Councillor(s) Altaf-Khan, Aziz, Clarkson, Djafari-Marbini, Dunne, Haines, Hunt, Lygo and L Smith sent apologies.

The minutes show when Councillors who were absent for part of the meeting arrived and left.

Item 10: Statement of Licensing Policy (Licensing Act 2003)

Cllr Malik: stated that he is a self-employed taxi driver working in Oxford City; he made the declaration for reasons of transparency; it was not a pecuniary interest

Minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council held on 31 January 2022 and of the budget meeting of Council held on 16 February 2022.

Council is asked to approve the minutes as a correct record.

Council agreed to approve the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 31 January 2022 and the budget meeting of Council held on 16 February 2022 as a true and correct record.

Any proposed changes will be circulated with the briefing note or notified at the meeting.

There was no discussion under this item.

Announcements by:

1.     The Lord Mayor

2.     The Sheriff

3.     The Leader of the Council (who may with the permission of the Lord Mayor invite other councillors to make announcements)

4.     The Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer, Monitoring Officer

Cllr Pressel joined the meeting.

Council paid tribute and held a minute’s silence in memory of former Councillor Gill Sanders.

The Deputy Lord Mayor advised Council he had attended the Kurdish Festival of Newroz at Cheney School.

At the invitation of the Deputy Lord Mayor, the City Rector Rev Buckley spoke to the meeting and highlighted the moving tributes to former Councillor Gill Sanders and moved the Council to a minute’s silence to remember those in the Ukraine, followed by a reading of Psalm 31.

Cllr Brown, the Leader of the Council, addressed Council following the decision to end the twinning link between the Council and the City of Perm.

Public addresses and questions to the Leader or other Cabinet member received in accordance with Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution relating to matters for decision in Part 1 of this agenda.

Up to five minutes is available for each public address and up to three minutes for each question. Questions must be less than 200 words.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address or question must be received by the Head of Law and Governance by 5.00 pm on Tuesday 15 March 2022.

The briefing note will contain the text of addresses and questions submitted by the deadline, and written responses where available.

A total of 45 minutes is available for both public speaking items. Responses are included in this time.

There were no addresses or questions.

The Executive Director for Development submitted a report to Cabinet on 9 February 2022 seeking agreement for the Council to enter into a joint venture Limited Liability Partnership with Thames Water and Magdalen College, as the three land owners of the land allocated for redevelopment off Grenoble Road known as the South Oxford Science Village site, and in doing so, to commit the land for development.

The Cabinet minutes are available at item 15b.

Councillor Ed Turner, Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management or Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Delivery will present the report and present Cabinet’s recommendations.

Recommendation: Cabinet recommends that Council resolves to:

1.    Approve the establishment of a revenue budget of £556k to enable the work to bring the site forward for development, and for internal and external resources its business. Where appropriate and agreed with the Head of Financial Services the costs will be capitalised and the appropriate budget vired from revenue to capital in line with the capitalisation;

2.    Approve a loan of up to £500k to be made to the LLP to cover the council’s share of running the LLP (% share based on % land ownership within the allocation) to be repaid with interest on terms agreed with the Head of Financial Services. The appropriate capital and revenue budgets to be established, to be agreed with the Head of Financial Services, based on the LLP Business Plan and Budget.

Council considered the report from the Executive Director for Development seeking agreement for the Council to enter into a joint venture Limited Liability Partnership with Thames Water and Magdalen College, as the three land owners of the land allocated for redevelopment off Grenoble Road known as the South Oxford Science Village site, and in doing so, to commit the land for development.

Cllr Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Development introduced the report, proposed the recommendations; Cllr Hollingsworth and Cllr Turner, Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management answered questions.

The recommendations were agreed on being seconded by Cllr Turner and put to the vote.

Council resolved to:

approve the establishment of a revenue budget of £556k to enable the work to bring the site forward for development, and for internal and external resources its business.  Where appropriate and agreed with the Head of Financial Services the costs will be capitalised and the appropriate budget vired from revenue to capital in line with the capitalisation;

approve a loan of up to £500k to be made to the LLP to cover the council’s share of running the LLP (% share based on % land ownership within the allocation) to be repaid with interest on terms agreed with the Head of Financial Services.  The appropriate capital and revenue budgets to be established, to be agreed with the Head of Financial Services, based on the LLP Business Plan and Budget.

The Head of Financial Services and the Head of Business Improvement have submitted a report to Cabinet on 16 March which seeks approval of a project into the capital programme.

The Cabinet decision will be reported in the Briefing Note. The draft minutes of the meeting will be available on the Cabinet meetings webpage.

Councillor Brown, the Leader of the Council, will propose Cabinet’s recommendation.

Recommendation: Cabinet recommends subject to decisions taken at the Cabinet meeting on 16 March 2022 that Council resolves to approve the addition of £0.110 million into the Capital Programme for the purchase of Hybrid AV meeting equipment as set out at paragraph 13.

Council considered the report from the Head of Financial Services and the Head of Business Improvement seeking approval of a project into the capital programme.

Councillor Turner, Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management introduced the report, proposed the recommendation and answered questions.  Cllrs Rowley and Thomas spoke in support of the item and the recommendations were agreed on being seconded by Cllr Brown and put to the vote.

Council resolved to:

approve the addition of £0.110 million into the Capital Programme for the purchase of Hybrid AV meeting equipment as set out at paragraph 13.

The Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive) has submitted a report to Cabinet on 16 March 2022 to note a decision taken by the Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive) using the urgency powers delegated in Part 9.3(b) of the Constitution and recommend that Council note the decision.

The draft minutes of the Cabinet meeting will be available on the meetings webpage.

Councillor Brown the Leader of the Council will propose the recommendation.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to note the decision as set out in the report.

Council considered a report from The Head of Financial Services and the Head of Business Improvement which sought approval of a project into the capital programme.

Cllr Turner, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management, introduced the report and proposed the recommendations.

The recommendations were agreed on being seconded by Cllr Hollingsworth and put to the vote.

Council were resolved to:

approve the addition of £0.110 million into the Capital Programme for the purchase of Hybrid AV meeting equipment as set out at paragraph 13.

The Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety has submitted a report to the Licensing and Gambling Acts Committee on 17 March 2022 requesting the Committee agree and recommend the updated Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment.

The decision of the Committee meeting will be reported in the briefing note. The draft minutes will be available on the meeting webpage.

Councillor Cook, Chair of the Licensing and Gambling Acts Committee, will present the report and propose the Committee’s recommendations.

Recommendation: That subject to the decision of the Licensing and Gambling Acts Committee on 17 March 2022 Council resolves to adopt the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment.

Cllr Latif joined the meeting.

Cllr Malik left the meeting.

Council considered a report from the Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety requesting the Committee agree and recommend the updated Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment.

Cllr Cook, the Chair of the Licensing and Gambling Acts Committee, introduced the report, proposed the Committee’s recommendations and answered questions.

The recommendations were agreed on being seconded by Cllr Hayes and put to the vote.

Council were resolved to:

adopt the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment

The Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety has submitted a report to the General Purposes Licensing Committee on 17 March 2022 seeking agreement and a recommendation to Council of the Policy on the Relevance of Warnings, Offences, Cautions and Convictions (Taxi Licensing).

The Committee’s decision will be reported in the Briefing Note. The draft minutes will be available on the meeting webpage.

Councillor Clarkson, Chair of the General Purposes Licensing Committee will present the report and propose the Committee’s recommendation.

Recommendation: That subject to the decision of the General Purposes Licensing Committee Council resolves to adopt the final Policy on the Relevance of Warnings, Offences, Cautions and Convictions.

Council considered a report from the Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety seeking agreement of the Policy on the Relevance of Warnings, Offences, Cautions and Convictions (Taxi Licensing).

Cllr Cook, Chair of the Licencing and Gambling Acts Committee presented the report and proposed the recommendation.

The recommendation was agreed on being seconded by Cllr Hollingsworth and put to the vote.

Council resolved to:

adopt the final Policy on the Relevance of Warnings, Offences, Cautions and Convictions.

The Head of Law and Governance submitted a report to the Standards Committee on 2 March 2022 recommending the adoption of a new Members’ Code of Conduct. The recommendation in the report was approved by the Standards Committee.

The Chair of the Standards Committee Cllr Pressel will present the report and propose the Standards Committee’s recommendation.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to adopt revised Councillors’ Code of Conduct for implementation from May 2022

Cllr Malik re-joined the meeting.

Council considered a report from the Head of Law and Governance, recommended by the Standards Committee to adopt a new Members’ Code of Conduct.

