Agenda item

Motions on Notice (to follow)

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:

The Chairman explained that 2 Motions on Notice had been received for consideration at the Council meeting.

Scams

Members considered the following Motion on Notice submitted by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke

“Protecting the people of Bromsgrove from scams this Christmas and new year.

Council notes it is becoming more difficult than ever to distinguish scams from legitimate communications; as well as reporting by the Guardian that, in the financial year 2020/21, £2.3 billion pounds was lost to scam artists.

Therefore, Council resolves to establish ways to actively warn residents of any new schemes aimed at scamming the public using the council’s website and social media, and encourages members to support those in our communities vulnerable to scams by joining initiatives such as the National Trading Standards “Friends against Scams” scheme which provides basic training and support for those wishing to help.”

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

In proposing the Motion, Councillor Rone-Clarke explained that he had personally come close to being a victim of a scam and had been targeted by scammers on a number of occasions. The £32.3 billion lost to scammers every year was likely to be an underestimate. The proposed Motion would help to build on work that was already being undertaken to tackle the actions of scammers and to prevent people from becoming victims of scams. The Council could assist victims and potential victims by using the authority’s website and social media to help raise awareness of issues relating to scamming.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor P. McDonald commented that scams could have a devastating impact on victims. Victims could lose both their finances and the opportunities that would have been available to them in terms of use of those finances. Unfortunately, some victims of scams could enter into debt as a consequence of their experience and this could impact on both personal relationships and a person’s mental health. Councillor McDonald raised concerns that often the most vulnerable members of society, such as elderly people, tended to be targeted by scammers. Any action that could be taken by the Council to address this problem would help victims.

During consideration of this item, amendments to the Motion were proposed by Councillor P. Thomas.

The amended Motion was as follows:

“Council notes the comprehensive work undertaken in working with its many partners to protect our residents against fraudulent activity.

Amongst others this includes:

· Funding the Nominated Neighbour Scheme.

· Working with West Mercia Police to promote their Neighbourhood Matters Community Messaging System.

· Supporting the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC’s) West Mercia Cyber Crime Partnership to promote the National Cyber Security Centre and Get Safe online platforms.

· Taking part in the Local Resilience Forum on Cyber Crime and promoting the work of Action Fraud and the National Fraud and Cyber Crime Reporting Centre.

· Actively using our social media to warn residents of scams we become aware of; and

· Dedicating a page in our monthly staff newsletter to Cybersecurity and the latest scams being used.

Council also notes it is becoming more difficult than ever to distinguish scams from legitimate communications; as well as reporting by the Guardian that, in the financial year 2020/21, £2.3 billion pounds was lost to scam artists.

Council resolves to further strengthen its efforts to protect its residents against scams and fraudulent activities of all types and resolves to look at adding the “Friends Against Scams” scheme, together with any worthwhile scheme, after having evaluated its merits next to schemes in which the Council is already involved.”

Councillor H. Rone-Clarke, as the proposer of the original Motion, confirmed that he would accept the amendments to the Motion.

Members subsequently discussed the amended Motion in detail and in so doing raised personal experiences of being targeted by scammers. Members commented that scams often impacted on the health and wellbeing of victims as the experience could be very traumatic.

On being put to the vote the Motion was carried.

RESOLVED that

Council notes the comprehensive work undertaken in working with its many partners to protect our residents against fraudulent activity.

Amongst others this includes:

· Funding the Nominated Neighbour Scheme.

· Working with West Mercia Police to promote their Neighbourhood Matters Community Messaging System.

· Supporting the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC’s) West Mercia Cyber Crime Partnership to promote the National Cyber Security Centre and Get Safe online platforms.

· Taking part in the Local Resilience Forum on Cyber Crime and promoting the work of Action Fraud and the National Fraud and Cyber Crime Reporting Centre.

· Actively using our social media to warn residents of scams we become aware of; and

· Dedicating a page in our monthly staff newsletter to Cybersecurity and the latest scams being used.

Civil Parking Enforcement

Council also considered the following Motion on Notice submitted by Councillor P. McDonald:

"Enforcement of traffic orders outside of the Town Centre is now a rarity and many residents are being put at risk because of a lack of traffic enforcement. Therefore, this Council looks to increase the capacity of Enforcement Officers as part of the 2022/23 budget setting process so outlying areas such as Rubery are policed efficiently."

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

In proposing the Motion, Councillor McDonald commented that residents living in the Rubery ward had reported concerns about the amount of time the Civil Enforcement Officers undertook enforcement action in the ward. Councillor McDonald raised concerns about the frequency with which the Civil Enforcement Officers undertook enforcement action outside Bromsgrove town centre. Members were asked to note that there were parts of Rubery, particularly near the industrial estates, where large HGV vehicles had reportedly been parking on double yellow lines and blocking roadways. Residents had attempted to report these problems but had struggled to get through to the Civil Enforcement Officer team. Councillor McDonald concluded by raising concerns that parts of the District outside of Bromsgrove town centre were the subject of discrimination, due to the location of the work of the Civil Enforcement Officers and the frequency with which they visited areas outside Bromsgrove town centre.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Rone-Clarke commented that outside of Bromsgrove town centre there was more limited Civil Enforcement activity in operation. Councillor Rone-Clarke commented that there needed to be a radical overhaul of the way that the Council managed car parking, which took into account parking statistics within context.

In discussing the Motion, some Members commented that they were in support of the Motion due to concerns about the level of enforcement action across the whole of the District, not just in Rubery. Council was asked to note that additional Civil Enforcement Officers operating in the District had been proposed in alternative budgets in recent years and Members commented that any additional Officers could be self-funding, depending on the amount of income that was generated by enforcement action.

Other Members commented that they could not support the Motion. Extra funding had already been allocated to the Civil Enforcement Officer team to enhance enforcement around schools. This funding had allowed other Officers to undertake additional On Street enforcement around the District. Officers were working on a report that would propose a change in the way the Pay On Foot car parks operated in Bromsgrove. This change would also increase the capacity of available Officers to undertake enforcement. Members were also asked to note that in the previous 6 months (May to October 2021), enforcement Officers had visited Rubery Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) on 251 occasions and had issued 52 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). It was suggested that any proposals to expand the service should be referred for the consideration of the Finance and Budget Working Group.

Reference was also made to the frequency with which parking issues were raised by residents living in Rubery. On the one hand, it was noted that residents living in Rubery South ward tended to report concerns about receiving tickets from the Civil Enforcement Officers, particularly when parking near schools. On the other hand, it was highlighted that residents living in Rubery North ward were raising concerns about their safety as a result of problem parking, particularly by HGVs.

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

Members voting FOR the Motion:

Councillors S. Baxter, S. Colella, S. Douglas, A. English, R. Jenkins, J. King, P. McDonald, S. Robinson, H. Rone-Clarke and K. Van Der Plank (10).

Members voting AGAINST the Motion:

Councillors A. Beaumont, R. Deeming, G. Denaro, M. Glass, H. Jones, A. Kriss, K. May, M. Middleton, M. Sherrey, C. Spencer, P. Thomas, M. Thompson, J. Till and P. Whittaker (14).

Members voting to ABSTAIN:

No Councillors (0).

On being put to the vote the Motion was therefore lost.

Supporting documents: