Issue - meetings

The Council’s Constitution provides for a maximum of two hours for debate on motions.  At the end of the two hour period, those members who have already indicated their intention to speak on the motion being debated at that time will be allowed to speak, the mover of the motion will be asked to sum-up and the vote will be taken.

The following motions were received by the closing date of 27 November 2017:

Motion 800 - Adoption and promotion of electric vehicles

Proposed by Cllr Rachel Smith

Seconded by Cllr Iain Dobie

This Council notes the great importance of good air quality to public health and wellbeing in Gloucestershire. Poor air quality not only contributes to 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year, but also limits uptake of cycling, and reduces pedestrian numbers - harming wider public health goals.

This Council notes that a leading cause of air pollution is vehicle emissions. This Council further notes that air quality monitoring is a district responsibility, but that air quality issues need a co-ordinated approach between all local authorities in order to reduce unnecessary deaths from poor air quality and cut carbon emissions.

Councillors agree that more can be done through this authority to combat poor air quality, and welcome the formation of an air quality task group. Recognising the urgency of the problem of both air pollution and carbon emissions, this Council:

a)      Commits to moving to electric or low emission options wherever possible for all direct or indirectly operated council vehicles at the earliest opportunity.

b)      Commits to replacing 10% of the vehicles within its fleet (owned or leased) with electric or low emission vehicles by 2019.

c)      Commits to establishing principles for use in procurement to encourage use of electric or low emission vehicles by Council contractors.

d)      Commits to engaging with district councils and other relevant stakeholders to promote adoption of electric and low emission vehicles, including through identifying schemes, funding and other incentives for provision of publicly accessible EV charging points, and EV charging points in new housing developments.

Motion 801 - Votes at 16

Proposed by Cllr Paul Hodgkinson

Seconded by Cllr Klara Sudbury

This Council notes that currently 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds are denied the vote in public elections in the UK.

This Council recognises that 16 and 17 year olds are knowledgeable and passionate about the world in which they live and are as capable of engaging in the democratic system as any other citizen.

This Council believes people who can consent to medical treatment, work full-time, pay taxes, get married or enter a civil partnership and join the armed forces should also have the right to vote.

This Council therefore requests the Leader of this Council to write to all six Gloucestershire MPs asking that a letter be written to county representatives of the Youth Parliament to express support in lowering the voting age to 16.

Motion 802 – Increase in the State Pension Age for Women

Proposed  ...  view the full agenda text for item 73

Motion 800 - Adoption and promotion of electric vehicles

Cllr Rachel Smith proposed and Cllr Iain Dobie seconded the motion included on the agenda.

Cllr Smith thanked officers for their support in providing information relating to the motion.  She said that that the main drivers for electric vehicles were climate change, air quality and cost savings.  She believed that it was incumbent on the Council to set an example.  She noted that electric vehicles worked out cheaper to run over four years with even greater savings achievable over the longer term.  The Council had direct control over 90 vehicles and provided funding for 825 taxis and buses.  She stated that changes to procurement practices were essential to ensure that school buses were more energy efficient and less polluting.  She referred to a number of other local authorities that were already using electric vehicles.  These included the London Fire Brigade, Oxford City Council, Lewes District Council, Portsmouth City Council, Westminister City Council, the London Borough of Havering and Cornwall Council.

Cllr Dobie explained that the motion aimed to nudge the Council in the right direction. He noted that, following an amendment to the Council’s budget, residents with electric vehicles now benefited from free residents’ parking.  He said that a commitment to convert 10% of Council vehicles to electric over two years equated to just nine vehicles.  He believed that bus companies should commit to reducing pollution by running cleaner vehicles.  He noted the poor air quality outside Leckhampton School which had been recorded as the worst outside a school in the county.  He was anxious that the Council committed to concrete action by supporting this Public Health motion.

Cllr Nigel Moor, the Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure, was already committed to reducing carbon emissions.  He referred to the introduction of LED street lighting across the county and the reuse of energy at the Javelin Park residual waste facility.  He recognised the importance of electric vehicles in reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality.  He said that the Council was already looking to provide more charging points across the county.  He noted that the majority of vehicles operated by the Council were vans and HGVs and there were currently limited opportunities to replace them with electric vehicles.  He stated that a scrutiny task group chaired by Cllr Jeremy Hilton was looking at air quality and this would allow opportunities to be considered.

The meeting was adjourned for a short period while Group Leaders considered an amendment to the motion.

