Agenda item

1. Proposed by Councillor McKinlay, seconded by Councillor Clucas

 

‘Council notes the result of the recent referendum on the future of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, and the political and economic crisis that has resulted from it.

 

Council further notes that the people of Cheltenham voted to remain members of the European Union.

Council recognises that the future is uncertain; and that Cheltenham now faces many more economic and social risks as a result of the decision to leave the European Union. This will be particularly hard felt by younger residents.

 

Council resolves to do everything in its power to protect the economy of Cheltenham, and the prosperity of the people of Cheltenham, and to work with all our partners to this end.’

2. Proposed by Councillor Savage, seconded by Councillor Harman

 

‘This Council is concerned by the reported rise in hate crime following the EU referendum. Council re-affirms its commitment to an inclusive, tolerant and diverse town. We welcome the contributions made to our vibrant multicultural and multiracial community by people regardless of their background, and will continue to work to tackle hate crime and discrimination in all its forms.’

 

 

3. Proposed by Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Willingham

 

‘This Council recognises that it is important that the makeup of each of its committees is as representative of the Council as possible. 

 

This Council believes that in order to achieve this objective, the start times for meetings need to be kept under review. 

 

This Council notes that, whilst the Corporate Diary was agreed earlier in the year, a new Council was elected in May 2016. 

 

This Council further notes that its Licensing Committee has historically met on a Friday afternoon but that this arrangement is not now best suited to the requirements of Councillors who wish to be part of the Committee. 

 

This Council therefore determines that the start time for the Licensing Committee will be changed from 2:15pm on a Friday to 6:00pm on a weekday evening, to be arranged by the Democratic Services Department in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee, commencing in September 2016.’

 

 

 

 

 

Motion 1

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor McKinlay, seconded by Councillor Clucas

 

‘Council notes the result of the recent referendum on the future of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, and the political and economic crisis that has resulted from it.

 

Council further notes that the people of Cheltenham voted to remain members of the European Union.

Council recognises that the future is uncertain; and that Cheltenham now faces many more economic and social risks as a result of the decision to leave the European Union. This will be particularly hard felt by younger residents.

 

Council resolves to do everything in its power to protect the economy of Cheltenham, and the prosperity of the people of Cheltenham, and to work with all our partners to this end.’

 

Councillor McKinlay introduced the motion and Councillor Clucas as seconder of the motion reserved the right to speak later in the debate. Councillor McKinlay highlighted the need for the new government to be clear on its objectives for Brexit and have a clear plan going forward. It was important that Cheltenham Borough Council seized the moment and did everything it could for the people of Cheltenham. To that end he made reference again to the seminar the council had convened with the business community which had proved to be valuable. A report on the information gained would now be circulated. Going forward it was important that opportunities were maximised and in this respect he highlighted the Joint Core Strategy as a key strategic planning document to set the framework for providing employment and attracting inward investment to the town. He also referred to the coordinating role of the council in lobbying central government and pursuing policies to make Cheltenham a more attractive and better place. Maintaining contacts with Europe was in his view key. The motion would signal to the community that the council was aware of the issues regarding Brexit and he was keen that there was a positive outcome for the town. He reminded Members that the Brexit vote was what the majority of the country voted for so they had a commitment to the people of Cheltenham to seek the best outcome.

 

Councillor Savage questioned the use of the phrase “political and economic crisis” which he would be reluctant to endorse and therefore announced his intention later in the debate to propose an amendment for it to read “political and economic uncertainty”. He was upbeat about the local economic situation and in his view a protracted period of political uncertainty had been avoided due to the formation of a new government.

 

During the debate the following points were raised :

 

·         The impact of the loss of funding streams such as the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and support given to locally and regionally elected Members was highlighted. One Member quoted that €1 million had been awarded to Gloucestershire. The EU had done a lot to support community cohesion.

·         Members welcomed the prudent approach by bringing businesses together in the town at the recent seminar

·         Twinning links were important and they gave the Council the opportunity to build on these further allowing young people to develop their understanding of different culture and languages.

·         Erasmus funding was used to support youth work in the town via the twinning agenda.

·         Some Members questioned the use of the word ‘crisis’ which they believed projected fear for younger people, rather than making the most of the opportunity to take the town forward. Some Members felt the use of the word ‘crisis’ would be more appropriate if Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom

·         Members felt the need for more public involvement in the Brexit agenda, there was currently a vacuum in terms of what it meant. Some Members did not agree with the “wait and see” view and felt that it was essential to talk to business about the immediate issues they faced. There were vital industries in the area such as aerospace and engineering which were directly affected.

·         There was concern that employment rights associated with being a Member of the European Union such as through the Working Time Directive, Equal Pay could be at risk in the light of Brexit

·         A Member highlighted the impact withdrawal of EU funding would have on Cleeve Common which was a Site of Scientific Interest

·         The plight of EU nationals residing in Cheltenham was referred to, Members felt their status needed to be guaranteed.

