Agenda item

Motions on Notice (to follow if any)

A period of up to one hour is allocated to consider the motions on notice. This may only be extended with the agreement of the Council.

Minutes:

Living Wage

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor P. McDonald:

"This Council ensures in future that all contractors, agencies and any organisation or body carrying out work or research on behalf of this Council, pay its employees/workers at least the ‘Living Wage.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor McDonald and seconded by Councillor S. Douglas.

In proposing the Motion Councillor McDonald reminded the Chamber that his Group had ensured that no members of staff received less than the living wage. The motion put before Members was an extension of that and would ensure that any contractor employed by the Council did not pay their staff below the rate of the living wage. To not do this would be a double standard for the Council. Councillor McDonald highlighted the struggle of some families to meet the cost of living and how the payment of the living wage would help support them. He saw no excuse for contractors not to meet this requirement. He also referred to the problems of young people, aged 18-20 years, who received a lower rate of pay and needed to work extra hours in order to make ends meet. Councillor McDonald believed that all working age people had a right to a decent standard of live and should not have to rely on food banks for example in order to make ends meet. He therefore put forward the motion for all contractors, agencies and organisations carrying out work on behalf of the Council to be paid the living wage.

Councillor G. Denaro, as Portfolio Holder for Finance and Enabling responded that through this motion Councillor McDonald was trying to restrict the Council’s choice when employing outside contractors. When a nearly identical motion had been put forward in 2012 by Councillor McDonald it had been referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Board, who had undertaken a full enquiry into all areas, including the mechanism which could be put in place to encourage contractors to pay the Living Wage, the finance cost to the Council in monitoring contracts and what duty, if any, the Council had to ensure its contractors paid the Living Wage. The conclusion of that investigation had been that no further action be taken in respect of the Living Wage. Councillor Denaro confirmed that that conclusion stood today and whatever people may think morally, it was not for the Council to force any view on to its contractors.

In responding to the motion Members made the following comments:

· Including the suggestion as part of the procurement process and the implications of this.

· It was a legal requirement to pay the minimum wage, but not the living wage.

· Why there should be a difference in the rate of pay paid to staff and to contractors, the Council should lead by example and insist on the same for all.

· The lower rate of pay for young people and the reasoning behind this, it was suggested that some would not have the experience or knowledge that an older person might have and any increase in pay may lead to higher levels of youth unemployment.

Councillor S. Baxter suggested that an amendment be put forward for the matter to be further reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Board as the Council had a responsibility to its residents and any financial impact could have a detrimental effect on them. The amendment was seconded by Councillor S. Colella.

Councillor McDonald did not accept the amendment and the amendment was therefore lost.

Further debate took place when Members discussed a number of areas including:

· The inclusion of the Living Wage for contractors was a positive way in which the Council could demonstrate that it was addressing poverty and supporting some of the most vulnerable in the District.

· Research which had been carried out by the Living Wage Foundation and that £9 per hour was not unduly ambitions and the Council should make a commitment to increase it.

· How the contractors would be monitored and whether imposing such a restriction would put off some contractors from carrying out work for the Council.

· The use of zero hour’s contracts.

In summing up Councillor McDonald expressed his disappointment at the negative comments from some Councillors and did not think it was unreasonable for people in employment to receive a decent wage for a week’s work and not to have to rely on food banks and have to worry about paying bills. These pressures often led to poor health which did not help them. The Council was not a commercial enterprise and it should not be exploiting people, it should pay the acceptable rates of pay. He believed that currently a number of other authorities had been able to do put this in place. People of all ages were entitled to a decent proper wage.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken and the voting was as follows:

For the motion: Councillors Baxter, Colella, Douglas, Hotham, Hughes, Hunter, Jenkins, McDonald, Rone-Clarke, Thompson, Van der Plank (11)

Against the motion: Councillors Beaumont, Deeming, Denaro, Glass, Jones, Kent, Kriss, May, Middleton, Sherrey, Spencer, Thomas, Till, Webb, Whittaker (15)

Abstentions: (0)

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Community Gardens

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor M. Thompson:

“This council recognises the excellent work achieved by local volunteers, such as the community garden in Charford. Council resolves to work with its partners, such as BDHT, to identify potential green spaces upon which communities can create similar initiatives.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Thompson and seconded by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Thompson paid tribute to Councillor S. Douglas who had started off this project in Charford. It allowed communities to come together and take responsibility and pride in their area whilst also bringing generations together and helped people to up skill whilst enhancing the work of the voluntary sector, who were sometimes taken for granted. It also addressed other areas, such as isolation and mental health and empowered people in their own homes. These projects helped to rebuild people’s confidence and were positive for all concerned. The community garden in Councillor Thompson’s Ward could not stress enough the difference it had made to the people in the community by bringing them together.

The Leader was pleased to support the motion and highlighted that this had been supported in the past through the New Homes bonus Community Grants Scheme. She also highlighted that Councillors S. Webb and J. Till had done something similar in their wards and such initiatives could only enhance the district environment and the lives of the residents.

In discussing the motion in more detail Members were supportive of it and highlighted a number of schemes within their own Wards and identified areas where such projects could be undertaken, this included BDHT land in Councillor Baxter’s Ward. The benefits to both young and old were also discussed and how such projects brought all age groups together for the good of the community.