Cllr Smith and Cllr Dobie accepted the following changes to the motion (see the highlighted text):

This Council notes the great importance of good air quality to public health and wellbeing in Gloucestershire. Poor air quality not only contributes to 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year, but also limits uptake of cycling, and reduces pedestrian numbers - harming wider public health goals.

This Council further welcomes the £500m allocated to support Electric Vehicles by the Chancellor in the recent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73

The Council’s Constitution provides for a maximum of two hours for debate on motions.  At the end of the two hour period, those members who have already indicated their intention to speak on the motion being debated at that time will be allowed to speak, the mover of the motion will be asked to sum-up and the vote will be taken.

The following motions were received by the closing date of 5 September 2017:

Motion 797 – Care staff and the National Minimum Wage 

Proposed by Cllr Jack Williams

Seconded by Cllr Iain Dobie    

This Council praises the work of all care staff across Gloucestershire either employed directly by this Council or through an independent care provider.

This Council notes the National Minimum Wage (NMW) is a right, not a privilege, which all UK workers are entitled to unless covered by a specific exemption.

This Council is concerned that there are still a minority of workers (namely care staff working for independent care providers) that may well be contracted by this Council delivering care who still do not receive their full NMW entitlement.

This Council agrees that under-payment of the NMW – whether as an intentional act or as a result of ignorance or error - is unacceptable.

This Council welcomes a full review of the employment practices of all those care providers being used by this council to ensure that all care staff are paid at or above hourly NMW rates.

This Council requests the findings of this review to be brought back to this Council in the form of a report with recommendations for member discussion by the end of the year.

Motion 799 - Public sector pay

Proposed by Cllr Brian Oosthuysen

Seconded by Cllr Kate Haigh

This Council recognises the important contribution that public sector workers contribute to our communities.

The Council particularly acknowledges the vital work of our emergency services, both in Gloucestershire and across the country, especially in the light of recent tragedies where emergency services have gone above and beyond.

The Council believes that asking public sector workers to continue to accept declining living standards and differentials is not fair or justifiable. Every worker deserves fair pay.

This Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State of Communities and Local Government, and Gloucestershire’s six MPs to lobby for the lifting of the public sector pay cap, and all artificial limits on pay and conditions in Local Government.

Motion 798 - Gloucestershire flood and community resilience

Proposed by Cllr Kate Haigh

Seconded by Cllr Lesley Williams

This Council recognises that 10 years has passed since the 2007 Gloucestershire floods. In the aftermath of the flood a scrutiny document was produced and a number of flood alleviation works were funded. Now is an appropriate time for this Council to review that report and to consider where further works are needed, and if we are still following best practice. We also ask that any report examines the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 61

Motion 797 – Care staff and the National Minimum Wage

Those councillors who had declared a disclosable pecuniary interest on the interest sheet in the council chamber left the meeting for the consideration of this item.

The Monitoring Officer advised that it was the individual responsibility of members to declare any interest they had in matters being considered at the meeting.  She explained that members were required to declare disclosable pecuniary interests by law.  Disclosable pecuniary interests related to the financial interests of the member and their wife, husband or partner.  Members with disclosable pecuniary interests were required to leave the chamber but for personal interests they could remain in the chamber, take part in the debate and vote.  

Cllr David Brown proposed and Cllr Iain Dobie seconded the following motion:

This Council praises the work of all care staff across Gloucestershire either employed directly by this Council or through an independent care provider.

This Council notes the National Minimum Wage (NMW) is a right, not a privilege, which all UK workers are entitled to unless covered by a specific exemption.

This Council is concerned that there are still a minority of workers (namely care staff working for independent care providers) that may well be contracted by this Council delivering care who still do not receive their full NMW entitlement.

This Council agrees that under-payment of the NMW – whether as an intentional act or as a result of ignorance or error - is unacceptable.

This Council welcomes a full review of the employment practices of all those care providers being used by this council to ensure that all care staff are paid at or above hourly NMW rates.

This Council requests the findings of this review to be brought back to this Council in the form of a report with recommendations for member discussion by the end of the year.

In moving the motion, Cllr Brown stated that the national minimum wage for care staff was a legal right.  He noted that the Care Act 2014 required local authorities to seek evidence that care staff were being remunerated at a level that enabled an effective work force to be maintained.  Research in 2013-14 indicated that 160,000 care staff were losing an average of £800 each year because they were not paid for travelling time.

In seconding the motion, Cllr Dobie said that the Council’s duty of care did not end when outside providers were employed to deliver services on its behalf.  He believed that the way that Cleeve Link operated before it collapsed was exploitative as staff were not paid travelling time between appointments.  He was concerned at the impact on vulnerable people and was anxious that a similar situation did not arise again.

