only so that we have clarity as to what exactly is going to happen come June 4th...

More complexities appear towards the end with changes to Committees, caused by Cllrs Cohen and Worrow forming their new Group with Cllr Driver. Ill pay attention to this when the smoke clears. If you want to have a think about it, the latest options available can be found here

Just a quick thing I noticed a couple of days ago is the illustrative new Code of Conduct for Councillors. Bit of food for thought. What do you reckon?

This is the last Full Council meeting before the Annual Council meeting on 17th May. 

Thinking The Unthinkable?

If you thought there was a fight over this years Budget, next year's could be worse. The big debating point is whether Council Tax should go up. Have a read of the following from February's Full Council meeting. Its a long transcript taken from the webcast but this is the first argument about next year's Budget so it matters.

                        --------------[]-----------------

Cllr Clark (Chair): Cllr Driver.

Cllr Ian Driver: Yeah. Thanks Chair. Im gonna be supporting the recommendations but I think one thing that nobody’s mentioned yet and hopefully people will start talking a lot about and thinking about in the next year is where do we go from here. It really is…it really would be an economic miracle if we can continue to deliver services at the already reduced level we are delivering them in another year. There’s simply not the scope for further efficiency savings. There’s not the scope for re-organisations to save money. We’re running out of scope for actually cutting back and reducing services and goodness knows they are already reduced enough anyway.  And as well we cant carry on year on year giving the zero per cent pay rise to our staff or a one per cent pay rise in the case of Thanet when the cost of living is actually increasing at four per cent and beyond. So options have run out, this year is probably the last year when we will be able to get away with a zero per cent Council Tax rise and that I would say that all parties should give serious consideration in that planning for next year’s Budget, to look at the possibility of increasing Council Tax, and its not just me just saying that because its not been said so far. Tonight, Brighton and Hove Council are meeting tonight to debate a 3.5 per cent increase in Council Tax and if the BBC are to be believed, Labour-run Nottingham, Leicester, Darlington, Middlesborough, Barrow-in-Furness, Stoke-on-Trent have all voted to increase their Council Tax and it doesn’t stop there. Surrey, Chelmsford, Peterborough, Tory-run authorities are also increasing their Council Tax. The days of cutting back, saving, re-organising, driving down the wages of the people delivering the important social services are coming to an end. There’s no more wriggle room and this Council, if it does want to continue to provide decent services to the men, the women and the children who live in Thanet and the tens of thousands of visitors who come here. Next year we should be talking if we have no other options seriously about a sensible increase in Council Tax.

Clark: Thank you. Cllr Nicholson.

Cllr Nicholson: Yes. Thank you Chair. The Town Council precept for Ramsgate was mentioned. I think I should point out that there are several factors at play. One was the low tax base that we were starting at, therefore any increase was going to be in percentage terms vastly inflated. However, the organisation and the way that Ramsgate Town Council is run is very efficient. I’d also like to put on record, even though it isn’t really any business of this Council that the cross party support from the Conservative Member on Ramsgate Town Council voted to accept it and agreed it. And I’d also like to remind Members, at a previous Council meeting when a motion was moved, requesting free parking in Birchington, yes, some of the more excitable Members from the Party opposite, not all of them, but some of the more excitable ones were shouting “If you want it, let Birchington Parish Council and the people of Birchington pay for it”, so you can’t have it both ways. We will ensure a tight ship over that side of the island and work to the benefit of the people of Ramsgate who decided that they wished to have a Town Council. Thank you.

Cllr Clark: Cllr Green.

Cllr David Green: Thank you Chair. I’m surprised actually at the bare-faced cheek of the Leader of the Opposition to comment on Ramsgate Town Council’s precept because only months ago now, the people of Ramsgate totally rejected the Party that is in opposition and voted for a manifesto that we put forward for the Labour Party that explained that we needed to try in a small way to address the total neglect that his administration at TDC had imposed on Ramsgate. The residents of Ramsgate know that, that was existing, they wanted to put it right, they wanted small things done that would improve the environment and the vitality of Ramsgate and I’m pleased to say that over the coming year we are well equipped to do that, that change.

Cllr Campbell: We are already on the way.

Cllr Clark: Cllr King.

