Council Procedure Rule 11.16 refers.

 

Motions received by the Head of Law and Governance by the deadline of 1.00pm on Wednesday 17^th September 2014 are attached to this agenda.

Council had before it six motions on notice and reached decisions as set out below.

 

(1)  Privatisation of the Probation Service

 

Labour Group member Motion on Notice - proposed by Councillor John Tanner, seconded by Councillor Dee Sinclair.

 

Oxford City Council considers the planned privatisation of 70% of the Probation Service as reckless, dangerous and costly.  It is likely to increase re-offending in Oxford, could compromise the safety of local residents and ignores the expertise of the local probation service.

 

Coming hard on the heels of the savage cuts in Legal Aid this attack on the Probation Service underlines the Coalition’s lack of interest in tackling crime. We call on the Government to withdraw its proposals and negotiate with the National Association of Probation officers for a sensible way forward.

 

Decision

 

Following debate and voting, Council agreed to adopt the motion as set out above.

 

(2) Low Carbon Economy

 

Liberal Democrat Group member Motion on Notice - proposed by Councillor Jean Fooks, seconded by Councillor Andrew Gant.

 

Council notes the progress so far made to develop Oxfordshire’s Low Carbon Economy, worth more than £1.15bn pa in sales, employing nearly 9000 people in more than 570 businesses.

 

It welcomes the award for Oxford’s Community energy work, including the innovative loan of £2.3m to the Low Carbon Hub for solar panels on schools.

 

Council believes that Oxford can do more to develop the Low Carbon Economy, to the benefit of its citizens. It therefore asks the Executive Board to work with the LEP to:

 

·           Investigate sources of funding for supporting researchers in winning grants from EU and UK research councils.

·           Prioritise training for skilled jobs in the low carbon building sector.

·           Develop the business case for investment in the Smart City concept.

·           Focus support on growth sectors such as alternative fuelled vehicles.

·           Appoint a ‘champion’ to co-ordinate all the strands necessary for success.

 

Amendment 1 – proposed by Councillor Brandt and accepted by the proposer of the motion (Councillor Fooks)

 

Add a further bullet point: Increase its own direct investment in low carbon energy sources.

 

Amendment 2 – proposed by Councillor Tanner and seconded by Councillor Price, and agreed after debate and on being put to the vote:

 

In paragraph 3, after LEP insert ‘and others’ before ‘to’. Change last bullet point to read: ‘Become champions to ensure all the strands necessary for success’.

 

Decision

 

Both amendments were accepted and incorporated into the motion, then debated and put to the vote.

 

Council agreed to adopt the amended motion as follows:

 

Council notes the progress so far made to develop Oxfordshire’s Low Carbon Economy, worth more than £1.15bn pa in sales, employing nearly 9000 people in more than 570 businesses.

 

It welcomes the award for Oxford’s Community energy work, including the innovative loan of £2.3m to the Low Carbon Hub for solar panels on schools.

 

Council believes that Oxford can do more to develop the Low Carbon Economy, to the benefit of its citizens. It therefore asks the Executive Board to work with the LEP and others to:

 

·           Investigate sources of funding for supporting researchers in winning grants from EU and UK research councils.

·           Prioritise training for skilled jobs in the low carbon building sector.

·           Develop the business case for investment in the Smart City concept.

·           Focus support on growth sectors such as alternative fuelled vehicles.

·           Increase its own direct investment in low carbon energy sources.

·           Become champions to ensure all the strands necessary for success.

 

(3) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and its possible effect on local service provision

 

Green Group member Motion on Notice - proposed by Councillor Sam Hollick, seconded by Councillor Ruthi Brandt.

 

Proposals under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to govern trade relations between the EU and USA are currently being negotiated in secret.

 

UNISON believes TTIP is: “a profound threat to public services, which will not only lead to further liberalisation but will make it harder for government to regulate private companies providing public services. It could effectively prevent a future government bringing those services back in-house.”

 

and that it “threatens to restrict the ability of local authorities and other public bodies to source and employ locally. This undermines their ability to use public money to achieve social and environmental outcomes through their supply chain and employment practices.”

 

The TTIP will open up local authority procurement processes (already under scrutiny from EU Regulation) to US corporations meaning that contracts for some services could be challenged by US companies in such a way so as to undermine local democracy, threaten staff pay, the Council’s commitment to a living wage and employment conditions. 

 

Amongst its provisions, the TTIP includes an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism which allows multinational corporate investors to challenge government actions which they perceive as threatening to their investment. The cost to the Council of fighting any such legal action, were they to be challenged, could be immense.

 

Council therefore RESOLVES to call upon the leader of the council and the leaders of the two opposition groups to write to Oxford’s MPs and MEPs, and to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, asking them to reject the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

 

Amendment – proposed by Councillor Turner after the deadline for receipt of substantive changes to the motion:

 

Amend "The TTIP will open up" to "The TTIP could open up".

 

Add a new paragraph, after "could be immense".

"A new trade deal with the US could be of substantial benefit in improving the position of British exporters, and the ability to negotiate international trade deals is a benefit of British membership of the EU. However, it is essential that neither this trade agreement, nor the one with Canada currently being negotiated, threaten existing standards of environmental, social and labour market regulation. It is also imperative that vital public services in the UK, including the NHS and education, can continue to be provided publicly without challenge. It would be unwarranted for TTIP to include any extension of secretive ISDS procedures.

