The Big Debate - from a first timer's perspective

The Big Debate on Tuesday 28th February was not only my first encounter with Brighton and Hove Chamber of Commerce, but also with topical debating and business networking.

As a journalism student reporting on the event, I was keen to talk to as many people as possible. Luckily everyone there had the same mindset - the friendliness and openness made it a dream for the novice networker.
The debate itself is structured in the traditional Oxford Union format and proposed that a voluntary living wage of £7.20/hr would be good for business in Brighton and Hove.

When debate chair Rob Shepherd asked attendees to move seats according to their views, it quickly became clear that at least three quarters of the audience supported the proposal. This musical chairs moment was an eye-opener for Ben Ferrer and Adam Brian, who represented The Tourism Alliance and both opposed the motion.

The three key themes of the debate were timing, location, and business sense.

Ben Ferrer argued that – during such a difficult period for the hospitality and leisure industries – the timing wasn’t right for higher wages (though nobody in his industry was against the idea of better pay). “You’re asking an industry already on its knees to come forward and spend that extra money,” he said.
But local council worker Valerie Pearce, an audience member, said that was exactly why the living wage was necessary: to help people sustain themselves better. She added that half of all those receiving housing benefit in the private rented sector are working, but still in need of extra help.

A second key focus was the uniqueness of Brighton’s city branding.

Chamber president, Julia Chanteray, supported the motion and suggested that the living wage would contribute to the image of Brighton as a friendly city that bucks the trend: “This is a fantastic opportunity to say ‘Look, this is what we do in Brighton; we treat people well.’”
Ben, however, insisted that it was precisely Brighton’s reputation as a city of independent business and unique ideas that could be threatened by the living wage. He pointed out that larger companies were unlikely to take to the idea, giving them an unfair advantage.

A final theme was whether the living wage made business sense.

Julia’s seconder, Ian Tew, said his colleagues at KPMG were paid the living wage or more and “appreciate being recognised in this way.” Supporters said they saw it as an opportunity for employers to improve conditions, boost morale, increase employee loyalty and improve staff relations.
However, the need for businesses to meet their bottom line, plus the overall cost - £14m - to the local hospitality and leisure wages bill, made it nonsense for opposers. Ben Ferrer’s seconder, Adam Brian, said: “If my staff overhead rises there’s less incentive for me to try and develop a workforce”. Training opportunities would fall by the wayside, not making good business sense at all, he added.
At the end of the debate, many people had moved towards the middle. As Chair Rob Shepherd joked: “We ought to actually build a fence for people to sit on!”
The final result, a narrow victory for the motion, pleased both sides and gave the Brighton Living Wage Commission the mandate it needs to continue its campaign in the city.

By Sarah Morgan

Blog edited by Caroline White (www.whitewrite.co.uk)
 

If you want to contribute to the Chamber blog, contact us on hannah@brightonchamber.co.uk