Cllr King: Thank you Mr Chairman and I would like to very much concur with what Cllr Driver said tonight, and I do welcome the fact it’s good to see some of the Councils now beginning to see the wood from the trees. The £2.5m that was rejected by I think Brighton Council in favour of a small Council tax increase and the return of real local services, services that had been cut to the bone for far too long, and it is right. I concur with Cllr Driver this cannot go on for very much longer, this is probably going to be our last year. All this will ever do is see the demise of real services. Now we are told for example and Im looking again at the street cleaning service, this is a disgraceful excuse of a service. 25 percent of the streets of Thanet get swept. 75 go unswept. This is not good value for anybody’s money and it in no way is a first-class service delivery. Our streets constantly are reported to me in Westgate which I serve as, with dog fouling. One of the biggest issues, dog fouling. We have a machine that can do the necessary work to remove it but we have no funding to have it operating. We need dog wardens to try to catch the perpetrators of this anti-social behaviour but we can’t afford to employ them. There is no such thing as a free lunch and if you are going to buy cheap you going to buy twice. So lets look at this at the backdrop of this area and the health of this area. This is one of the poorest and most deprived areas in the South East. In a recent National health report there were 32 indicators of deprivation and 15 of them were indicated for Thanet. Deprivation, child poverty, crime, smoking in pregnancy, least physically active children, teenage pregnancy, least physically active adults, obesity, mental health, alcoholism, diabetes, death from smoking and of course if you’re a man you die 10 years earlier and a woman 5. Now, you’ve got to look at it that you cannot keep on cutting back, if you are gonna improve the life of people in this very much deprived area and I fully support what Cllr Driver has said and that next year we must seriously look at implementing a small, modest rise in Council Tax. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Cllr Clark: Thank you Cllr King. Cllr Wells.

Cllr Wells: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would have to say I do wonder what planet some of my colleagues in this Chamber are on. They do admit to living on the planet Thanet but I think sometimes they have to look a bit wider afield to see exactly what is going on around us. In the week in which 53% haircut was taken as it’s called by investors in Greece, and Greece has narrowly avoided temporarily at least going to the wall, to hear calls for Council Tax rises, but only small ones Tom relative to what one can afford no doubt, in a circumstance where we are unlikely to see economic recovery because of the trade situation with the European Union, I wonder sometimes if I’m alone in understanding that calls for enhanced increased expenditure in such circumstances is actually catastrophic. There are situations where you can juggle within the Budget you have got, and if we were to have presented a budget from whoever presents it this point next year, which took some of those things that were not priorities, that were not as important to people and put forward the things that people wanted to do within the context of the money we have got, Im sure it would attract general and widespread support. To talk in terms of increased Council Tax, to talk in terms of increased and enhanced budgets, to talk in terms of looking at how and where this country has lived for almost 30 years beyond its means and to go back to that within in a matter of months is something I thought we would not hear for some time as common sense actually put its head forward. And whilst I enjoy Cllr Drivers many and varied interventions I think in this case, he should remove his head from his backside and think.

Cllr Ezekiel: Its always easy to follow that. I think Cllr Wells has articulated very well the position we find ourselves in and I think we still need to look at that zero increase next year. Its going to be tough. There are always tools, new management tools. Universities are developing these management tools that we need to ensure we are aware of and put in place. There are always machines if you want, that can do the work of other people. We do need to ensure our Council is run the most efficient way possible with the budget we have. I do feel even talking about an increase is wrong. We should be always looking to decrease. If were a private business you cant go out there and just increase your expenditure or your products. You have to look at other ways and continually look at other ways of reducing your expenditure in these very very tough times. And it saddens me when you have to lay people off, when I’ve had to lay people off because of reasons of trade or whatever but it also pleases me that there are small shops that are surviving and doing extremely well, and they are doing extremely well in Margate, in the Old Town, in Cliftonville, in Ramsgate. Just changing the subject slightly, I’m a little bit concerned to hear about the efficient Ramsgate Town Council. It can’t be as efficient as what the Charter Trustees were for example. I understand exactly the issues now that they can’t raise 137 but again we could be looking at other alternatives, which is what I propose, that we do look at other alternatives. I don’t want to go into details of that, but there is a ways and means where we don’t need expensive town councils ‘cause they are expensive. Let’s not run away from that, they are, and there are different ways this Council could raise funding and direct it specifically through community groups, through other agencies, that could deliver with Councillors being on a Board of Trustees or whatever for example, that means Cllr King, you could have a share of dividend from your Westgate residents without an additional cost or a very small increase. The amount to you would be significant. I suggest you explore some of these avenues rather than just say “We’ll increase tax”. That is not what we are about on this side. We will continue to look for other ways of being efficient and delivery and there are more modern ways to do that. Thank you Chairman.

Cllr Clark: Cllr Moores.

Cllr Simon Moores:  I wanted to express my support for one of Cllr King's statements and I did have a meeting with Officers on Monday on my shadow portfolio and I would say that we are suffering from an epidemic at the moment dog mess. It was something that I was going to look at. In fact I started the ball rolling in November of last year because we have an epidemic of dog mess, we have an epidemic of anti-social behaviour in regards to the ownership of dogs and we have problems with dangerous dogs in Thanet too, and I would urge Members opposite and in fact my Opposition colleague to look at this more closely, we need to actually establish probably a regime of zero tolerance or at least try a great deal harder to deal with a problem which is affecting a great many people in Thanet and been stressed to me by residents of the Westgate Residents association or indeed colleagues in Birchington. I cannot walk from my house in Westgate to the town without for example treading in something on the way and the same way when I walk to Margate on Monday for that same meeting I saw the same problem all the way across the seafront into Margate itself so I would urge members opposite or indeed my Cabinet colleague opposite to please take appropriate steps to try and mitigate the problem that we are now seeing with greater regularity in Thanet. Thank you.

