Councillors raise concerns over number of motions at full council meetings not being debated

Councillors have the right to put a ‘motion’ – an issue of public interest – to the Full Council for debate and the matter is then voted on for approval or refusal.

At many Full Council meetings in the last two years the time taken to cover ‘other council business’, has meant that many motions put forward by concerned councillors are not being debated, instead the motions are often put straight to a vote.

Some now fear this is becoming more of an issue as meetings are taking place online and have voiced their anger at the number of motions not being debated or given consideration by Full Council members.

Because of time constraints, more than half of the motions on the last week’s agenda went undebated, with those matters being concluded by going straight to a vote.

Cllr Chris Wiggin (LibDem), had put forward a Black Lives Matter motion, asking the council to reaffirm support for the annual events taking place in Peterborough during Black History month.

But his motion, and twelve others like it were not debated because of new rules governing online local authority meetings restricting them to three hours maximum.

Several councillors proposed those rules be amended to allow another hour’s worth of debating time; but this too was defeated.

Cllr Heather Skibsted (Labour), said: “Some time ago I suggested the way motions be ordered on the agenda should be to allow councillors to ask just one question at a time.

“That way, members with multiple questions would wait before asking their second question, allowing everybody to get their first question asked.

“This was agreed; but that isn’t happening. Looking at the list of motions, some councillors have been allotted two questions to be asked, before others have had a chance to ask their first question”.

Speaking after the meeting Cllr Nick Sandford (Leader, LibDem Group), said: “Cllr Wiggin was very disappointed that not only was his motion not debated, but the Conservatives voted against allowing it to be brought forward on tonight’s agenda so that it could be given the time for consideration.

“Instead, we’ve spent more than forty minutes talking about a motion for e-scooters in the city, something that won’t even be happening for many months to come.

“Cllr Wiggin has elected not to withdraw his motion, as that would’ve meant it couldn’t be put to Full Council again for another six months.

“Instead, he elected his motion ‘not be moved’, which in council-speak means it’s as if it were never put forward at all.

“It is our intention however, to re-table the Black Lives Matter motion at the next Full Council meeting in October, and hopefully this time it will get the chance it deserves to be debated and considered”.

The decision not to debate Cllr Wiggin’s motion drew considerable response from members of the public listening and watching online last week, with many voicing their confusion and displeasure at the council’s actions.

Cllr Wiggin added: “Although the Conservatives had indicated they were opposed to the motion, I wanted to be able to debate it so we can show our support for the Black Lives Matter movement and to find out why the Conservatives were opposed to the motion.

“Are they opposed to the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ like the East Cambs Conservatives who voted to remove those words from a similar motion put forward to their council by my friend and colleague Cllr Matt Downey? Are they just opposed to anti-racism campaigns?

“Or did they just want to play political games and ensure no-one else got the credit for putting something forward, as they did with climate emergency, when opposition parties were working together on a motion, but then an alternative motion appeared for debate in the name of the Council Leader, and was bumped up the agenda?

“The fact that the Conservatives refused requests to move the Black Lives Matter motion up the agenda, and to extend the council meeting to debate the motion, leaves many more questions than answers.

“That lack of answers may lead many to draw their own conclusions about the motives of the ruling Conservative Group.

“My motion on Black Lives Matter will now be put forward on the agenda for the next Full Council meeting, due for Wednesday, October 21, 2020.”

Before the full council meeting teh Conservative group put out a statement outlining why it would not be support Cllr Wiggins’s motion.

Peterborough Conservatives to reject calls for a review on street names for potential racist links

Cllr Wiggin’s motion in full:

To reaffirm the Council’s support for the annual events in Peterborough celebrating Black History month. That the relevant scrutiny committee convenes a Task and Finish group to review BAME issues to:

Review and examine the City Council structure to ensure ethnic minorities are not disadvantaged.

Understand specifically how many BAME we employ, where are they working, what barriers, if any exist to their career progression and whether a “name blind” recruitment process would aid in the recruitment of more BAME staff.

Review the evidence, provide recommendations to Council and devise a set of KPIs and a challenging outturn for us to achieve this.

BAME access to housing and to homelessness and welfare support are important parts of the council remit.

Group to review and recommend concrete actions on how we adopt an actively anti-racist outlook within areas where we have influence, by reviewing our corporate policies so that antiracism is explicit and not implied; by routinely calling for transparent reporting and continuous monitoring of the impact on the BAME community: and if any other meaningful statistics that can be monitored regularly can be produced.

Review council Equality policies and recommend if any amendments are required.

Review progress on recommendations produced by this group.

To conduct an audit of street names and any public monuments or other buildings this Council is responsible for which name individuals or organisations, to review any that have racist links.

Upon completion, the relevant scrutiny committee to convene a task and finish group to review this list and produce a set of recommendations back to Council on any actions that should be taken.

Ensure Peterborough schools include BAME history and culture in lessons, including providing further historical context for events normally only seen through the lens of white British history.

Ask the Combined Authority to produce a toolkit for businesses to help broaden their understanding of race inequality in the workplace, including but not limited to materials, signposts to relevant local groups and training that can be provided for staff, and links to relevant networks.

Write to our MPs to ask that, rather than spending money on another race inequality review, that the Government implements recommendations of previous reviews - for example the Lammy and Windrush recommendations.

A summary of Motions of Notice from councillors voted on at Full Council (July 29).