A motion without notice was proposed and seconded under procedure rule 12.1.13 to refer the subject of the motion to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, without further debate.

On being put to the vote, the motion was defeated.

A member stated that an earlier  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61

The Council’s Constitution provides for a maximum of two hours for debate on motions.  At the end of the two hour period, those members who have already indicated their intention to speak on the motion being debated at that time will be allowed to speak, the mover of the motion will be asked to sum-up and the vote will be taken.

The following motions were received by the closing date of 20 June 2017:

Motion 795 - Incinerator review and repeal motion

Proposed by Cllr Lesley Williams

Seconded by Cllr Rachel Smith

This Council notes that the disastrous UBB Incinerator Project has been plagued by mismanagement from the start of the process.

The Council notes that the contract held between UBB and the Council has been referred to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

In light of this, the Council asks that the administration halt all work on the incinerator site until the CMA has returned a judgement.

This Council should commit to an immediate independent review of the incinerator contract, specifically examining the way in which the administration has conducted itself throughout the process.

This Council also requests that a cross-party working group with involvement of the six district councils to review the management of waste throughout Gloucestershire.  

Motion 796 – Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service

Proposed by Cllr Jeremy Hilton

Seconded by Cllr Bernard Fisher

This Council notes that since its creation under new boundaries in 1974  it has been the fire authority with responsibility for governing and running a fire and rescue service in Gloucestershire.

This Council notes that the Police and Crime Act received Royal Assent on 31 January 2017 and that the Act allows for the Police and Crime Commissioner to take over the governance of a fire and rescue service within their locality.

This Council notes the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Commissioner has employed consultants to prepare a takeover bid for Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service.

This Council notes with pride that we have one of the most cost effective and innovative fire and rescue services in England, probably the best fire and rescue service in the country.

This Council believes that a change in governance would be disruptive to the good management of our fire and rescue service and its collaboration with other emergency services and public bodies.

This Council, therefore, agrees that it is better for Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service to remain under the governance of Gloucestershire County Council and agrees that all members should work together to oppose a transfer of the responsibility of the fire authority away from Gloucestershire County Council.

Motion 795 - Incinerator review and repeal motion

Cllr Lesley Williams proposed and Cllr Rachel Smith seconded the following motion:

This Council notes that the disastrous Urbaser Balfour Beatty (UBB) Incinerator Project has been plagued by mismanagement from the start of the process.

The Council notes that the contract held between UBB and the Council has been referred to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

In light of this, the Council asks that the administration halt all work on the incinerator site until the CMA has returned a judgement.

This Council should commit to an immediate independent review of the incinerator contract, specifically examining the way in which the administration has conducted itself throughout the process.

This Council also requests that a cross-party working group with involvement of the six district councils to review the management of waste throughout Gloucestershire.  

In moving the motion, Cllr Williams thanked campaigners for continuing to raise awareness of the issues surrounding Javelin Park.  She said that there was a nagging doubt that local people did not know what was going on.  She believed that work associated with the contract should be halted to allow all of the information to be made public.

Cllr Ray Theodoulou, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, stated that the Javelin Park contract had been tendered for in an open and transparent way.  He said that the contract had been scrutinised repeatedly and it was evident that every other solution was either more expensive or the technology was unproven.  The Javelin Park contract would save taxpayers in Gloucestershire more than £100 million. He noted that the construction of the plant had been underway for 8 months and a delay would cost taxpayers more money.

In seconding the motion, Cllr Smith said that residents in her division were outraged that the Council had entered into a contract to build an incinerator.  She believed that it was right and proper to pause the process to critically review the project and its associated costs.  She stated that taxpayers money was being wasted if construction continued while there remained concerns around the legality of the contract. She called for a commitment to increase recycling rates with the district councils which would significantly reduce the amount of residual waste.  She said that she was concerned that millions of pounds were being wasted when they could be used for other vitally important services.    

A number of members spoke strongly against the construction of the incinerator.  They said that the Conservative Group had previously made a commitment not to build an incinerator and the Planning Committee had unanimously rejected the planning application for an incinerator at Javelin Park in March 2013.  Nevertheless the Administration were pressing ahead with the project when more cost effective and environmentally friendly alternatives were available.  There was still confusion around the tonnage rates and the costs associated with the project. Members were concerned by the lack of openness and transparency around the contract and they called upon the Administration to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45

For debate and decision.