Cllr Clark: Cllr Driver, you’ve already spoken but is this going to be a point of order or personal explanation?

Cllr Driver:  Yeah Chair, and I was named but wasn’t quick enough, but I tend to be polite in my interactions in this Chamber and the talk of heads and arses is hardly appropriate form a man I could talk of beards and genitalia. And I do not take lessons in economics from a man who masterminded a community hall in Broadstairs that would have bankrupt the local Council. And I do not take lessons in economics from a man who’s member of a party whose government will not introduce a Robin Hood tax on the bankers.

Cllr Clark: Cllr Campbell.

Cllr Campbell:  Thank you Chair. I’d just like to put this in context of the situation this Council actually finds itself in. The Government whose representatives opposite here have enacted a 29 per cent cut in the grant that’s given to Thanet. They haven’t cut that to the rich people of Ashford or Royal Tunbridge Wells. They’ve enacted it on the poorest area which is Thanet. That’s the situation we find ourselves in and that is why the services for this Council are diminishing. The fault lies with this Government.

Cllr Clark: Thank you. Cllr Harrison.

Cllr Harrison: I worry sometimes Chair that the members opposite have lost sight of the fact why we’re here, why we’re elected, why we stood for election because as I understood it to represent the people in our various wards and to try and make life a little better for them, try to somehow maintain what they already have. Well that means providing things like street sweeping, it means providing things like flowers in parks, it means keeping our open spaces what they already have and so I just worry that sometimes people get so wrapped up in this cut cut cut cut cut, it just seems to me they get some perverse satisfaction from making a cut here or making a cut there. No, its wrong, its completely and utterly wrong. And in this party we’ve always accepted that if you want a service, at some point its got to be paid for. At the end of the day, whether you run a local authority or whether you run a business, if you have a business providing a service to somebody, the user pays and that’s the basic principle, you cant get away from it and its exactly the same in local authorities. If the residents of an area demand services from their local authority, they have to be prepared to put their hands in their pockets and pay for it. And if at some point it means an increase in their Council Tax, well so be it. And you do have a duty and a responsibility to keep that increase to a minimum, but if people are demanding services from a local authority, whatever local authority, it has to be paid for, and at the end of the day the user pays. Let’s remind ourselves while I’m on my feet about dogs fouling and zero tolerance and I know I’m getting old and senile and I forget things but I don’t forget that I was the Cabinet Member responsible for the introduction of the dog fouling legislation in this District. I was the Cabinet Member at the time and as far as I know we still do, we hold the national record maximum fine for dog fouling and that was approaching £800 from memory when somebody allowed their dog to foul. I’m very proud of that, but of course lets march forward to 2003, whenever it was when all of a sudden dog fouling wasn’t a priority anymore and we found the dog wardens slowly disappearing from around the island, pop pop pop pop pop  until eventually they all went and the last dog warden was I believe is now working as security in the reception downstairs. So yeah, lets not have any more lectures and lets not have anymore bleating about all the dog fouling and how terrible it all is because remind yourselves who removed the wardens from this Council, it was you lot over there in 2003.

Cllr Clark: Cllr King, you had your hand up but you’ve spoken, have you got a point of order or personal explanation?

Cllr King: No, I was named actually Chair. Id like to reply. I was named by the Conservative Group.

[a bit about responding to being named]

Cllr King: Maybe I believe that I have been misrepresented by what’s been said about my attitude and what I’ve said here tonight regarding Council Tax. We’ve heard here tonight the term “tough times” and “tough decisions”. Would somebody probably from the, I won’t name anybody, but from the Conservative Group like to tell me what their interpretation of a tough decisions is, that has to be made by a multi-millionaire? Is it the same tough decision that is being made by an old age pensioner couple on a high rise estate who have to say "Shall we put our radiators on tonight or shall we have something to eat"? Is that the kind of tough decisions? These are the kinds of tough decisions, this is the kind of attitude I’m coming from. Mr Chairman, I haven’t finished, because the attitude that is coming from the Conservative Party tonight is to me, it is their trying to promote not so much the trying to tell us about the deficit and this is why we’ve got this terrible bills to pay and this deficit to pay. Is this really about that, or is this a return to some old ideology, an ugly ideology, one that last raised its head about 25 years ago? It was a time when the long shadow of Thatcher had spread all across this land, the time when the rich got richer and the strong got stronger, and the weak and the poor got left to fend for themselves. Is this the road we’re gonna go back on? Is this the road we’re gonna go back on? That’s where Im coming from, Mr Chairman. Thank you for listening to me.

A Ramble In Favour

Ive seen the news from Thanet Life, confirmed on the TDC website re. Cllr Jack Cohen joining the "other" Independent Group. I'm going to hold fire a while until Ive digested the Full Council agenda for next week. 


---------------------------------------------------


Yesterday, I made my first proper comment on gay marriage and spent most of the post tackling the outer issues such as why the case in favour not being made. In fairness I didn't really make the case either, so here's my two cents...
The motion coming before Council next week is:

“Council therefore agrees to submit the following response to the consultation.
“That Thanet District Council:
a) supports the removal of the ban on same-sex couples being able to have a marriage through a civil ceremony;
b) supports the proposal to allow transsexual people to change their legal gender without having to legally end their existing marriage or civil partnership."