Councillor Thompson thanked everyone for their support with this motion.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried

Assessing the need for a bypass

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor R. Hunter:

“Increasing traffic congestion on Bromsgrove’s road network is a threat to the health and wellbeing of residents and the prosperity of local businesses. Future housing development will likely exacerbate this problem without appropriate new transport infrastructure. Previous attempts to assess the viability of a Western by-pass to address this issue have not concluded satisfactorily.

Council is grateful for the important work of members and officers in seeking solutions to this problem; and welcomes their commitment to working with Worcestershire County Council to undertake a Strategic Transport Assessment that will support the production of a robust Local Development Plan.

Council resolves that this project must include an adequate assessment of the viability of a range of different options when considering locations for future growth, one of which should be a western by-pass. This assessment will model not just existing traffic flows, but also the likely impact of increased volumes of traffic resulting from new developments, ensuring the shortcomings identified in the 2015 feasibility assessment of the bypass, as identified by Mot Mcdonald are not repeated.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Hunter and seconded by Councillor S. Baxter.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Hunter provided Members with information around the road networks and the constant problems which blighted Bromsgrove. He made reference to the A38 and School Lane and that there was not a day when part or all of the M5 was closed and the impact that this had on Bromsgrove and its residents. All these problems were frustrating for everyone and restricted them from being able to go about their daily business. A quarter of all journey times account for the delays which in turn impacted on the hours that people spent on the roads. This further impacted on air quality and people breathing in toxic fumes on a daily basis. It was noted that there was investment being made to the A38 and huge amount being put into a southern relief road in Worcester. Councillor Hunter was grateful for the Overview and Scrutiny Board Strategic Transport Review Report but it was important that this Council continued to make Worcestershire County Council (WCC) aware of the problems it faced on a daily basis.

Councillor Hunter made reference to the JNP Consultants report, which was at a technical level but did not contain any detail around how the problems needed to be addressed. It was important for Members to ask the right questions to the right people to ensure that Bromsgrove got the investment it deserved to address the ongoing problems.

Councillor Thompson responded to the motion by suggesting that it was very similar to one previously put forward by his own Group. He was of the view that everyone would be in agreement with the content and the ongoing infrastructure problems in the District. Councillor Hunter responded that it was not about politics but about working together and he understood it was some time since such a motion had been put forward and that it was an important issue which needed to remain high on the Council’s agenda.

The Leader responded that there was £50m investment in the A38 and that WCC were working on a Strategic Transport Assessment, which would address the issues discussed. She believed therefore that this motion was premature and that the Council needed to wait and see the outcome of that Assessment before lobbying for specific actions to address the problems. She also highlighted that the Council was working proactively with the GBS and Worcestershire LEPs.

Councillor A. Kent responded to the motion by stating that as the new Portfolio Holder for Planning, he was unable to support it as there were a number of options which needed to be explored before a decision was made as to what was the best way forward. As referred to by the Leader, the WCC Strategic Transport Assessment was not yet complete and the Council’s own Local Plan was currently under review, so it was premature to suggest a particular route to go down at this moment in time. It was imperative that the Council got it right and did not exacerbate the situation by making a hasty decision.

Councillor Baxter responded that it was clear that a solution needed to be found for both residents and visitors as the current position was very frustrating and there seemed to have been lots of promises made through various consultations and plans, the issues which had occurred in respect of LTP4 and those Members who were “dual hatters” had not helped matters. The important issue was that the problems needed to be resolved for the health and wellbeing of its residents; investment in the A38 would not achieve this. She believed that the Overview and Scrutiny Board Strategic Transport Review Report was an agenda for the leading group to keep the matter open for discussion and to enable it to be brought back to the Chamber.

The Leader responded to Councillor Baxter’s comments by advising that there were a number of strategic policies underpinning LTP4 which would provide the “hooks” to address these issues.

Councillor Colella also spoke in favour of the motion and highlighted the problems within his ward, making particular reference to the traffic congestion and the air quality and its impact on the health of residents. This was an opportunity to go back to WCC and hold further in depth discussions to enable them to understand the problems that were faced by this Council. The matter had been going on far too long and it had taken nearly two years for the Overview and Scrutiny Board’s report to be brought before Council and it was important that Members came together to resolve the traffic congestion and all the problems it brought to the District.

In summing up Councillor Hunter assured Members that he was not using this motion to make a political statement, but merely wished the Members to work together to address the problems faced by residents and therefore asked for Members support.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken and the voting was as follows:

For the motion: Councillors Baxter, Colella, Douglas, Hotham, Hughes, Hunter, Jenkins, McDonald, Rone-Clarke, Thompson, Van der Plank (11)

Against the motion: Councillors Beaumont, Deeming, Denaro, Glass, Jones, Kent, Kriss, May, Middleton, Sherrey, Spencer, Thomas, Till, Webb, Whittaker (15)

Abstentions: (0)

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

The Chairman announced that the allotted one hour timescale had expired and therefore the remaining motion would be carried over to the next meeting.

Councillor H. Rone-Clarke asked for an extension of the time allocated and this was seconded by Councillor M. Thompson. The Chairman agreed to put this to the vote and in doing so the extension of time was lost.

Playing our part in stopping climate change

The Notice of Motion from Councillor S. Hughes would be carried over to the next.

Supporting documents: