Agenda item

Motions

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 this service more accessible.

This Council asks that a report is produced with options on how to achieve this by the end of 2017 which is in turn given to Council to discuss.

Motion 791 – Public bus services

Proposed by Cllr Barry Kirby

Seconded by Cllr Steve Lydon

This Council notes:

a) That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively ‘prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service’.

b) That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

c) That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

d) That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This Council believes:

a) Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

b) If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services.

c) Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

d) Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

This Council resolves:

a) To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

b) To write to our MPs in the county to ask them to oppose clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.

To work with any organisations such as’ We Own It’ to publicise our opposition to clause 21 in local media.

Motion 793 - Grammar schools in Gloucestershire

Proposed by Cllr Richard Leppington

Seconded by Cllr David Prince

This Council notes the Prime Minister's recent support for the UKIP policy to reintroduce grammar schools. We call on Gloucestershire MPs to support the creation of new grammar schools throughout Gloucestershire.

Motion 794 – Bus services

Proposed by Cllr Nigel Robbins

Seconded by Cllr Klara Sudbury

This Council recognises the essential role that bus services play in:

a) Enabling more active lives

b) Travel opportunities

c) Healthier lifestyles

d) Reducing rural isolation

e) Tackling congestion especially in urban areas

This Council notes the funded public transport consultation that ended in January last year, but is concerned about both the reduction in budget and the decline in passenger numbers. This has resulted in the withdrawal of much valued public transport, profoundly affecting people’s lives by denying access to many services, jobs and independence.

This Council in its commitment to the bus service across Gloucestershire asks the Cabinet Member to undertake the following:

a) Protect all existing Council bus services from any adverse changes to services in the 2017-18 financial year.

b) Lobby the Government to fully fund the Council’s Concessionary Scheme.

c) Work with the districts on a campaign to increase passenger numbers headed up by this Council’s Communications Team.

Minutes:

Motion 789 - Highways Contract

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

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.

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 the amendment, a member expressed the view that in the main people would not know about the delivery model. He was not happy about the wording of the amendment.

Another member stated that he wanted the new council to be able to carry out a consultation without delay, and make a decision as to how to proceed. He indicated that he could not support the amendment as worded. He did acknowledge that it would be important to consider a wide range of options. He also commented that he thought that it had not been helpful to get rid of the highways estimates meetings, which had been very useful. He informed council that he thought that it would be helpful to look at the model used by Cumbria County Council. He thanked Sally Godwin, Gloucester Highways Manager, for her help in delivering projects in his division, and also stated that the council did have excellent highways officers.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Leader of the council, stated that he felt that the change of wording in the amendment allowed for a broader conversation, which would be a more useful exercise. He also informed the council that the Conservative Group had an amendment to the motion.

The Chairman reminded members that the procedure for the meeting allowed the consideration of one amendment at a time. Cllr Hawthorne indicated that the Conservative amendment was potentially a friendly amendment and so the Chairman agreed that it be put forward for the consideration of the previous proposers. The amendment to paragraph four, proposed by Cllr Vernon Smith and seconded by Cllr Mark Hawthorne stated that:

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~~ seeks the views of 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 Mark Hawthorne explained that his group’s amendment only changed the wording with regard to consultation, in recognition that a consultation was a legally defined process in respect of timescales. He was concerned that the use of the word consultation would mean that the deadline in the substantive motion could not be achieved due to the requirement to conduct a formal exercise.

At the instigation of the Chairman it was agreed to pause the timing of Motion item, whilst the proposers and seconders of the motion and amendments discussed and agreed the wording of the motion. The following wording was then presented to council for debate as the substantive motion.

To head off any decisions being made behind closed doors, this Council requests that the Highways Commissioning Team through existing resources, seeks the views of 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 Vernon Smith, Cabinet Member Highways and Flood, stated that he welcomed this motion. He acknowledged that Amey had had a poor start but was now hitting targets, and agreed that it was a good idea to talk about the type of contract that was required. He was clear that his agenda was to improve the highway network in Gloucestershire. He wanted to hear the views of the Parish Councils and to move forward with the correct contract for Gloucestershire.

Cllr Chris Coleman, seconder of the substantive motion, stated this was an issue that was consistently raised by residents. There have been longstanding concerns regarding the contract with Amey and now there had been a delay with the satisfaction survey which he suggested was a delaying tactic. He stated that this motion presented a real opportunity to hear from residents on their views, and to ensure that the parish, town and district councils had an opportunity to influence any decision to extend the relationship with Amey.

Another member commented on the impact that the lack of investment in roads had on people’s lives, and talked of elderly people in her division who did not feel safe going out at night, particularly in winter, and were becoming prisoners in their own homes.