Cllr Pressel, Chair of the Standards Committee presented the report, and proposed the recommendation.

The recommendations were agreed on being seconded by Cllr Tidball and put to the vote.

Council resolved to:

Adopt the revised Councillors’ Code of Conduct for implementation from May 2022.

The Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report recommending changes to the Council’s Constitution following an annual review process overseen by a cross-party group of councillors.

Recommendation: Council is recommended to

1.    Approve the list of proposed amendments to governance arrangements in the Council’s Constitution listed in Appendix 1 with effect from 18 May 2022;

2.    Approve the list of proposed amendments to clarify existing governance arrangements in the Council’s Constitution as detailed in Appendix 2 with effect from 18 May 2022;

3.    Approve the dispensations in Part 22.5(e) granted under section 33 of the Localism Act 2011 for a further four years from 1 October 2022:

4.    Note that Council will be recommended to adopt a new Members Code of Conduct under a separate agenda item, following consideration by the Standards Committee; and

5.    Delegate authority to the Head of Law and Governance to make minor and consequential amendments to the Constitution including to wording and/or numbering that is identified as being inconsistent with the changes approved by Council.

6.    Note that the Monitoring Officer has delegated authority to change Part 4 (who carries out executive responsibilities) and Part 6 (roles of Cabinet members) to reflect the wishes of the Leader. This would include amending Cabinet Member portfolio titles in the Constitution to reflect any changes announced by the Leader.

Council considered the report from the Head of Law and Governance recommending changes to the Council’s Constitution following an annual review process overseen by a cross-party group of councillors.

Cllr Thomas presented the report and proposed the recommendations.

The recommendations were agreed on being seconded by Cllr Hollingsworth and put to the vote.

Council resolved to:

1.    Approve the list of proposed amendments to governance arrangements in the Council’s Constitution listed in Appendix 1 with effect from 18 May 2022.

2.    Approve the list of proposed amendments to clarify existing governance arrangements in the Council’s Constitution as detailed in Appendix 2 with effect from 18 May 2022.

3.    Approve the dispensations in Part 22.5( e) granted under section 33 of the Localism Act 2011 for a further four years from 1 October 2022.

4.    Note that Council will be recommended to adopt a new Members Code of Conduct under a separate agenda item, following consideration by the Standards Committee; and

5.    Delegate authority to the Head of Law and Governance to make minor and consequential amendments to the Constitution including to wording and/or numbering that is identified as being inconsistent with the changes approved by Council.

6.    Note that the Monitoring Officer has delegated authority to change Part 4 (who carries out executive responsibilities) and Part 6 (roles of Cabinet members) to reflect the wishes of the Leader.  This would include amending Cabinet Member portfolio titles in the Constitution to reflect any changes announced by the Leader.

The Head of Business Improvement has submitted a report recommending approval of the Annual Pay Policy Statement, as required by legislation.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.    Approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2022/23 as attached at Appendix 1

2.    Note and approve the elements of the Collective Agreement on Pay as referenced in this report.

3.    Authorise the Head of Business Improvement and any staff delegated by the Head of Business Improvement to make any changes to the Council’s employment policies in accordance with the Collective Agreement.

Council considered a report from the Head of Business Improvement recommending approval of the Annual Pay Policy Statement, as required by legislation.

Cllr Rowley, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services, introduced the report and moved the recommendations, seconded by Cllr Brown, Leader of the Council.

The recommendations were agreed on and put to the vote.

Council resolved to:

1.    Approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2022/23 as attached at Appendix 1.

2.    Note and approve the elements of the Collective Agreement on Pay as referenced in this report.

3.    Authorise the Head of Business Improvement and any staff delegated by the Head of Business Improvement to make any changes to the Council’s employment policies in accordance with the Collective Agreement.

This item has a time limit of 15 minutes.

Councillors may ask the Cabinet Members questions about matters in these minutes.

There were no questions on the Cabinet minutes of 26 January 2022.

There were no questions on the Cabinet minutes of 9 February 2022.

Questions on notice from councillors received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.11(b).

Questions on notice may be asked of the Lord Mayor, a Member of the Cabinet or a Chair of a Committee. One supplementary question may be asked at the meeting.

The full text of questions must have been received by the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 1.00pm on Wednesday 9 March 2022.

These, and written responses where available, will be published in the briefing note.

