To consider Notices of Motion.

Notice of Motion One- Support for City of Culture Bid

Councillor Nenadich proposed the motion.  He commented on the process that would need to be followed to make a bid noting that the intention was that the bid would be based on a county-wide approach.  He emphasised how important substantial support from the local community would be to making a successful bid. He highlighted the breadth of cultural assets within the County in which the County should take pride.  He also emphasised the economic benefits that being city of culture had brought to other UK cities who had made successful bids.

There was general support for a bid to be made.  Members emphasised the importance of engaging the county as a whole. 

It was observed that if the Council’s support was to be meaningful careful consideration would need to be given to arts funding in setting the budget.  Funding from the Council could be critical to arts organisations in helping them to secure funding from other sources. There was evidence that every £1 spent on the arts generated £25-40 aside from providing health and wellbeing benefits.

The motion was carried with 36 votes in favour of it, none against it and one abstention.

RESOLVED: to ask the executive to explore ways of supporting a bid by the courtyard theatre and its partners for Hereford to be made the UK city of culture 2021.

Notice of Motion Two – Governance Arrangements

Councillor James proposed the motion.  He commented that the programme panels that had formed part of the governance arrangements when he had been Leader, when executive arrangements had been required by legislation to be introduced, had provided Members with a role in contributing to decision making and had enabled them to keep informed about decisions that were being taken.  He considered that under the current arrangements the majority of Members were not aware of and informed about the difficult decisions that had to be made.  There was a lack of accountability and no public support for the system. The motion did not advocate a particular solution but proposed an exploration of the available options for the new Council to consider in May.

Councillor Matthews, seconding the motion, stated that there was a need for decision making to be more open and transparent.  There was too much power in the hands of too few Councillors.  Members not on the executive felt sidelined.

The Leader of the Council commented that whilst he received correspondence about decisions that had been taken he had never received any complaining about the decision making process.  In his view the matter was not of concern to the public.   The real motivation for some Members was their dissatisfaction that they themselves did not have decision making powers

He did not accept that the process was secretive and lacked accountability.  He noted that the public had only been excluded on a very few occasions from Cabinet meetings.  Those exclusions had been in accordance with the customary procedure when commercially sensitive material was discussed.  Details of forthcoming decisions were available to Members.

He supported the formation of a working group to examine options for governance arrangements but remarked that it was important to establish what the reasons for seeking change were so that the correct solution could be found.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·         A number of authorities had been exploring options for revising their governance arrangements for some time and had already made improvements. 

·         Councillors had sought election to be involved in the decision making process.  Instead they found themselves excluded from it.  There was a lack of influence in decision making.  Members felt disenfranchised.

·         The expertise and experience of many Councillors was not being drawn upon. 

·         It should be recognised that Members had different skills.  Some relished exercising decision making powers; others flourished in a community representational role.

·         The respective roles of Council and the executive as currently established caused dissatisfaction.

·         The public were concerned when it was explained to them that under the current system the majority of the 58 Councillors had little decision making power.  A number of people had signed a petition in High Town supporting a change to the current arrangements.

·         New arrangements could ensure inclusivity in decision making without hindering the speed with which decisions could be taken. 

·         It was important that decisions could be taken promptly and acted upon.

·         The Committee system had not been perfect and had not been immune from charges of decisions having been taken behind closed doors. 

·         It was noted that the reference to the Committee system in the motion was not advocating that system be adopted but requesting that it be considered alongside other options.

·         The role of the Audit and Governance Committee in relation to governance matters should not be overlooked.

·         A Member recorded his disagreement with the sentiments expressed in paragraph 1 of the motion, considering paragraph 2 sufficient.

·         The Cabinet Member (Health and Wellbeing) commented that he had issued a considerable number of briefing notes.  He had also offered Members the opportunity to discuss issues with him but few Members had taken advantage of this offer.

The motion was carried with 36 votes in favour of it, 1 against it and 13 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That      (a)     Council take note of the public disillusionment with the current arrangements of Herefordshire Council. Their arrangements failing to include the majority of elected Councillors in the decision making process and the highly secretive manner in which the Council operates; and

              (b)     officers be instructed to produce a report on the alternative governance arrangement to include a streamlined committee system, with an all party working group being set up to oversee this alternative arrangement.

Notice of Motion 3 – The Living Wage

Councillor Norman proposed the motion.  She commented that the motion provided an opportunity to encourage other employers to follow the lead set by the Council.  Only a few Council employees were paid below the living wage and the differential between the lowest and highest paid posts was at a ratio of 1:11, compared with the 1:10 proposed in the motion.