My answer, "Yes, but". I don't think the above is a full enough response from TDC against a consultation document which is around 22 pages long and which sets out 16 questions (though perhaps half of them are ones for personal responses). Bearing in mind all the argument that has stemmed from this document, the above isn't really good enough, though as I argued yesterday it's not the motion that matters as much as the reaction to it. Yes, its a KCC issue but it's before TDC next Thursday. Not much can be done about it now so let's roll with it.


For me, gay marriage is about commitment. When you talk about marriage you are talking about a lifelong commitment to each other above that of a civil partnership. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the two people whether gay, straight or whatever, make this commitment genuinely, there shouldnt really be a barrier to it. Yes, divorce happens too, but the commitment is for it to last even if it unfortunately does not. Its a key institution in our society and we should should be encouraging it.


As we've seen in the debate on the blogs, there aren't too many differences between civil partnerships and marriages. I get the point about a man and woman making a married couple, but is it too much to ask that a man and a man be allowed to make the same commitment to each other on equal terms? Whether they really are the same thing depends on the person comparing but I'm not persuaded by the argument that it has to be a man and a woman.


The Church is understandably concerned about this and as Nigel Farage pointed out once you take that first step its hard to slow it down and avoid the Church being shoved further than they wanted to.  This is a big sticking point here and this is why its absolutely essential that in any response to this consultation its made clear that religious organisations should be in no way compelled to conduct civil or religious marriages and that legislation resulting from this must be very clear that its a choice.


We've kinda been here before with gay adoption. In that instance the Catholic adoption agencies were forced to cut ties from the Church in order to remain within the law. As I felt at the time and still now, those agencies should have been exempt on the basis that they provided such a service that it wasn't fair to force them.


I don't think its right for the State to dictate to the Church on a matter such as this and on this I differ from those on the Left who feel that this consultation isn't going far enough and that the Church should open up to gay religious marriage. I see Peter Tatchell has spoken of this and I cannot agree. It's for the Church to decide for itself when it is ready to accept gay marriage. The Church performs a key role in society and should be treated fairly with this bearing in mind its own internal pressures.


Going back to the motion itself, to sum up, its too short a response to be meaningful as representing the views of 56 Councillors and again, the case in favour has not yet been made by those in favour. The debate has only been happening on the blogs and has been led by the Conservatives. You can argue the toss about whether this debate should happen at all but the motion's there and that's that. 


So there we go, that's my view and as this is the second post in a little over 24 hours on that topic, dont expect much more. Perhaps a mention next week but about all folks.

The Ties That Bind

The issue of the moment in the blogsphere is the gay marriage one. There's been a lot of debate about this and I think every other blogger has now put their point forward. I've been waiting a while to see how things were playing out, so here goes...

To get it out of the way nice and early, I support gay marriage. We are going in that direction as a country and as Tim Montgomerie has argued, it could help boost the institution of marriage and I very much agree with that sentiment. There are definitely strong arguments against it such as the sanctity of marriage and whether this is even necessary or wanted. Comment has been posted by Chris Wells, Tony Flaig, Luke Edwards. Simon Moores and Michael Child have put bits about on this issue as well.

Without doubt there are far more important issues facing us as a District and as a Country than the issue of gay marriage. Watching the Full Council webcast, there was a big focus on Council services and a good debate about how the Council provides services and an early shot across the bows about a possible Council Tax rise for next year. THAT is the debate we should be dwelling on, seeing how the Council finances might look at the end of the year and planning ahead because clearly the Members recognise there's trouble ahead financially and that TDC isn't home and dry at all.

My reservation is that this has been nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage itself. It's been - as predicted - about John Worrow's obsession with what he sees as Conservative homophobes. We've been here before and this was knocked on the head back then with the closing of Worrow's World. Its clear this is the case as no argument has been pushed in favour of gay marriage by either John or Ian but instead they have criticised those who have made arguments against it. Their entire strategy is defensive.

John and Ian have argued that there was a consultation asking for opinion from local authorities and that's justification for it. I dont buy that. They are meaning relevant local authorities, that is those which handle marriages, which TDC does not. The vote is meaningless unless in light of the aforementioned background tactic to expose bad guys...


I remind them that there was a consultation on reforming Business Rates to allow greater local flexibility last year and neither Driver or Worrow were interested in that even though its clearly of interest to Thanet and that TDC did reply, listed in the summary of responses. I wonder if there's something in having Council considering relevant Government consultations. The downside would be that with the volatility of the Council Groups, this could lessen the effectiveness of such an idea.

While I support gay marriage, I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the behaviour of both Ian and John and I distance myself from it. John's ballsy yet bush-league questioning of Nigel Farage shows us another facet of the Councillor the residents of Birchington South have. I've twice posted on his "Thanet Diversity Network" Facebook page and both times they've been deleted without any explanation. I thought we were past all this, John.