Cllr Waite joined the meeting.

32 written questions were asked of the Cabinet Members and the Leader, and these and written responses were published before the meeting.

These along with summaries of the 20 supplementary questions and responses asked and given at the meeting are set out in the minutes pack.

The meeting broke for 30min at the conclusion of this item.

This item will be taken at or shortly after 7.00pm

Public addresses and questions to the Leader or other Cabinet member received in accordance with Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution and not relating to matters for decision in Part 1 of this agenda.

Up to five minutes is available for each public address and up to three minutes for each question. Questions must be less than 200 words.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address or question must be received by the Head of Law and Governance by 5.00 pm on Tuesday 15 March 2022.

The briefing note will contain the text of addresses and questions submitted by the deadline, and written responses where available.

A total of 45 minutes is available for both public speaking items. Responses

Council heard two addresses and one question.  Cabinet Members read or summarised their written responses.

Both addresses, the question and responses are set out in full in the minutes pack.

1.      Address by Pawel Swietach, Professor of Physiology (University of Oxford) – Twinning with Perm.

2.      Address by Karen Hewitt, Chair of Oxford Perm Association (University of Oxford) – the Twinning Agreement with Perm.

3.      Question from Alistair Morris – Community Group Tree Planting.

The Deputy Lord Mayor thanked all the speakers for their contributions.

Cllr Malik left the meeting and did not return.

A report will be submitted in the briefing note on behalf of the Cabinet Member for A Safer, Healthy Oxford on the Children’s Trust Board.

Council is invited to comment on and note the report.

As set out in the Constitution at procedure rule 11.16, Members who are Council representatives on external bodies or Chairs of Council Committees who consider that a significant decision or event has taken place, may give notice to the Head of Law and Governance by 1.00 pm on Thursday 17 March 2022 that they will present a written or oral report on the event or the significant decision and how it may influence future events. Written reports will be circulated with the briefing note.

Report to follow in the briefing note.

Council had before it the Partnership report: Children’s Trust Board report.

Cllr Brown moved the report on Cllr Aziz’s behalf, which was seconded by Cllr Thomas.

Cllr Gant sought clarification on the absence of the Future Oxfordshire Partnership report, Cllr Brown advised that this had been missed for this meeting and will be brought to the next Council meeting.

Council noted the report.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee has submitted a report which updates Council on the activities of scrutiny and the implementation of recommendations since the last meeting of Council.

Council is invited to comment on and note the report.

Cllr Pressel left the meeting and did not return.

Council had before it the report of the Scrutiny Committee Chair.

Councillor Wade spoke to the report and highlighted the 2050 Plan update and the subsequent briefings that have taken place.

Council noted the report.

Cllr Tidball left the meeting and did not return.

This item has a time limit of 60 minutes.

Motions received by the Head of Law and Governance in accordance with the rules in Section 11 of the Constitution by the deadline of 1.00pm on Wednesday 9 March 2022are listed below.

Cross party motions are taken first. Motions will then be taken in turn from the Labour Group, Liberal Democrat Group, Green Group, Independent Group,in that order.

Substantive amendments to these motions must be sent by councillors to the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 10.00am on Friday 18 March 2022so that they may be circulated with the briefing note.

Minor technical or limited wording amendments may be submitted during the meeting but must be written down and circulated.

Council is asked to consider the following motions:

a)    End Fire and Rehire (proposed by Cllr Mundy, seconded by Cllr Dunne)

b)    No Greyhound Racing in Oxford (proposed by Cllr Wade, seconded by Cllr Fouweather)

c)    Opposition to the privatisation of the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (proposed by Cllr Jarvis, seconded by Cllr Pegg)

d)    A Sanctuary Strategy for Oxford (proposed by Cllr Gant, seconded by Cllr Miles)

e)    Using Doughnut Economics (proposed by Cllr Pegg, seconded by Cllr Wolff)

f)     Set up a Drug Consumption Room (proposed by Cllr Wade)

Council had before it six motions on notice submitted in accordance with Council procedure rules and reached decisions as set out below.