Another member stated that it was important to thank the council staff who acted as a conduit between elected members and Amey. He also stated that it was important to not overlook the impact on the business community.

Cllr Hodgkinson in concluding the debate stated that he welcomed the enthusiasm of the Cabinet Member but the general public wanted action on the ground. He was pleased that the debate on the motion had achieved a positive way forward.

On being put to the vote the council.

RESOLVED that

Motion 790 - Saving Our NHS

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

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

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

Cllr Iain Dobie, proposer of the motion, used a family experience to illustrate his concerns about the current challenges faced in the NHS. He stated that the funding challenges were having a real impact on people. He referred to the financial difficulties faced by the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and that at the recent meeting of the Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee members had been informed that the opening position for April 2017 was a £42m deficit, and that this would require the trust to deliver a cost reduction programme equivalent to 6.2% of applicable spend (2017/18). He stated that it was hard to see how cuts of this size would not be delivered without rationalising services currently offered in both Cheltenham and Gloucester hospitals. He also suggested that the roll-out of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan could lead to the closure of at least one of the county’s local hospitals. He stressed the need for the national cross party group on NHS and Care Services with the objective of obtaining a long-term settlement.

Cllr David Brown, seconder of the motion, also used personal experience to illustrate his concerns. He referred to the recent Panorama programme ‘Britain’s Home Care Crisis’ which had discussed the challenges in this area, including the number of companies closing down, or at risk of insolvency. He stated the importance of, and difficulties in, recruiting staff, and being able to retain good staff. He indicated that given the funding pressures it was not a surprise that so many care agencies were ‘going bust’. He welcomed the additional funding that the government had made available for adult social care.

A member stated that most people were aware of the challenges faced by the health service. It was therefore of concern that the percentage of Gross Domestic Product spent on health was predicted to drop to 17%. She further stated that it had been claimed that the answer to the problems in the NHS was the Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STP), however Gloucestershire’s STP had a huge financial hole in it. She felt that the proposals in Gloucestershire were not sustainable. With regard to the cross party working group she did not see how this could work as all political parties had major differences. She felt that the answer to the problems in the NHS was the NHS Reinstatement Bill which had been proposed by Caroline Lucas (Green MP for Brighton Pavilion). She did not feel able to support this motion.

Cllr Steve Lydon proposed an amendment to this motion, seconded by Cllr Brian Oosthuysen:

This Council celebrates all our hardworking NHS colleagues in the county and wishes to send a motion of appreciation to them at this difficult time. This Council notes that the NHS is going through the biggest crisis in its history.

The Council also notes that the NHS crisis began following the Coalition Government’s Health and Social Care Act (2012), which was voted for by both Liberal Democrat and Conservatives MPs in Gloucestershire. This Council also notes that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nurses, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of General Practitioners all opposed the Coalition Government’s Health and Social Care act, and warned that it would cause a decline in NHS provision. This Council also notes that it was under the Liberal Democrat/Conservative Coalition Government that Cheltenham Accident and Emergency was downgraded.

This Council is concerned that with a sustained fall in NHS funding our local services in Gloucestershire will continue struggling to cope.This Council also notes concerns over the future of hospital and maternity provision in Stroud and asks that reassurances are made to residents that the service will be retained.

This Council asks that the Chairperson of the Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee directs the committee’s attention to the role of the Health and Social Care Act in the destabilisation of the NHS in Gloucestershire. The Council asks that the Chairperson reports back to this Council with their findings.This Council resolves that the Leader of this Council and the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Health, the Rt HonJeremy 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.

Cllr Lydon stated that he had not signed up to the STP. While acknowledging that it was a Labour Government that had introduced the Private Finance Initiative, he explained that he had not supported it. He stated his concerns with regard to the availability of qualified staff, and highlighted the recruitment challenges faced in the NHS, and the potential impact of Brexit on the availability of carers.

Cllr Oosthuysen, seconder of the amendment, stated that he was aware that some other areas had been more open about their STPs and that the NHS Commissioner had indicated that there would be widespread cuts.

At the instigation of the Chairman it was agreed to pause the timing of the motion item, whilst the proposers and seconders of the motion and amendments discussed and agreed the wording. The following wording was then presented to council for debate as the substantive motion:

This Council is concerned that with a sustained fall in NHS funding our local services in Gloucestershire will continue struggling to cope. This Council also notes concerns over the future of hospital and maternity provision in Stroud and asks that reassurances are made to residents that the service will be retained.

This Council resolves that the Leader of this Council and the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Health, 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.

Cllr Binns, Cabinet Member Older People, stated that the motion was just an opportunity for political scaremongering. She informed the meeting that there has never been mention of a closure of Stroud Maternity Hospital and that Cllr Lydon attended a meeting with NHS colleagues in January 2017 and was assured in writing that there were no plans regarding closure of this facility. She welcomed the additional £2billion funding from government to support adult social care; and supported our NHS colleagues in their work.

