Agenda item

 

Motion A: proposed by Councillor Flo Clucas and seconded by: Councillor Andrew McKinlay.

 

“This Council, mindful of the Referendum vote in Cheltenham and the wishes of many Cheltonians and other UK citizens to continue as far as possible to enjoy the benefits of EU Citizenship, supports the proposal by the Lead Negotiator for the European Parliament that, following Brexit, Associate Citizenship be made available to UK citizens who wish to have it.

Further, that the Leader be requested to ensure that such support be communicated to local MEPs, MP and to Mr Guy Verhofstadt, Lead Negotiator.”

 

In proposing the motion, Councillor Clucas said that Cheltenham was an international town part of the international family. The town’s Arts and Culture,  Sport, International businesses, Twinning history, University; Colleges and GCHQ all had an international profile and worked with similar organisations and companies from across EU.

 

In the referendum on 23 June 2016, thousands of Cheltonians had voted by a significant majority to remain in the EU family and many millions across the UK likewise. There were 1.2m citizens from the UK living, working or studying in EU - some from Cheltenham. An MEP had come up with the idea for Individual Associate Citizenship and many thousands had contacted him about it and there was support from MEPs of all EU nations and parties. The idea had now been taken up by Brexit Chief Negotiator for EP, Guy Verhofstadt.

 

The beneficiaries of such an arrangement would be students, young people, workers and companies who could to continue freely to be part of EU family, even if not members. It would give children, young people, students, those looking for work, for new jobs, to live near family, the opportunity to do so. There would a right for them to study, work, partake in Erasmus and for local companies to send workers to Europe to work. There would be no visa requirements, European Health Insurance Cards could still be available and there would be continued research opportunities for our universities and colleges. In short, Cheltenham would benefit enormously from the potential it offered.

 

She concluded that it was important that local MEPs, Cheltenham’s MP and the Chief Negotiator should understand how the Council as a representative of the people in the town, felt that this will be beneficial to all and therefore wish to see it adopted. She urged members to support the motion.

 

Councillor Harman proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Savage:

 

Add the additional wording to the motion:

 

''This Council recognises the invaluable contribution made by EU nationals living here in Cheltenham and welcomes the Government's constructive efforts to reach a multilateral agreement with the other 27 EU states at the earliest possible date, to secure the reciprocal rights of both EU nationals in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU.''

 

Before proposing the amendment, Councillor Harman first wished to raise a technical query relating to the main motion put forward on whether it was appropriate for the council to write directly to the lead negotiator or whether this would be more appropriate through local MEPs. 

 

In proposing the motion he valued the European community in Cheltenham and agreed that a sensible and practical solution was needed for our citizens and those from Europe residing in this country. In reality the government was entering into negotiations and he felt the council was in a strong position to support them.  He supported the motion as proposed but felt his amendment was an improvement.

 

Councillor Clucas as proposer of the motion had some difficulties with accepting the amendment as she did not want this to become a political motion.

 

Councillor Savage as seconder of the amendment reserved his right to speak later in the debate.

 

Members speaking against the amendment felt they could not support the phrase "welcomes the Government constructive efforts” etc as this was a political statement which they did not agree with.

 

Councillor McKinlay announced his intention to present the following amendment to the amendment currently being debated by replacing the words with the following:

 

“''This Council recognises the invaluable contribution made by EU nationals living here in Cheltenham and wishes to see the status of UK nationals and  EU nationals in the UK resolved at the earlies possible moment. '

 

This was seconded by Councillor Clucas.

 

Councillor Savage as seconder of the first amendment indicated that he could not accept that change of wording.

 

The Deputy Mayor adjourned the meeting at 4.25 pm for 10 minutes to facilitate members coming to some agreement on the wording of the amendment.

 

On reconvening the following wording for the amendment proposed by Councillor Harman had been agreed and this was added to the original motion and a debate proceeded on the substantive motion.

“This Council recognises the invaluable contribution made by EU nationals living and working in Cheltenham. It wishes to see their status safeguarded. It also seeks to safeguard the status of UK nationals in the EU”. 

 

In debating the motion, Councillor Parsons indicated that he could not accept the additional wording in the amendment after the word ‘Cheltenham’ because he did not feel anything was being done by government at the national level to protect the status of European citizens and he felt that this was reflected in the approach of the local Conservative group. He said that EU citizens in the town had an unequivocal unconditional right to stay in the town irrespective of the negotiations on Brexit.  

 

Raising a point of order, Councillor Harman said he was appalled by the comments of Councillor Parsons which implied that the Conservatives in Cheltenham did not have any respect or concern for their European citizens residing in Cheltenham. He requested that Councillor Parsons withdraw or apologise. Councillor Savage added that all members wanted to see the status of UK nationals safeguarded and for Councillor Parsons to suggest that any members would want to see them disadvantaged was unacceptable and an insult to those members.

 

In the debate that followed many members spoke of their personal experiences of working with colleagues in Europe and they regretted any changes to these existing arrangments. 

 

Some members were still uncomfortable that the motion was asking the Leader to write to the lead negotiator and they felt this would be better done via local MEPS. Another member suggested it would be useful to ask MEPS what they were doing to address this important issue.

 

Other members were disappointed that this had turned into a political debate in the chamber.