The following motions were received by the closing date of 14 March 2017:

Motion 789 – Highways contract

Proposed by Cllr Paul Hodgkinson

Seconded by Cllr Chris Coleman

This Council notes that last year the Highways Commissioning Team prepared and carried out a review of the Amey highways contract to enable a decision to either extend the contract for a further 3 years or to terminate it in 2019.

This Council is aware that it takes between 18 and 24 months to retender the highways contract. This Council is disappointed however that no engagement has yet to take place with local parish, town and district councils regarding the decision to [possibly] extend the highways contract with Amey.

This Council has previously expressed concerns over the disappointing satisfaction levels with service amongst both members and parish council. The issues of customer focus and communications have also been identified as needing significant improvement.

To head off any decisions being made behind closed doors, this Council requests that the Highways Commissioning Team through existing resources conducts a full consultation with local parish, town and district councils regarding the decision to either extend or to terminate the highways contract with Amey.  The results of this consultation to be reported back for member discussion at the full Council meeting on 28 June 2017.

Motion 790 – Saving our NHS

Proposed by Cllr Iain Dobie       

Seconded by Cllr David Brown

This Council notes that the NHS is going through the biggest crisis in its history.

The impact of this can been seen locally affecting ambulance response times, Accident and Emergency waiting times, the length of time it takes to get a GP appointment and changes to the Minor Injury and Illness Units (MIIUs) across the county.

This Council is concerned that with a sustained fall in NHS funding our local services in Gloucestershire will continue struggling to cope.

The Government has refused to give the NHS the extra funding that it needs with the percentage of our national income spent on the NHS set to fall between now and 2020.  The UK is a relatively low spender on health care and this Council would therefore like to see adequate funding.

This Council resolves that the Leader of this Council and the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Health, the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, calling the Government to establish a cross-party NHS and Care Convention with the objective of obtaining a long-term settlement for NHS and Care Services.

Motion 792 - Blue badges

Proposed by Cllr Lesley Williams

Seconded by Cllr Tracy Millard

This Council recognises that regulations over who can and cannot get a blue badge are getting much stricter. As a Council we believe everyone who needs a blue badge should be able to get one. 

This Council commits to review its Blue Badge Policy criteria and will invite all relevant community groups and interested partners to an open consultation over how we can make  ...  view the full agenda text for item 21

Motion 789 - Highways Contract

Cllr Paul Hodgkinson proposed and Cllr Chris Coleman seconded the following motion:

This Council notes that last year the Highways Commissioning Team prepared and carried out a review of the Amey highways contract to enable a decision to either extend the contract for a further 3 years or to terminate it in 2019.

This Council is aware that it takes between 18 and 24 months to retender the highways contract. This Council is disappointed however that no engagement has yet to take place with local parish, town and district councils regarding the decision to [possibly] extend the highways contract with Amey.

This Council has previously expressed concerns over the disappointing satisfaction levels with service amongst both members and parish councils. The issues of customer focus and communications have also been identified as needing significant improvement.

To head off any decisions being made behind closed doors, this Council requests that the Highways Commissioning Team through existing resources conducts a full consultation with local parish, town and district councils regarding the decision to either extend or to terminate the highways contract with Amey.  The results of this consultation to be reported back for member discussion at the full Council meeting on 28 June 2017.

Cllr Hodgkinson stated that the Liberal Democrat Group on the council had consistently requested that Amey be better monitored in response to the many concerns raised by the people of Gloucestershire. He highlighted the number and regularity of motions submitted by his group on this matter. He also noted that the Labour Group has also put forward motions relating to Amey.

He informed council that he felt that the condition of highways in the county was an embarrassment, and damaging to the council’s reputation.

It had taken Amey over 2.5 years to start hitting their targets on a 5 year contract. Cllr Hodgkinson stated that before a decision was made with regard to the contract going forward it was important to receive feedback from parish, town and district councils. He was disappointed that the survey had not already been undertaken and questioned whether this was because the Administration were concerned about feedback so close to an election.

The Labour Group proposed an amendment to paragraph two of the motion (proposed by Cllr Kirby, seconded by Cllr L Williams):

This Council is aware that it takes between 18 and 24 months to retender the highways contract. This Council is disappointed however that no engagement has yet to take place with local parish, town and district councils regarding the decision to [possibly] extend the highways contract with Amey.  delivery model ranging from in-house provision, fully contracted, or a hybrid service.

Cllr Kirby stated that the Labour Group felt that the renewal of the contract opened up opportunities to influence the design of the delivery model going forward and it was important to reflect people’s experience and understand their view on how the contract should be delivered in the future.