Herefordshire was a low wage area and people were struggling to meet costs.  The consequences of low pay including the implication for crime levels were known. The payment of low wages meant that tax income was lower and that other parts of society had to provide support through the benefits system to supplement wages.

A number of businesses including several large employers and a number of Councils had adopted the living wage.  The Federation of Small Businesses had said the payment of the living wage should be a voluntary goal.

Councillor Bartlett, seconding the motion, commented that adopting the motion would set a good example.  It would also not be difficult for the Council to implement as it affected few employees and the proposed wage differential between the highest and lowest paid staff had almost been attained.

In the course of discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The Leader cautioned that he supported the introduction of the living wage payment for Council staff.  However, restricting the Council to an inflexible wage differential between the highest and lowest paid staff might prove restrictive.  Market rates should determine the appointment to the post of Chief Executive.  Also, if contractors, for example those providing care services, were to pay the living wage the additional cost to the Council would be some £3-5 million per annum.  In addition a number of people receiving care services were currently self-funding.  If costs were increased by the Council’s actions this would increase the burden on them.  Whilst the aim of the motion could be applauded the real solution was to provide economic growth.  The administration had put forward proposals to achieve growth, for example through infrastructure projects, although these had not received support across the Council.

·         The Cabinet Member (Health and Wellbeing) commented further on the difficult negotiations over the costs of commissioning adult social care services.  Advocates of the introduction of the living wage needed to be prepared to consider where savings could be obtained to support its implementation.

·         Small and medium sized businesses were facing difficult economic conditions.  In seeking to set a good example the Council should not give the impression that anyone not paying the living wage was setting a bad example.

·         It was noted that the motion proposed to encourage other employers to follow the Council’s example and was not prescriptive.

·         It was confirmed that by redefining posts currently paid below the minimum wage and giving them additional responsibilities the Council could introduce the living wage without having to revisit the evaluation of other posts.

·         The living wage had no statutory basis.   It was based on one calculated rate for London and one rate for elsewhere in the UK, making no distinction between urban and rural areas.

·         There were alternative ways of growing the economy to that proposed by the administration, for example a green economy.

Separate votes were taken on each part of the motion.

Point one of the motion was carried with 34 votes in favour of it, 3 against and 12 abstentions.

Point 2 of the motion was lost with 13 votes for it, 25 votes against it and 10 abstentions. 

Point 3 of the motion was lost with 17 votes for it, 24 against it and 8 abstentions.

RESOLVED:That the Chief Executive, as Head of Paid Service, be requested to report to the Employment Panel and Council on how to achieve the following outcome:              introduce the living wage (£7.85/hr) into the Council’s pay policy in place of the inadequate minimum wage.

Notice of Motion Four – Wellington Level Crossing, Haywood Lane, near Marden

Councillor Guthrie proposed the motion.  She commented on the situation as set out in the text accompanying the motion set out in the agenda papers.  She added that no action had been taken to examine the drainage issues to resolve the flooding at the location and there had been no explanation of Balfour Beatty’s decision not to proceed with the approach recommended in its report.  Action needed to be taken to avoid a serious accident.

The Leader commented that the situation was more difficult to resolve that it appeared.  He proposed a meeting between himself, the Cabinet Member, the Local Member, Chief Executive and Balfour Beatty to take the matter forward.

Councillor Bridges, seconding the motion, expressed his dismay that a solution to address such a serious safety issue had not been implemented.  He emphasised that gates needed to be provided and arrangements made to enable them to be locked when necessary at times of flooding.  Local residents supported this approach.  An upgrade to the crossing would cost over £1m and even if it were to be approved by Network Rail it would take several years before it would be implemented. He explained how the crossing currently operated and the risk to both rail users and road traffic inherent in the current situation.

The Cabinet Member (Transport and Roads) outlined a number of practical complications associated with locking gates at the crossing and the legal implications. He observed that a majority of those who ignored the road closed signs and got into difficulty were local people.  However, he supported a further meeting to discuss the issues.

Councillor Guthrie reiterated that it was essential that the gates were closed and locked when flooding occurred as originally recommended in Blafour Beatty’s report.

The motion was carried with 37 votes in favour of it, none against it and 6 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That to prevent a major incident with resultant loss of life at the Level Crossing and to ensure the safety of all road users, rail passengers and nearby residents, this Council resolves to request the executive to expedite the repositioning and locking of the gates as recommended in Balfour Beatty’s report.