 

Councillor Parsons proposed an amendment which was seconded by Councillor Fisher.

 

Delete – “It wishes to see their status safeguarded.” and the following sentence  and replace by

 “calls on Government to give an unconditional guarantee that EU nationals legally resident in UK can remain irrespective of outcome of Brexit negotiations”. 

 

In proposing the amendment Councillor Parsons suggested that if Councillor Harman was concerned by his previous remarks, he should support the motion.

 

Councillor Clucas as the proposer of the substantive motion, indicated that she could not accept the amendment.

 

The Deputy Mayor invited members to debate the amendment but urged members to come to some sensible agreement so that a strong message could be sent to government.

 

Several members indicated that they could not support the amendment as it detracted from the message of the original motion. Another member could not support the amendment as any search guaranteed had to be reciprocated and therefore should form part of the negotiations.

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Fisher assured members that the motive for the amendment was humanitarian rather than political.

 

In his summing up, Councillor Parsons stressed that the motion was important to him personally as it reflected the position of his party at a national level.

 

Upon a vote in the amendment was lost

Voting: For 2, against 28 with 2 abstentions.

 

The debate continued on the substantive motion.

 

In her summing up, Councillor Clucas urged members to be united in supporting the motion as they were all part of the EU family. It was important to express their views to the lead negotiator.

 

Upon a vote the motion as set out below is in was carried

Voting: For 31 with 1 against

 

“This Council, mindful of the Referendum vote in Cheltenham and the wishes of many Cheltonians and other UK citizens to continue as far as possible to enjoy the benefits of EU Citizenship, supports the proposal by the Lead Negotiator for the European Parliament that, following Brexit, Associate Citizenship be made available to UK citizens who wish to have it.

Further, that the Leader be requested to ensure that such support be communicated to local MEPs, MP and to Mr Guy Verhofstadt, Lead Negotiator.

 

This Council recognises the invaluable contribution made by EU nationals living and working in Cheltenham. It wishes to see their status safeguarded. It also seeks to safeguard the status of UK nationals in the EU”. 

 

 

Motion B : Proposed by: Councillor Dennis Parsons and seconded by  Councillor Jon Walklett

“This Council urges Her Majesty's Government to make the use of a crossbow a criminal offence unless the user possesses a current licence from the Police permitting its use; and that the licensing checks and conditions for granting and renewing a licence be similar to those in force for a firearms licence.”

 

In proposing the motion, Councillor Parsons referred to the recent attack on George the swan. He said that the first reaction of residents had been disbelief and this had quickly turned to concern that an individual had been in Pittville Park with a lethal weapon.  There was a particular concern that the state-of-the-art play area was next to the lake and hence there was a risk of a misdirected crossbow hurting a child.  He advised members that it was an offence for anyone less than 18 years of age to carry a crossbow or for anyone to sell or hire one to someone under 18 but there were no restrictions over 18.  It was also an offence to shoot a bird or animal with a crossbow.

 

Councillor Harman proposed the following amendment which was seconded by Councillor Babbage:

 

Add the following paragraph

“This Council condemns the cowardly and appalling attack on George the swan and welcomes the intervention of Cheltenham's MP, who has written to the Home Secretary to clarify what further steps can be taken to remove crossbows from our streets, building upon their existing status as ''offensive weapons'' under UK law.”

 

Councillor Parsons as the proposer of the original motion, could not accept the moment as he felt it was making a political point.

 

As seconder to the original motion, Councillor Walklett was concerned that the amendment added nothing to the original motion.

 

Councillor Harman indicated that he would be happy to withdraw the amendment and support the original motion.

 

Several members whilst welcoming control of firearms, suggested there should be some caution about applying further licensing restrictions which could be very complex to administer and stop people using them in a controlled environment. Re-enactment groups was cited as an example and there were other legitimate uses for professional hunters and sportsmen. It was already an offence to carry a weapon in public and to shoot a bird so rather than licensing the emphasis should be more on enforcement. If a licensing scheme was introduced for crossbows would a scheme then be needed for longbows?

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Walklett made members aware that there had been large decline in the swan population due to various reasons and swans like George needed some extra protection from idiots with a crossbow.  He was also concerned that a crossbow of this type could be bought for £35 on Amazon.

 

Other members speaking in support of the motion thought that this type of weapon should be licensed and controlled in some way.

 

The Deputy Mayor agreed with the sentiment of the motion and had been shocked at what had happened to George the swan. The bird had made a remarkable recovery and she thanked the Vale Wildlife Centre for their efforts. She She felt the wording of the motion could be improved. It would place a burden on people who want to use a crossbow illegitimately but acknowledged that it could be used as a lethal weapon and therefore may need a licence.

 

In his summing up Councillor Parsons thanked members for their contributions. He emphasised that the motion was intended to be proscriptive and not prescriptive and it was seeking to limit people’s ability to walk about public places with crossbows. If government adopted such legislation they could provide the detail which would address some of the concerns members had raised about legitimate use. He envisaged there would be some kind of police check, criminal record check, a check with the local GP for any mental or physical restrictions, all in the interests of public safety. He added that the concept of crossbows being used in sport was untrue as longbows were king in that sporting field and there were no crossbow sports operating in Gloucestershire.

 

Upon a vote on the original motion was carried

Voting: For 17, Against 3 with four abstentions.