Commenting on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21

No motions have been received.

The closing date for the receipt of motions was 10am on Tuesday, 7 February 2017.

No motions had been received.

The following motions had been received by the closing date at 10am on Tuesday, 15 March 2016.

Motion 765 - The Cotswold–Gloucestershire integrity motion

Proposed by Cllr Lesley Williams

Seconded by Cllr Barry Kirby

This Council believes that the Cotswolds is an integral part of Gloucestershire’s heritage and a key part of its future as a County.

This Council believes that the Cotswolds benefits financially and culturally though its historic bond with the County of Gloucestershire. This Council also notes that Gloucestershire benefits with the Cotswolds being a key part of the County.

This Council asks that the Leader of Gloucestershire County Council write to the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to state this Council’s unhappiness with this proposed changes to Cotswold District Council.

This Council asks that the Leader of Cotswold District Council presents their proposals for the Cotswold – West Oxfordshire unitary authority at the June 2016 County Council meeting.

Motion 766 - Improving highway tree maintenance

Proposed by Cllr Klara Sudbury

Seconded by Cllr Bernie Fisher

This Council notes that there are approximately 8,000 trees on highway land in Cheltenham alone, and many more right across the county.

It is understood, that the highways contract with Amey is under review and that Liberal Democrats have already asked the Cabinet Member to consider improving highway tree maintenance.

This Council asks the Cabinet Member to report back to the Highways Advisory Group on measures to improve the County Council's tree maintenance programme, before reporting back to full Council with a positive action plan.

Motion 767 – Sugar and Obesity Strategy

Proposed by Cllr Steve Lydon

Seconded by Cllr Lesley Williams

This Council expresses its dismay that the Government have added a further delay to enacting its childhood obesity report.

This Council is also aware that it does not include recommendations for a ‘sugar tax’, which has been proven to reduce the rates of obesity in children.

This Council is alarmed by the rate of childhood obesity across the County, and will write to the Secretary of State to urge them not to delay releasing the childhood obesity report, and to reconsider the ‘sugar tax’.

MOTION 765 - The Cotswold–Gloucestershire integrity motion

Proposed by Cllr Lesley Williams

Seconded by Cllr Barry Kirby

This Council believes that the Cotswolds is an integral part of Gloucestershire’s heritage and a key part of its future as a county.

This Council believes that the Cotswolds benefits financially and culturally though its historic bond with the County of Gloucestershire. This Council also notes that Gloucestershire benefits with the Cotswolds being a key part of the county.

This Council asks that the Leader of Gloucestershire County Council write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to state this Council’s unhappiness with this proposed change to Cotswold District Council.

This Council asks that the Leader of Cotswold District Council presents their proposals for the Cotswold–West Oxfordshire unitary authority at the June 2016 County Council meeting.

In moving the motion, Cllr Lesley Williams expressed serious concern at the proposal by fellow county councillor and Leader of Cotswold District Council, Cllr Lynden Stowe, to tear the county apart.  She said that regardless of what changes were placed upon local government in the future, Gloucestershire was greater than the sum of its parts and it needed to stay together. 

In seconding the motion, Cllr Barry Kirby was anxious that the county was not broken-up.  He questioned the logic of the proposal and believed that it was driven by politics and revenge as a result of the Prime Minister falling out with a senior politician in Oxfordshire. It was apparent that members of Cotswold District Council had been kept as much in the dark about the proposal as the public. He expressed serious concern that significant sums of public money were being used to draw up the proposals.  He noted that the Leader of Cotswold District Council had not attended the meetings of Leadership Gloucestershire when the devolution proposals had been drawn up, and he called upon him to resign immediately. 

Members spoke strongly against the break-up of Gloucestershire.  They referred to the damage to the county’s devolution bid and the serious impact on public services.  These did not just relate to the County Council but to other public bodies including the NHS, Police and the Local Enterprise Partnership.  There would be a major impact on the A417 loop which was not seen as a priority in Oxfordshire.  There was no mandate from the public for breaking up the county and members called for no more public money to be wasted on the proposal.

Members believed that the proposal did not stack-up.  It would create a unitary authority with a population of only 200,000 and that was acknowledged as being too small to run services efficiently.  There were 106 county-wide contracts of more than £1 million which would need to be reviewed or renegotiated if the county was broken-up.

A member referred to the impact on the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service (GFRS) which was part of the county council.  If Cotswold broke away a fire service could not be run for that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21

No motions have been received.

The closing date for the receipt of motions was 10am on Tuesday, 9 February 2016.

No motions had been received.