 

Amend the final paragraph to read:

"Council therefore RESOLVES to call upon the leader of the council and the leaders of the two opposition groups to write to Oxford’s MPs and MEPs ,and to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, asking them to reject any trade deal, including TTIP, if it leads to downward pressure upon environmental, social or labour market regulation, or the enforced opening up to private providers the provision of public services".

 

As the amendment was declared substantive by the mover of the motion, Councillor Turner moved suspension of Council procedure rule 11.18(f) to allow his amendment to be debated; this was voted on and agreed by Council.

 

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Coulter.  The amendment was agreed after debate and being put to the vote.

 

Decision

 

The amendment was accepted and incorporated into the motion, then debated and put to the vote.

 

Council agreed to adopt the amended motion as follows:

 

Proposals under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to govern trade relations between the EU and USA are currently being negotiated in secret.

 

UNISON believes TTIP is: “a profound threat to public services, which will not only lead to further liberalisation but will make it harder for government to regulate private companies providing public services. It could effectively prevent a future government bringing those services back in-house.” and that it “threatens to restrict the ability of local authorities and other public bodies to source and employ locally. This undermines their ability to use public money to achieve social and environmental outcomes through their supply chain and employment practices.”

 

The TTIP could open up local authority procurement processes (already under scrutiny from EU Regulation) to US corporations meaning that contracts for some services could be challenged by US companies in such a way so as to undermine local democracy, threaten staff pay, the Council’s commitment to a living wage and employment conditions.

 

Amongst its provisions, the TTIP includes an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism which allows multinational corporate investors to challenge government actions which they perceive as threatening to their investment. The cost to the Council of fighting any such legal action, were they to be challenged, could be immense.

 

A new trade deal with the US could be of substantial benefit in improving the position of British exporters, and the ability to negotiate international trade deals is a benefit of British membership of the EU. However, it is essential that neither this trade agreement, nor the one with Canada currently being negotiated, threaten existing standards of environmental, social and labour market regulation. It is also imperative that vital public services in the UK, including the NHS and education, can continue to be provided publicly without challenge. It would be unwarranted for TTIP to include any extension of secretive ISDS procedures.

 

Council therefore RESOLVES to call upon the leader of the council and the leaders of the two opposition groups to write to Oxford’s MPs and MEPs, and to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, asking them to reject any trade deal, including TTIP, if it leads to downward pressure upon environmental, social or labour market regulation, or the enforced opening up to private providers the provision of public services.

 

(4) End the injustice of tax dodging

 

Labour Group member Motion on Notice - proposed by Councillor Bev Clack, seconded by Councillor Tom Hayes.

 

While many ordinary people face falling household income and rising costs of living, some multinational companies are avoiding billions of pounds of tax from a tax system that fails to make them pay their fair share. Local governments in developing countries and the UK alike would benefit from a fairer tax system where multinational companies pay their fair share, enabling authorities around the world to provide quality public services. This council asks the UK government to listen to the strength of public feeling and to act to end the injustice of tax dodging by large multinational companies, in developing countries and the UK.

 

Decision

 

Council agreed to adopt the motion as set out above.

 

(5) Municipal bonds

 

Liberal Democrat Group member Motion on Notice - proposed by Councillor Jean Fooks.

 

Council notes:

·           that local authorities across the country and across political parties want to have more powers to raise their own funds. This is particularly relevant at present as Governments of all complexions are likely to be reducing central grant as local demand for services increases

·           that the Local Government Association believes that having a council-owned agency could save local authorities over £1bn in borrowing cost compared to the Public Loans Board

·           that by July 2014 22 councils of all kinds had pledged almost £3m towards the setting up of a municipal bonds agency.

 

Council further notes that although the City Council is not looking to borrow at present, there could be big gains in the future from being able to access funds for capital investment in such ‘invest-to-save’ projects as renewable energy installation and specialist housing.

 

Council therefore asks the Executive Board to investigate the opportunities offered by joining the agency now rather than wait and be left behind.

 

Decision

 

Councillor Fooks’ motion on notice was not considered as the time allowed by the constitution for motions on notice had elapsed.

 

(6) Making Oxford a Social Enterprise City

 

Green Group member Motion on Notice – proposed by Councillor Dick Wolff.

 

This Council welcomes the announcement that Oxfordshire has become the UK’s first Social Enterprise County and congratulates the Oxfordshire Social Enterprise Partnership (OSEP), an innovative new partnership set up by Oxford Brookes University, the University of Oxford and Student Hubs to foster and support social enterprise locally.

 

This Council recognises the value of Social Enterprises to the Council and the local economy and aspires to join other cities in becoming one of the UK’s first Social Enterprise Cities.

 

This would require, amongst other things, that the Council:

·           Establish business rate policies which support long-term and sustainable social and economic value creation.

·           Explore the possibility of creating “Meanwhile Enterprise Zones” and “Social Enterprise Zones”.

·           Review its policies to ensure that it is commissioning, procuring and buying goods and services in a manner which maximises social value (under the Social Value Act).

·           Provide funding support for social innovations and social enterprises

·           Look at ways and means of stimulating and supporting social enterprise in the area

 

Council therefore asks CEB to instruct officers to draw up a draft Social Enterprise Strategy for Oxford City.

 

Decision                        

 

Councillor Wolff’s motion on notice was not considered as the time allowed by the constitution for motions on notice had elapsed.