Motion from Cllr Assiyah Joseph:
The council resolves to request that the Adults and Communities Scrutiny Committee set up a Task and Finish Group to review: How the council can promote equality and diversity for all councillors including consideration of phasing out the use of gender defining titles. This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Andy Coles:
The council resolves to run a consultation to establish what might be the best way of remembering all of our loved ones and to set up a body representing the bereaved families and public authorities to make recommendations as to the most fitting way to mark the loss of so many. This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Chris Burbage:
The council resolves to consider whether to introduce e-scooters with the proper licensing and agreements as one alternative from of transport to the motor vehicle to reduce carbon emissions. This needs to be referred to the next therefore resolves to refer this issue to the meeting of the Growth, Environment and Resources Scrutiny Committee for full further consideration by a Task and Finish group who will make a recommendation to Cabinet.
This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Peter Hiller:
The council resolves to establish a new COVID-19 Peterborough Citizen’s Award scheme in order to recognise and honour the amazing contribution and sacrifices made by some of the citizens of our city during this pandemic, which has affected so many lives. This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Ansar Ali:
The council recognises how important heritage, museum, library, leisure, sports, summer activities, and arts facilities and services are for the city council and its residents. Council believes is clear that we need a long-term plan to secure such services and with the current situation in relation to Vivacity the council should is exploring all options; this including direct provision, working with partners, the creation of a new Arts and Leisure Trust, and the establishment of a co-operative to deliver these services. Council instructs confirms that work to directly deliver and, re-open such services is progressing, set up summer schemes and explore establishing a co-operative is progressed as a matter of urgency. This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Nick Sandford:
Council supports Natural Cambridgeshire’s aim of doubling the area of land managed for nature across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough by 2050 and in particular supports the John Clare Countryside project, which aims to create, launch and deliver an ambitious and accessible nature recovery area across the landscape areas to the west of Peterborough. This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Nick Sandford:
Council: Congratulates City Council staff, NHS and social care staff and all volunteers who have worked so hard in managing the COVID-19 crisis in Peterborough; Believes that decisions on management of any future outbreaks of COVID-19 and any local lockdowns or other measures to deal with such outbreaks are best made locally here in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough; Asks the Director of Public Health to write to Peterborough’s members of Parliament urging them to press the Government to delegate the necessary powers to Cambridgeshire County and Peterborough City Councils to enable any such decisions to be made locally in future. This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Nicola Day:
The Council resolves to: Create a Food Strategy to address the causes of food inequality in Peterborough for implementation during the 2021/2022 municipal year. In order for this to happen, the council will: Identify ‘food champions’ within the council to lead the project:Identify a lead partnership organisation and apply for funding to develop the strategy, action plans and projects: Create a network of food partnership organisations and consult residents to contribute to the creation of a ‘Food Action Plan’ o Prioritise those with least access to healthy food:The Council will endeavour to encourage the production of food locally and support the sale of such produce. This motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Christian Hogg:
Council notes: There are a number of recycling banks across the city, these banks are supplied and operated by a number of different charities and companies;
 They are well used by residents and become full fairly often. This can lead to donations being left around the outside of the bank, with the potential for this to be spread around the area in high winds. Technically this practice is considered fly tipping and should be discouraged; Currently if a member of public report full banks via ‘FixMyStreet’ or the council’s own website they are told that the council doesn’t operate these banks and for the resident to contact the owner of the bank to get it emptied.
Council resolves to: Identify all the banks across the city, to create a register so that when the council has a full bin reported to it, the council will email the operator of the bank to get the bank emptied; Require, where possible but certainly encourage, the operators of recycling banks to place contact details for reporting full banks to, by phone and/or email; Require, where possible but certainly encourage, the operators of recycling banks to place warnings that putting donations around the bank is fly tipping and they might be issued with a fine, if caught. The motion was AGREED.

Motion from Cllr Chris Wiggin:
The council notes that: No fault evictions, introduced under Section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act, allow landlords to evict tenants, without having to give a reason, once the term of the tenancy has expired; 80% of England’s 11 million renters are on tenancies with fixed terms of six months or a year; after this period has ended, landlords can evict their tenants under Section 21 without cause; Research published by Generation Rent indicates that Section 21 evictions are now the single biggest cause of homelessness in England; And that in 2017, Scotland made tenancies indefinite and banned no-fault evictions under the terms of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.; And in 2019, the Government launched a consultation on repealing Section 21 and reforming the eviction process in England, to which this Council responded in full support.
This Council believes that: A tenant should not be evicted from their home without good reason; Tenants should have more stability, avoiding the need to make frequent moves at short notice and enabling them to put down roots and plan for the future; Abolishing Section 21 no-fault evictions would help to make renting more secure and communities more stable, improve standards and increase tenant confidence; Landlords should be able to regain their property should they wish to sell it or move into it themselves; Tackling homelessness, which should be a priority for government at all levels; The Government should bring forward its legislative proposals as soon as practicably possible. The council resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reiterate its support for these reforms and urge him to respond to the consultation and introduce legislation in this Parliamentary session.

This motion was AGREED.

Motions 1-4 were fully debated and considered by Full Council; motions 5-10 were not debated or considered, and were only voted on. This was because of the rules covering virtual meetings protocol allowing only three hours for a Full Council meeting and the meeting had already passed the three-hour maximum.