The thing is, this didn't have to be handled this way. If the advice given by Matthew Brown back in December was heeded, this could have been an example of leadership rather than an attempt at Tory-hunting. He could have made an actual case and we could have had a full debate about this.

We now have the prospect of a public meeting hosted by Ian Driver at the Margate Media Centre. Originally this meeting was purely about the gay marriage issue but has now been overshadowed by Driver and Worrow's sensitivity to adverse opinion and now the main subject for this is "STOP HOMOPHOBIA IN THANET". This relates to Roger Gale's comment about "militant homosexuals" and secondly to the blogsphere debate. 

Well, Roger Gale has been talking about gay rights like that for yonks and should be of no suprise to anyone. Having been an MP since Thanet North was born way back in 1983, whether you agree with his views or not, its fair to say he's earned the right to express his views without such an over-reaction. Boris Johnson doesn't get this sort of reaction anymore... As for the blogs, I don't see any homophobia and the commentary by the other bloggers has been very well put. To throw the homophobia term about is reactionary and lacks maturity. The comment about Worrow being hung is no different than Clarkson's comment about executing striking workers. Just a joke.

Neither John nor Ian have made a case for gay marriage but slam anyone who disagrees with the idea of gay marriage as making "vitrolic comments" or threatening legal action. There is no right or wrong answer here, just different opinions. Both Councillors would do well to remember that.

Thinking over this, the following comes to mind.

Parking Hell

Big turnout for last nights Cabinet meeting with Cllrs King, Watkins, Worrow, Driver, Campbell, M Tomlinson and Edwards along with the motley frontbenches and a bucketload of officials. A few of us commoners turned up too...


The Royal Sands agenda item was deferred till an Extraordinary Cabinet meeting to be held on 5th April owing to discussions over the past days meaning more time is needed. 


Onto the Draft Corporate Plan. Cllr Wise seemed to make the strongest points though I got the impression the Cabinet wasnt really listening to the criticism, however good the argument being put. Wise's point that he "want to see what you are going to do", seemed to go over their heads. Overview made the same point with Jo Gideon being particularly sharp back then. It was pointed out by Iris Johnston that work started back in September but even that ignores the fact that Labour's had this for 3 months now and could have changed it to whatever they wanted, which we can see they have. Passing this off as the fault of the Tories doesn't really work.


East Kent Opportunities up next with a bit of miscommunication. Driver spoke here asking about the TDC liability for EKO should it go under. Iris Johnston was side-stepping Driver's assumption that EKO was going under though she admitted there "has to be a Plan B". The liability incidentally was revealed at Overview a while back to be around £2.5m.


Onto Parking fees. Cabinet voted Option 2 aka Linear Lite. Final Approval will come at Full Council on 19th April. A shouting argument kicked off during this item, with Campbell making a comment that wasnt welcomed by Chris Wells as he was talking about what he saw as a "shoddy" report into the Birchington stuff. Bit of shouting with even Clive Hart seeming to lose his cool a bit. If ever there was a visible sign that this sort of thing is no good, a member of the public left the meeting at that point. 


Other items went with little serious debate. Bit of an argument about Budget projections relating to the reserves but I want to properly digest the report first so it makes sense when I blog about it. 

Urgent Decision - Ethelbert Crescent

TDC Cabinet considering a lot of items Ive mentioned in past reports tonight so Im not going to go over that again. Simon Moores got in his preview last night and Michael Child has commented on his area of interest (dont knock it. Its good to see someone is paying attention to the issue and asking for answers, however uncomfortable they might be). Ill be coming along so Ill stick something up tonight once Ive put together some congent thoughts. 

Margate Architecture following on from their talk on the Post Office planning application last week with a couple of observations put down on pixels. Food for thought.

An Urgent Decision notice was signed yesterday by Cabinet Member Iris Johnston so that TDC could enter an auction yesterday to go for 26 Ethelbert Crescent in Margate. The guide price was £195k, TDC wanted to bid pre-auction for £198k and it sold for £194k. This is because of its current use (pretty low usage looking at the info at the auction site) as an HMO. In short, this is the same reason why TDC bought Hotel Leslie.

Ive no problem with this one so Im not going to criticise the decision. I doubt there'll be complaints about lack of consultation with Ward Councillors this time round. The Housing Revenue Account is one of the items tonight so I would imagine we will get an update on this seeing as the money for the property comes from there. I do have one question though. Property auctions dont get put together in 24 hours, so when did TDC first become aware of this auction?

On the Full Council webcast situation, I hear the webcast was put up over a week ago and disappeared off the TDC website frontpage because of the number of links being added. They've now made sure the link is on the frontpage. Still costing an eye-watering £250 a pop though... Ill stick up some thoughts soon.

Planning and Scrutiny March 2012

A couple of meetings to recap (I'm bunging out a pretty haphazard report here readers so dont be too picky about it), starting with last night's Planning Committee. 


The Hereson/Honeysuckle junction application passed with unanimous support. A bit of debate over the St Peters Court rear extension but the Committee felt that the alternative of the applicant pushing "permitted development rights" was worse than what was proposed. Personally a Site Visit could have been a goer with a couple of Members wanting one and a very good speech by the local resident against the proposal, but approval is fair enough as the Committee was being very realist.


Then we have the Post Office building at Cecil Square. Proposal is to retain the Cecil Square facing chunk and demolish the rear section, replacing it with new housing. The retained part seems to be fine for the Committee but the rear section came under fire by a number of sceptical Members. A Site Visit will take place with the application coming back before Planning on the 18th April.


Then onto tonight's reconvened Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting, another 2 and a half hour job. Thing's kicked off with the Canvass Growth Bid - basically boosting the electoral roll. A bit more spending needed for this but its agreed that its worth it. There's talk of "data-matching", that is of comparing data from say housing records to find people but from what we heard there's still some way to go yet. The Electoral Review (shorthand) Working Party is going to continue for a bit longer than its May deadline as its still got work to do. 


"Urgent Decisions" got debated and finally we got formal explanation for the Hotel Leslie argument and the report backs Cllr Wells over that decision on the basis of it's urgency. At least now we have it out in the public domain about the rules in relation to this. 


We then had a big crime section. One of the big criticisms of the Police was that it covered Margate Central and Cliftonville West as a priority which was fair enough but that Ramsgate seemed to be left out even though when looking at deprived wards, Eastcliff wasnt far away. There was also comment about the lack of detail in the Community Safety Plan when looking at budgets or alternatively the lack of executive power behind the Scrutiny Working Party report.


Interesting to hear reports from one Member about PCSOs choosing not to enforce rules on dog fouling and that rubbish dumping is another chronic problem. Anyone who's read this blog before will know the number of times I've moaned about dumped rubbish and it's an ongoing problem in my patch. I've followed the clear up operation behind The Oxford pub (shout-out to Alistair Burgess for reporting this on FixMyStreet) and while its good to see it being sort of cleared up, the neighbouring shell of a building at 5a St Peters Road is in a state that guarantees no chance of that problem going away for good. 


Finally, an item on Food Safety with a revealing debate. Given the number of food businesses in Thanet, its good to see the Council getting a grip on this issue.


Next week is Cabinet, so Ill try and do a preview for it. Michael Child might add to his Royal Sands comments so keep an eye on Thanet Online. Don't expect much comment from me on that one!

A Long 24 Hours In Thanet

First up, Infratil inevitably put Manston up for sale. Its been talked about for a while so its not really much of a suprise. Who is to blame for this? To be fair, Infratil's not been having a good time and Flybe pulling out only made things worse. Politically, no one's come out well. The big boys comment at Thanet Life, Big News Margate and Thanet Online.


Labour gets first hit being at the wheel. They've made a big thing about their rigid adherence to the manifesto for some time and as we know, their "no night flights" policy was a key reason for their strong results in last year's elections. While it's honourable to stick by it, its very off-putting for those whose interests aren't best served by that manifesto, like Infratil. It also looked an unbalanced policy, centred on a small core of residents rather than a policy for Thanet as a whole. Labour had plenty of opportunities to ease off the heavy rhetoric a bit without losing the strength of their argument and to look more balanced, a Governing party rather than an Opposition.


The Conservatives haven't come out of this well either. Labour got good play out of the Manston issue at the doorstep and that proved particularly useful 6 months later, taking power. Labour's problem is of straight jacketing themselves while the Conservatives issue has been looking a bit weak and indecisive by arguing that the full process of evaluation needed to go through. Whether or not either case is true is irrelevant. What it might be matters so much more than what it actually is. 


Its possible there will be a shift in policy at some point. Incidentally I should point out, this blog is me just shooting the breeze. Don't place too much weighting on my views. 


Margate FC's flagship hotel on hold too. While I can understand the reluctance of the Council to grant a lease, I can't expect that they would have wanted to see this fall and chatting to the fans at the first game after the big Cabinet meeting, the view seemed to be that it was a matter of time. There seemed to be slow but steady progress on this looking at the club's website but this is rather strange. Brinksmanship gone wrong perhaps? Whatever's going on, this isn't good news and I really hope an alternative operator and a path through this stalemate is found.


CCTV to go back to 24 hours monitoring looking at a notice from Council Leader Clive Hart and announced at Overview last week. No costings or details other than the headline folks.

The Numbers Game

Photo by Alex Proimos, 2009

Still problems with the microphone system, leading some Councillors to avoid using them at all during last nights Overview meeting, so I missed some of the speeches (the whirring behind the public gallery didn't help either). It was reported in the preamble that the report into Urgent Decisions wasn't ready so that will come at a later meeting. I completely agree about the frustration here about the lateness of reports. Excuses about cuts aren't good enough. Just get on with it.