 

As seconder of the motion Councillor Clucas listed the risks Cheltenham faced as a result of Brexit in terms of loss of skills, investment, health and social care workers and research funding for universities among others. In view of the uncertainty it was important to look at the long term and she highlighted the importance of protecting the diversity in our communities to ensure cohesion. Through the new communities that the JCS would create, the council should aim to build on the values of what it meant to live in Cheltenham and the JCS should enhance the economy for residents to thrive in. She believed there was a striking opportunity in the strength of Cheltenham’s own culture, environment and economy. To that end she informed Members that that she had invited colleagues and partners to attend an inaugural meeting of a cultural partnership in September with the purpose being to develop a new role for culture in the town’s communities. The aim would be for Cheltenham to be UK City of Culture in 2021 and European Capital of culture in 2023. She intended to set up a Cabinet Member working group to develop this idea further.

 

Councillor Clucas highlighted the importance of the Chinese business presence in the UK. Some companies established themselves in the UK to give them access to the EU but with Brexit this was now called in to question. It was therefore vital to maintain the ability to attract new companies and plan for the future.

 

With regard to the wording of the motion, Cllr Clucas firmly believed that the current situation did amount to a crisis but would leave it to Cllr McKinlay, as proposer, to agree such wording as he saw fit.

 

Councillor Savage said there was a need for stability and confidence and he believed the current wording did not inspire confidence and was not necessarily beneficial for the town. He therefore formally moved the amendment to remove the reference to ‘political and economic crisis’ and replace this with ‘political and economic uncertainty’.

 

In response to the debate Councillor McKinlay thanked Members for their wide ranging comments. He believed the word ‘crisis’ in the motion was recognition of the current situation. However he did say that it was a question of semantics and he would accept the proposed change into the motion. He recognised the impact that a reduction in EU funding would have and highlighted the need for businesses to have stability. It was vital that the town remained attractive to investors. Should the package the new UK government propose be rejected by Europe there would be even more uncertainty. He agreed with the comment that the UK should maintain the highest standard in any employment laws and any other areas.

He welcomed the proposals for Cheltenham to build on its traditional strengths of culture and education and the possibility to apply for European City of Culture which would bring the arts, culture and sport together.

Finally, he was pleased that in this motion the Council would lay down a marker to say it was aware of the issues and was trying to tackle them to ensure a positive outcome for the town.

 

The Mayor asked whether the amended wording to the motion to replace the word ‘crisis’ with ‘uncertainty’ was accepted by Cllr McKinlay and he confirmed that it was. He said that the most important thing was for Members to unite behind the motion. The revised substantive motion was then put to the vote.

Upon a vote the motion was carried (For 27, Against 3 )

 

Motion 2

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Savage and seconded by Councillor Harman.

 

‘This Council is concerned by the reported rise in hate crime following the EU referendum. Council re-affirms its commitment to an inclusive, tolerant and diverse town. We welcome the contributions made to our vibrant multicultural and multiracial community by people regardless of their background, and will continue to work to tackle hate crime and discrimination in all its forms.’

 

Councillor Savage introduced the motion and Councillor Harman as seconder of the motion reserved the right to speak later in the debate.

 

Councillor Coleman considered the wording of the motion was well-made and it was essential that the council stood shoulder to shoulder with all people whatever their background and made a firm stand against any sort of discrimination. He was aware that there were currently over 3 million EU nationals in Great Britain who were very concerned about their status and he was very keen that these people should not be used as a bargaining tool in any negotiations with the EU. There were many EU nationals in Cheltenham who made a valuable contribution to the society where they live, work and love and they must be treated appropriately.

 

He proposed an amendment which was seconded by Councillor Jordan which was to include the following additional wording:

 

“This Council also calls on the Government to provide a full assurance to EU Nationals residing in our town that they will have the right to stay in the UK indefinitely.”

 

Councillor Savage as proposer of the motion indicated that he was happy to accept this amendment and therefore this became the substantive motion which was then debated.

 

In the debate that followed, Members fully supported the motion.

 

A member gave an example of where they had the misfortune to witness a hate crime on a bus in Cheltenham and they had reported the incident to the police. They encouraged all members to report such incidents and were concerned that the politics of division had been used in the Brexit debate. Another Member referred to a similar statement made by the Police and Crime Commissioner who had stressed the importance of reporting such incidents to the police.

 

Another Member suggested that the result of the referendum had emboldened some people to speak out. Their comments were often based on ignorance and he warned people against using emotive words such as ‘hate’. The Leader commented that hate crime had not accelerated in Cheltenham since the referendum result but shouldn't be underestimated. The council must ensure that no groups in the town are isolated and he was pleased that a community pride grant had been granted to address this important issue. Another member referred to a recent seminar on this issue which had emphasised that despite the genteel perception of the town, hate crimes still did exist.

 

Other Members emphasised the need for working together on this important issue and welcomed consensus across the chamber which would only strengthen the council's response.

 

Other Members spoke of their experiences and privileges in working and meeting people of different cultures and they felt that this diversity enhanced the town and should be celebrated.

 

A Member requested that should the council agreed this motion, as well as being minuted, the council should use its communication team to ensure the message was sent out to schools, police and partner organisations. The council had a duty to make it clear to everyone that hate crime was not acceptable and it would not be allowed in Cheltenham.

 

The Mayor thanked the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles, for her support for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor issuing a media release to encourage all communities to attend the Fiesta in the Park event which had celebrated diversity. She thanked officers and partners for making it such a success.

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Harman requested that an action plan should be produced and he would welcome a further Member seminar on this topic.

 

Councillor Savage thanked members for a high quality and wide ranging debate and for sharing their personal experiences.

 

Upon a vote the motion was carried unanimously.

 

Motion 3.

 

 

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Coleman and seconded by Councillor Willingham

 

‘This Council recognises that it is important that the makeup of each of its committees is as representative of the Council as possible.

 

This Council believes that in order to achieve this objective, the start times for meetings need to be kept under review.

 

This Council notes that, whilst the Corporate Diary was agreed earlier in the year, a new Council was elected in May 2016.

 

This Council further notes that its Licensing Committee has historically met on a Friday afternoon but that this arrangement is not now best suited to the requirements of Councillors who wish to be part of the Committee.

 

This Council therefore determines that the start time for the Licensing Committee will be changed from 2:15pm on a Friday to 6:00pm on a weekday evening, to be arranged by the Democratic Services Department in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee, commencing in September 2016.’

 

In introducing the motion, Councillor Coleman indicated that he had joined the council in 2002 in his early 20s. At the time he was working as a junior lawyer and although he felt he could have made a valuable contribution to the Licensing Committee, he felt unable to put his name forward due the committee taking place in the daytime. He referred Members to a similar debate which had taken place when it had first been proposed that the Planning Committee should move from an afternoon slot to a 6 p.m. start. Despite arguments that it would have an adverse effect on officers, applicant and professionals involved in the committee, he didn't recall that this had been the case in practice. He felt that the change had enabled the makeup of the Planning Committee to be more representative of the Council Membership and the same should apply to the Licensing Committee. He was confident that the quality of decision-making would be improved by having a wider membership available to service the committee. He reminded members that at February Council, Members had been challenged by a member of the public to do more to encourage women to stand as councillors. He advised that he had discussed the change with officers and this had resulted in the revised motion that had been circulated in Members’ places. This suggested a review of the structure and meeting arrangements for the Licensing Committee with the aim of making it even more professional and strengthening the work of the committee.

 

Councillor Willingham spoke as seconder of the motion. He felt it was important that meetings were accessible to all members of the public, particularly those who work during the day. He was pleased to note that the chair had already taken some action to ensure that all debates by the committee were as open as possible to the public.  He wished to assure members that there was no intention to move the committee to a Friday evening slot. He also hoped that the review could look at how Licensing policies were developed and the process for approval by Cabinet or Council. In conclusion he felt it was a good move for democracy.

 

In the debate that followed Members were supportive of the motion. It was commented that whilst an afternoon timing would have been suitable for publicans in the past, the situation had changed and this no longer applied. A member questioned whether employers had to give their employees time off for public service and was there an extra cost involved in officers servicing an evening meeting of the Licensing Committee.  Another Member suggested that it should be down to the Licensing Committee to decide when it was best for them to meet. However another Member pointed out that Members may not have put themselves forward to go onto the committee if they knew that it would be held in the afternoon. Other Members suggested that perhaps the Council should also have a 6 pm start in the future and highlighted the overflowing public gallery at the recent JCS meeting which had started at that time.

 

In his summing up Councillor Coleman thanked members for their support. He confirmed that employees did have rights to take time off for public service however in his own circumstances, at the beginning of his career, he did not have the courage to ask his employer for time off so had taken Annual Leave in order to attend meetings of Council. He noted the comments about the evening start for council. He referred Member to the information paper which had been circulated which indicated that officers attending an evening meeting would take time off in lieu during the day so there will be no budgetary increase.  Overall he felt the move to an evening slot would strengthen the openness and transparency of the committee and he was happy to confirm that there would be consultation with outside bodies as part of that review.

 

Upon a vote on the amended motion as circulated was carried unanimously.

 

This Council recognises that it is important that the makeup and operation of each of its committees is as representative of the Council as possible.

 

This Council believes that in order to achieve this objective, the structure and meeting arrangements for committees needs to be kept under review.

 

This Council notes that, whilst the Corporate Diary was agreed earlier in the year, a new Council was elected in May 2016.

 

This Council further notes that its Licensing Committee has historically met on a Friday afternoon but that this arrangement is not now best suited to the requirements of many Councillors who wish to be part of the Committee.

 

This Council therefore determines that the start time for the Licensing Committee will be changed from 2:15pm on a Friday to 6:00pm on a weekday evening, to be arranged by the Democratic Services Department in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Licensing Committee, commencing in September 2016.

 

This Council further determines that a review of the Committee’s structure and meeting arrangements be undertaken by officers in consultation with the Licensing Committee and that the outcome of this review be reported back to Council in December 2016.