Council Procedure Rule 11.14 refers.  The Motions (listed in the order received) that have been notified to the Head of Law and Governance by the deadline of 1.00pm on Wednesday 4^th July 2012 are attached to this agenda.

Council had before it ten Motions on Notice and reached decisions as follows:-

 

(1)       Council Estate Management – (Proposer – Councillor Stuart McCready, seconder Councillor Jean Fooks)

 

            ‘Up until the start of the 2011/12 financial year, twelve estate managers provided a landlord presence that reached all Council housing in Oxford.  The estate manager visited frequently and kept a constant pro-active eye out for problems and knew which department had the solutions.  Tenants knew who their estate manager was and could depend on getting a reply when they asked their estate manager to visit, see what a given problem was, and provide advice, help and advocacy in identifying and dealing with the City departments that had the solutions.

 

            For the past year we have had only five estate managers for the whole City, and the emphasis has been on tenants identifying and contacting for themselves the specialist team most likely to help with a given problem - and then they cannot be sure of dealing with the same person twice in a row. This has meant that tenants are faced with a more fragmented, and consequently less effective, landlord service. There is a sense on some estates that cases that were progressing when an estate manager was on the case have stalled and even very simple matters sometimes seem a bewildering challenge to get seen to.

 

            The Council therefore asks the Executive to investigate restructuring the landlord function to ensure that every tenant has a single familiar officer to whom they can reliably turn for a home visit and advice when they need help or service from the Housing Department.’

 

            Following a debate Council voted on the adoption of the Motion but this was not carried, 16 Members voting in favour of Motion and 24 Members voting against it.

 

            Following the vote the Chief Executive said that in the light of the points made in the debate he would arrange for estate mangers to receive further training on their wider role in the community.

 

(2)       Failure of the Green New Deal – (Proposer – Councillor David Williams, seconder Councillor Craig Simmons)

 

‘This Council is concerned that the Government flagship  policy, the so called ‘Green Deal’  to be launched in Oxford and other Cities in the Autumn, is already set to herald (by the Government’s own figures) a massive decline in roof insulation and  cavity wall insulations year on year.

 

By listening to the energy companies demands to remove some of their obligations, plus narrowing considerably the social criteria for subsidized insulation and most important setting the public loans at a commercial rate, as illustrated by the Secretary of State in his statement on the 11^th of June, the impact of the Green New Deal will be totally counter productive. His own revised figures indicate a drop of roof insulation from 900,000 per year (2012) to 150,000 (2013) (-83%) plus a fall in the number of cavity wall insulations from 700,000 (2012) to 400,000 (-67%). This will mean that the UK will without doubt miss its future climate change targets.

 

Council asks the Chief Executive to make representations as follows:-

 

(1)       To bring to the attention of the Secretary of State that a primary objective of his office should be to reduce carbon emissions and to reduce energy usage and that to achieve that a loft insulation programme and cavity wall schemes are the most cost effective ways to reduce heating bills and reduce costs to consumers;

 

(2)       To advise the Secretary of State that a Government prediction of a dramatic decline in roof insulation and cavity wall schemes to 150,000 and 400,000 respectively is a fraction of the target set in 2009 of 2.1 million homes with roof insulation each year and 1.4 million cavity wall schemes and unless these targets are met the UK will without doubt miss its own    targets for carbon emissions;

 

(3)               To call on the Government not to restrict loan subsidies to only the very poorest pockets in a limited number of communities and not to rely on market forces via commercial loans to deliver the necessary increases in loft insulation and cavity wall insulation that are needed but to expand the social criteria so that large areas of Oxford City may benefit;

 

(4)               To inform the Secretary of State that with an expanded social criteria to include low income families, all pensioners, those with a disability or            on income support and other vulnerable groups the primary objective of maintaining the insulation programme can be achieved.‘

 

Following a debate Council have voted on the adoption of the Motion and this was carried, 30 Members voting in favour of the Motion and 10 voting against.  

 

(3)       Local Authority Co-operative Network – (Proposer – Councillor Elise Benjamin, seconder Councillor David Williams)

 

‘This Council resolves to investigate becoming a member of the Local Authority Co-operative Network and to that end asks the Chief Executive to prepare a report to the City Executive Board in the Autumn illustrating the advantages that may accrue from membership in terms of a range of policies especially in the area of economic development, the creation of local co-operatives and housing trusts.

           

Council believes that this would assist the Council in developing the Co-operative ideal with possible trader’s co-operative such as the Covered Market, co-operative housing trusts, small co-operative productive enterprises and many more.’

           

            Councillor Rundle proposed an amendment to the Motion, and before it was seconded, the mover of the Motion and the seconder agreed to accept the amendment. The affect of the amendment was to delete the second paragraph and replace it with alternative wording so that the Motion for debate read as follows:-

 

‘This Council resolves to investigate becoming a member of the Local Authority Co-operative Network and to that end asks the Chief Executive to prepare a report to the City Executive Board in the Autumn illustrating the advantages that may accrue from membership in terms of a range of policies especially in the area of economic development, the creation of local co-operatives and housing trusts.

 

This Council, moreover, is determined to assist Oxford in becoming a city of co-operatives. To that end, it considers that, alongside investigating membership of the Local Authority Co-operative Network, it is a matter of priority to consider how the Council can support and promote co-operatives and requests that officers and Community and Partnerships Scrutiny Committee investigate all possible means to develop and embed co-operatives further in the fabric of our City's life.’

 

Following a debate Council voted on the adoption of the amended Motion and this was carried by general assent.

 

 (4)      Passenger Right to Privacy – (Proposer – Councillor David Williams, seconder Councillor Craig Simmons)

 

‘Given the intrusion into privacy and the abuse of civil liberties  this Council will oppose the introduction of recording (secret or explicit) of passenger conversations in public transport vehicles including buses, taxi cabs and  licensed private hire vehicles.  To that end Council resolves as follows:-

 

(1)       The concept of a passenger right to privacy in the passenger space will be incorporated into Oxford licensing conditions for taxi and private hire vehicles.

 

(2)       Oxfordshire County Council will be approached to seek a joint policy endorsing the same passenger rights to privacy in the passenger space concept to be a condition of all operators using bus routes in Oxfordshire.

 

(3)       The views of the Council are brought to the attention of the Stagecoach Company and a request made that they limit their present pilot project of recording passenger conversations on the Oxford to London Oxford Tube service to driver/passenger conversations whilst driving and that there is no recording in the passenger seating space.’

 

Following a debate Council voted on the adoption of the Motion but this was not carried, 14 Members voting in favour of the Motion and 21 Members voting against.  

 

(5)       Support for Gay Marriage and Civil Rights Partnerships – (Proposer – Councillor Criag Simmons, seconder Councillor Sam Hollick)

 

            ‘This Council places on record its support not only for the right of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual individuals to have the right to marry but also for heterosexuals to have a civil partnership if that is their preferred option. The Council believes that it is the right of all Oxford residents and those beyond the City to marry or enter civil partnerships in the manner they desire, whatever their sexuality.

 

            The Chief Executive to submit this stance by the Council to the relevant Secretary of State as a part of the Governments recent consultation leading up to the promised primary legislation on the issue.’

 

            Councillor Van Nooijen proposed an amendment to the Motion and, before it was seconded, the mover of the Motion and the seconder agreed to accept the amendment. The effect of the amendment was to add a paragraph at the end so that the Motion for debate read as follows:-

 

            ‘This Council places on record its support not only for the right of gay, lesbian and bi-sexual individuals to have the right to marry but also for heterosexuals to have a civil partnership if that is their preferred option. The Council believes that it is the right of all Oxford residents and those beyond the City to marry or enter civil partnerships in the manner they desire, whatever their sexuality.

 

The Chief Executive to submit this stance by the Council to the relevant Secretary of State as a part of the Governments recent consultation leading up to the promised primary legislation on the issue.

 

            Noting that no rooms in the Town Hall are currently used for religious marriage ceremonies, and that 'marriage' in the context of this motion is not a matter relating to the conscience of any one of the many religions represented in this City and this Council Chamber but rather a simple matter of administrative procedure, Council wholeheartedly affirms its intention that the rooms in the Town Hall currently used for civil marriage ceremonies should continue to be used for marriages once the law has been changed to provide equal civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.’

 

            Following a debate Council voted on the adoption of the Motion and this was carried, 37 Members voting in favour of the amended Motion and 3 Members voting against.

 

(6)       Taxi Licenses City Quotas – (Proposer – Councillor Criag Simmons, seconder Councillor Dick Wolff

 

            ‘This Council is conscious of the present review of taxi licensing laws being carried out by the Law Commission and would place on record its desire for local authorities to retain the power to establish a restricted quota of taxi licenses in Oxford City. The Council takes this stance in the belief that limiting the number of licenses will assist the City in enforcing regulations on the taxi and private hire operators that may be laid down from time to time.

 

            The Chief Executive is instructed to forward a clear statement to that effect to the Secretary of the Law Commission illustrating the advantages that accrue to local authorities from not adopting a free market unrestricted unregulated system.’

 

            Councillor Price proposed an amendment to the Motion and, before it was seconded, the mover of the Motion and the seconder agreed to accept the amendment. The effect of the amendment was to delete the first paragraph and to amend the second paragraph by deleting the words ‘to that effect’ and inserting the words ‘of current Council policy on taxi Licensing’ so that the Motion for debate read as follows:-

 

            ‘The Chief Executive is instructed to forward a clear statement of current Council policy on taxi Licensing to the Secretary of the Law Commission illustrating the advantages that accrue to local authorities from not adopting a free market unrestricted unregulated system.’

 

            Following a debate Council voted on the adoption of the amended Motion and this was carried by general assent.

 

(7)       Localising Democracy – (Proposer – Councillor David Williams, seconder Councillor Dick Wolff)

 

            ‘The present Area Forum structure is not seen as a meaningful devolution of power and responsibility in tune with the present Localism Act.

 

            Abolition of Area Committees diminished local participation in planning decisions and engagement of local voluntary organisations and citizens in real local grass roots democracy.

 

            The replacement Area Forum structure introduced in 2011 is not seen as a meaningful devolution of power in tune with the present Localism Act, having no defined responsibilities or budget.

 

            Consequently there is a need to reconsider devolved decision making in Oxford with a new approach that focuses on localising democracy to reflect the diversity of the City and its many communities.

 

            In Blackbird Leys, Littlemore, Old Marston, and Risinghurst and Sandhills, the Parish Councils have statutory powers regarding planning and services, and in someother areas local communities and neighbourhoods are seeking a greater say in local planning through neighbourhood and community forums.

 

            To ensure consistency and to advance fairness and democracy across the City, the Chief Executive is tasked to conduct a Community Governance Review, in accordance with the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (2007) and the more recent Localism Act (2011) with a view to establishing new local elected councils (which may be called: Parish Councils, Community Councils, Neighbourhood Councils or Village Councils), to cover all areas of the City of Oxford.

 

            In addition to these local councils' powers of precept, the City will provide additional funding to support real devolved decision making in a defined range of services. The new local councils would thus be publicly elected bodies with clearly identified powers, responsibilities and budgets.

 

            The Chief Executive to produce a report to Council in the late autumn after a period of consultation illustrating the defined communities the local councils would serve, the services that could be devolved to the new local councils, and the funding mechanism that could be deployed to ensure their effectiveness.’

 

            Councillor Fooks proposed an amendment to the Motion and, before it was seconded, the mover of the Motion and his seconder agreed to accept the amendment. The effect of the amendment was to delete the sixth and seventh paragraphs  and replace them with revised paragraphs so that the Motion for debate read as follows:-

           

            ‘The present Area Forum structure is not seen as a meaningful devolution of power and responsibility in tune with the present Localism Act.

 

            Abolition of Area Committees diminished local participation in planning decisions and engagement of local voluntary organisations and citizens in real local grass roots democracy.

 

            The replacement Area Forum structure introduced in 2011 is not seen as a meaningful devolution of power in tune with the present Localism Act, having no defined responsibilities or budget.

 

            Consequently there is a need to reconsider devolved decision making in Oxford with a new approach that focuses on localising democracy to reflect the diversity of the City and its many communities.

 

            In Blackbird Leys, Littlemore, Old Marston, and Risinghurst and Sandhills, the Parish Councils have statutory powers regarding planning and services, and in someother areas local communities and neighbourhoods are seeking a greater say in local planning through neighbourhood and community forums.

 

            In accordance with the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and the more recent Localism Act 2011, Council asks the Chief Executive to conduct a community Governance review, with a view to establishing whatever form of Local Governance is supported by the residence of an area. This might be Parish Councils, Community Councils, Neighbourhood councils or Community Assemblies.

 

            Council further asks the City Executive Board to work with the new bodies to determine what powers and budgets they would like to give the real influence over what happens in their areas.

 

            The Chief Executive to produce a report to Council in the late autumn after a period of consultation illustrating the defined communities the local councils would serve, the services that could be devolved to the new local councils, and the funding mechanism that could be deployed to ensure their effectiveness.’

 

            Following a debate Council voted on the adoption of the amended Motion but this was not carried, 17 Members voting in favour of the amended Motion and 25 Members voting against.

 

            At this point the time allowed in the Constitution to deal with Motions had been fully used. The remaining three Motions on notice were therefore not taken.