Clive Hart spoke about the Forward and Draft Corporate Plans and gave some updates on key things from each. There was quite a debate here about the balance to be struck between detailed actions in the Corporate Plan and its strategic nature. I agree with the Conservatives here that the Plan is too vague and sanitised and has too many priorities. On that last point it was undermined by Harts own argument about the limiting effects of Government cuts. If there is less to go around, and you don't believe in localism, then surely it means fewer priorities? I'd rather the Council aimed for less but delivered all of it than to spread itself thin trying to do more and failing. A motion was passed that the Corporate Plan should be looked at again and brought back to Overview in 6 weeks.


The theme of the meeting was the Conservative lead on the voting as alluded to in the preview. For Labour to win a vote, Tom King would have to vote with them. That didn't happen. The result? A motion was passed asking that Cabinet reconsider the Birchington parking scheme.

Hart asked for input into moving towards a "linear" parking fees system from the current, buying a big block of time, idea. Tagged onto this is the feeling from the Cabinet that this isn't the way they want to go. An indicative vote was held here and I think I might have gotten my notes wrong because I have all but one Member voting against this linear system. Hopefully a reader will confirm or correct me...

The Community Safety stuff came up with a couple of comments about Ramsgate seeming to be lacking with police. Sadly that's about all we got because a motion was put to adjourn the meeting and come back as soon as to complete the remaining items.

Agenda items 8, 9, 11 and 12 have been put off and its unlikely Ill be able to attend the reconvened meeting because the Council's website sucks so much, I probably wont know where and when the new meeting will be. I'm still waiting for the Full Council webcast and Minutes from 2 weeks ago!

All motions mentioned are subject to Cabinet whim. As we've seen with previous motions, Cabinet can just ignore them, and I expect no different here. They will say they note the motions but that's about all.

Planning On Something

After a quiet month for me in terms of attending Council meetings, I should be able to make 5 meetings this time round, so hopefully the coming few weeks will make up for what has been a bit of a layabout last month.

Overview and Scrutiny this Tuesday with lots of Plans being reviewed. Dont forget readers, there has been a change to the membership numbers with the Conservatives holding 7 seats, Labour 6 and Tom King as Independent Chair. Lots of links on the Council page for this meeting, so try this link and read those two pdfs instead.

Draft Corporate Plan comes up after a speech by Clive Hart on "The Future Cabinet Priorities in relation to Key Decisions in the Forward Plan". As we know from his Braveheart moment in January, he and Labour don't do the "Big Society game". Curious because Priority 3 from the Draft Corporate Plan is about voluntary and community organisations and develops aspects of the Big Society even if it doesnt call it that. This idea also features in the Kent Forum's "Vision for Kent" as Ambition 3.  The Draft Corporate Plan comes before Cabinet on the 29th before going to Full Council.

There's also a report on "Urgent Decisions". You might remember this was opted over a Working Group, much to my relief. As I said back then, there does need to be some thought into this, so its a fair cop. The report is not available at time of blogging. If it appears, Ill stick the link up, though its likely to be too late for the meeting.

We have a crime section in this meeting with the Strategic Assessment (interesting reading) and Safety Plan for the coming year. Attached to this is a report by the Crime Reduction Working Party. 

With the Parking Review, I would really like to hear more about the discussion and possible further changes to the parking scheme for future years in Minnis Bay, Joss Bay, Westgate and Margate Old Town. Readers, got any ideas?

To finish, again I want to make the point, all meetings should be recorded for the public to access. Agendas like the one above are really important with Thanet-wide implications and the public should be hearing about it in full. I know theres a webcast pilot taking place but for me, its not worth the expense, providing a substandard service. Other Councils record  all their meetings through a relatively cheap and user-friendly mp3 system. OK, you lose the video, but given the quality of that at the moment, its not much of a loss...

Nonsense and Oversensibility

"We have a society in which one of the greatest things you can do is a platform to see victim status, and one of the qualifications for that is that you have these exquisitely tender feelings about things and sensibilities which are easily offended." - Brit Hume


So here we are again on the blogs talking about people being offended. Ever since the local election campaign last year, it seems everyone's looking for the next sign of offending someone and jumping on it like its going out of fashion. In the past few months we had John Worrow over comments here, Tony Flaig hurt by being called a "lickspittle" during a debate over Children's Services and now Ian Driver hurt by a blog entry by Mike Harrison about a description of some woman as a "frustrated, dried up bint". Does anyone in Thanet even know this woman?


Come on, these complaints wont result in anything so why bother? Alright, you get a bit of attention for a while but nothing meaningful actually results from it. So what if Harrison is a misogynist?! He's a grown man and can say and do what he likes. Whatever happened to being tolerant?


The problem is that this hyper-sensitivity to anything offensive to anyone is that you end up with the constant threat upon those commenting. Eventually bloggers will cut out the entertainment from their blogs. In short, you'll end up with Ville Views... This subtle form of censorship is absurd and perverse. Why does talk of exposing bigots usually mean silencing them instead?


I'm sure I've hurt someone's feelings in the writing of this. If so, I await the Blog Warden's cuffs and interrogation...