A member stated that this government was not doing enough to support the NHS. He questioned the assurances relating to potential closures and informed the meeting that his experience was that assurances could be reneged on. Another member stated that the NHS did not always tell you what they were going to do and suggested that there were structural issues in the NHS. She also stated that as a council we should be writing to the government about the issues, e.g. demand pressures, staffing issues, the aging population and aging workforce, and the need to get people trained.

There was a shared view across the meeting that politics should be taken out of debates about the NHS, but also recognition that this was not what was happening.

Cllr Hawthorne, Leader of the Council, stated that there was planned investment in the NHS growing from £730 million next financial year to £803 million by 2020. The additional funding identified by the Chancellor in the Spring Budget would mean an extra £21 million for Gloucestershire. He stated that this demonstrated that the government was not failing the NHS.

Cllr Dobie, proposer of the motion, summed up by stating that his intention was not to scaremonger. The issues demonstrated by the Panorama programme on home care providers, including the impact on people trying to leave hospital and consequently resulting in ‘bed blocking’, clearly showed that a long term sustainable solution was needed.

A vote was taken on the motion and it was

RESOLVED THAT

This Council celebrates all our hardworking NHS colleagues in the county and wishes to send a motion of appreciation to them at this difficult time. This Council notes that the NHS is going through the biggest crisis in its history.

Ten members of council had demanded a recorded vote. The outcome of which was:

For – Cllrs Brown, Coleman, Cordwell, Dobie, Fisher, Gill, Harris, Hay, Hilton, Hodgkinson, Kirby, Leppington, Lunnon, Lydon, McHale, McMahon, Millard, Morgan, Oosthuysen, Robbins, Sudbury, Sztymiak, Wheeler, J Williams, L Williams, S Williams.

Abstain – Cllrs Awford, Binns, Bird, Blackburn, Gravells, Harman, Hawthorne, Hicks, McLain, Molyneux, Moor, Parsons, Preest, Robinson, Smith, Stowe, Theodoulou, Tipper, Tracey, Vines, K Williams, Wilson, Windsor Clive.

Motion 792 - Blue Badges

Cllr L Williams proposed and Cllr Millard seconded the motion detailed on the agenda.

Cllr L Williams stated that a review of this process was needed, and asked all members of council to support the motion.

Cllr Millard stated that local residents had raised issues relating to the application process for blue badges, including the lack of information as to why an application had been declined.

A member stated that it was not helpful that not all car parks were Disability Discrimination Act compliant and that in Cirencester they were trying to address this matter. He hoped that there would be support for this review across all the district councils.

It was also stated by other members that it was important that the Blue Badge scheme was a transparent process, that the criteria should enable those people that needed a blue badge be able to access one, and that this process affected some of the most vulnerable people in the county.

On being put to the vote the council

RESOLVED that

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 asks that a report is produced with options on how to achieve this by the end of 2017 which is in turn given to Council to discuss.

Motion 791 - Public Bus Services

Cllr Kirby proposed and Cllr Oosthuysen seconded the motion detailed on the agenda.

Cllr Kirby stated that the future was unclear and that he felt that it was important that the council kept all options open. Cllr Oosthuysen stated the importance of a good infrastructure particularly with regard to trying to address rural isolation.

The Conservative Group put forward a friendly amendment which was accepted by Cllr Kirby and became the substantive motion:

This Council notes:

b) That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

d) That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This Council believes:

a) Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

b) If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services.

c) Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

d) Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

This Council resolves:

a) To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

b) To write to our MPs in the county ~~to ask them to oppose~~ explain the views of the council onclause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.

~~To work with any organisations such as’ We Own It’ to publicise our opposition to clause 21 in local media.~~

Cllr Moor, Cabinet Member Fire, Planning and Infrastructure, thanked Cllr Kirby for accepting the friendly amendment. He stated that there were only eight municipal bus companies in operation in England at present. Given the substantial investment, and therefore significant drain on capital resources, that would be required to make this work here, there was no aspiration to establish a municipal bus company for Gloucestershire. Cllr Moor stated that the important aspects going forward were ensuring the future funding to underpin unprofitable bus routes, and to support the concessionary bus scheme.

Cllr Kirby reiterated that the motion was about ensuring that opportunities were not lost.

On being put to the vote the council

RESOLVED that this Council notes:

b) That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

This Council believes:

a) Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

b) If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services.

c) Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

d) Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

This Council resolves:

e) To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

f) To write to our MPs in the county to explain the views of the council onclause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.

The two hours allocated for the motion debates was now up and therefore motion 793 Grammar Schools in Gloucestershire, and motion 794 Bus Services were not debated.