Questions and Allowances

Full Council comes about again and so the preview show does too (Simon Moores has already gotten his in). I can't be at this meeting, so if anyone going to the meeting could let me know what the results were, it would be useful, not to mention far quicker than me waiting for the Minutes to come through on the TDC website.

Questions from Members usually has a couple of items then moving on but this time round we have 8. Its a strange batch on offer including the weighting of the Manston consultation, the economic strategy, selective licensing and seaweed removal in Birchington. I'm sure there will be some press releases to come from this so keep an eye out for new stuff on Thanet Press Releases. 

Yep, Worrow has a question as well, though I'm still unsure what exactly the point is driving at. Can a telephone system be in breach of equality rules? He had a more combative point to make 4 days ago but deleted it from his "Thanet Diversity Network - Progressive District Action" page along with reasonable comments by me and another blogger.

Some post-Budget bits to debate, then onto an item with some spice. This is the Labour proposal to cut Special Responsibility Allowances by 20% to fund Councillor Grants. Each Councillor would have about £364. There need to be very carefully put together rules here if this is to happen. 


Kick off 7pm Thursday evening. 

TDC Planning Cmte Feb 2012

Short and sharp Planning Committee meeting last night so this will be a brief recap rather than an actual report. I do feel like I'm short-changing you guys on this so Ill try to get another blog done later today to make up for it. We shall see.


- Richborough Power Station's alternative condition wording accepted.
- Chambers Wall Farm refused unanimously after a little discussion.
-Solar panels at Thanet Crematorium and Council Offices approved.
-Embassy Hotel, Cliftonville approved without debate.


The only one with a serious debate was Bramble Lane. As I said before, it comes with planning history including appeals and Inspector reports, so there was arguments both ways. There were concerns about side issues relating to this, but they didn't really count as part of the application themselves. Eventually it was approved on Chairman's second vote.


On public speaking, if doing a speech for the Committee its really important to stick to planning reasons and to have prepared something beforehand. Basically you get three minutes to speak. There's a clock on the Chairman's bench and once the red light hits you have 30 seconds left. You cannot defer to let other speakers go first and respond later.

The Three Towers Part II

An easier Planning agenda this Wednesday. First up is the site inspection at Chambers Wall Farm.

The former Embassy Hotel in Cliftonville is perhaps the star item of the evening with proposals to overhaul the building, turning it into 2  4-bedroom properties as part of the Housing Intervention project. Getting rid of the front extension and most of the rear one is a very good idea and this looks a strong application.

Bramble Lane comes up next with a bit of planning history to it and this is for retrospective consent. Its a self contained plot but its in the countryside so is against the Local Plan. I think I'm missing something here. Recommendation to approve.

A couple of applications for solar panels this time round as well, one for the Council Offices and one for the Thanet Crematorium. For the Council Offices one its an approval recommendation but for the latter it needs to go to public consultation so it’s a defer and delegate jobbie with approval attached.

Second to last is Richborough Power Station for a second showing. This is about the specific issue of at what point the blast can be stopped, in case of an electricity issue. A number of Councillors took the view that the relevant parties needed to get together to sort it out between themselves and to come back once they had. Well, they did, and the Committee now has new wording for that condition. If only they had done that before the last time this was considered...

Rounding things off is a report on enforcement decisions.

Labour U-Turn on Runaways

The minutes for the Cabinet meeting last week have finally been published (a week’s wait?). Everything got passed as expected, except one.

You might remember from previous posts about Labour making a push on runaways, getting a motion passed at Full Council back in December asking Cabinet to set up a Members Working Group to look into this. Well, the result: Labour changed it's mind and went with the Officer's recommendation to attend the Local Children's Trust Board and confirm it is the best thing to work though.

Having been at the Full Council meeting that passed that original motion, I remember Cllr Chris Wells making it very clear that duplicating already existing work was a bad idea. The same advice would have been given at that Cabinet meeting. Given Cllr Iris Johnston is both Cabinet Member and the Member who put the original motion, it begs the question of why she put the motion in the first place. She was determined to push with this in December...


That said, better late than never.

Snow Problem

Some photos of Poet's Corner where the hoped-for rubbish collection (Monday) did not happen. This wouldn’t be a problem if they had wheelie bins but because of the location (very small pavement) they can't and while I don’t blame the Council for that, I do have a problem in that the nearby St Peters Footpath is clear of ice along with the road part (the majority) of Poet’s Corner.

 

 

A TDC press release now says this rubbish wont be collected till next week. I really don’t understand the problem here. Poet’s Corner is light traffic wise and while perhaps the pavement itself is icy, the road is easily walkable. Park a van at the St Peters Footpath end and get the guys to walk it up the road…

While its great to see the ivy cleared thanks to the local street cleaner, the rubbish keeps appearing there along with Milton Square (collection on Tuesdays). Again, the roads round there are clear. A mattress remains on the YMCA side and has been there for about two weeks now. Incidentally, that dumpster has been flung open for about the same period and its a horrible eyesore.

St Johns Road (Thursday) is amongst the photos. The rubbish there has been an issue for a while now and the spilled rubbish was there well before that snow.