Motions agreed as set out below:

a)   End Fire and Rehire (proposed by Cllr Mundy, seconded by Cllr Dunne)

b)   Opposition to the privatisation of the Vaccination Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (proposed by Cllr Jarvis, seconded by Cllr Pegg)

c)   A Sanctuary Strategy for Oxford (proposed by Cllr Gant, seconded by Cllr Miles)

Motion not taken as withdrawn before the meeting:

d)   No Greyhound Racing in Oxford (proposed by Cllr Wade, seconded by Cllr Fouweather) [amended proposed by Cllr Brown, seconded by Cllr Linda Smith]

Motions not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished:

e)   Using Doughnut Economics (proposed by Cllr Pegg, seconded by Cllr Wolff)

f)     Set up a Drug Consumption Room (proposed by Cllr Wade [amendment proposed by Cllr Linda Smith, seconded by Cllr Upton]

Labour Group member motion

This Council notes that:

The practice of Fire and Rehire, or dismissal and reengagement, has come to public attention in recent years. This involves an employer dismissing staff and reoffering their roles under inferior conditions, usually to effectively change the contract of employment. The currently legal practice has been increasingly threatened by employers. The prevalence and impact of Fire and Rehire has been researched by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas).[1] Though not new, there is suggestion that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred an increase in its use. Others have told Acas that the pandemic is being used “opportunistically as a smokescreen to diminish workers’ terms and conditions”. This has impacted a range of employees, many of whom have been key workers such as factory, utilities, and retail workers. These are people who have kept working and kept our country going during the pandemic and lockdowns.

According to TUC research[2] nearly 1 in 10 workers have been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions or face the sack. Working-class people (12%) are nearly twice as likely than those from higher socio-economic groups (7%) to face Fire and Rehire. For black and ethnic minority workers (15%) the rate is nearly twice the rate of white workers (8%).

Here, and across the country, Fire and Rehire is increasing the precariousness of work and financially and mentally compromising people who work hard to put food on the table and pay their bills. It is shackling our trade unions and making it impossible for them to fight for a fair deal for their members.

According to the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), our city’s own newspapers The Oxford Mail and The Oxford Times threated to Fire and Rehire NUJ members over bank holiday pay. In August the NUJ agreed a deal to end the dispute, but they could not get Fire and Rehire taken off the table in negotiations with the newspapers’ owners Newsquest Media Group.[3]

In Oxfordshire, workers at the Jacob Douwe Egberts coffee factory in Banbury were threatened with Fire and Rehire in early 2020. The profitable factory succeeded in settling an agreement with Unite the Union in August 2021.[4]

Council resolves:

·         To publicly oppose any future use or threat of Fire and Rehire by employers in our City.

·         For the review of future contracts, contract renewals and procurement to seek to include a commitment for employers to not use or threaten Fire and Rehire, as part of their social clause.

·         For our City Council Leader to add her voice to that of our MPs Anneliese Dodds and Layla Moran in supporting national legislation to ban Fire and Rehire.

·         For our City Council Leader to write to the Business Secretary on behalf of Council, urging him to reverse the current government position, support a ban of Fire and Rehire, and back the workers of our country.

Cllr Mundy, seconded by Cllr Thomas in Cllr Dunne’s absence, proposed the submitted motion as set out in the agenda and briefing note.

After debate and being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

This Council notes that:

The practice of Fire and Rehire, or dismissal and reengagement, has come to public attention in recent years. This involves an employer dismissing staff and reoffering their roles under inferior conditions, usually to effectively change the contract of employment. The currently legal practice has been increasingly threatened by employers. The prevalence and impact of Fire and Rehire has been researched by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas).[1] Though not new, there is suggestion that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred an increase in its use. Others have told Acas that the pandemic is being used “opportunistically as a smokescreen to diminish workers’ terms and conditions”. This has impacted a range of employees, many of whom have been key workers such as factory, utilities, and retail workers. These are people who have kept working and kept our country going during the pandemic and lockdowns.

According to TUC research[2] nearly 1 in 10 workers have been told to re-apply for their jobs on worse terms and conditions or face the sack. Working-class people (12%) are nearly twice as likely than those from higher socio-economic groups (7%) to face Fire and Rehire. For black and ethnic minority workers (15%) the rate is nearly twice the rate of white workers (8%).

Here, and across the country, Fire and Rehire is increasing the precariousness of work and financially and mentally compromising people who work hard to put food on the table and pay their bills. It is shackling our trade unions and making it impossible for them to fight for a fair deal for their members.

According to the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), our city’s own newspapers The Oxford Mail and The Oxford Times threated to Fire and Rehire NUJ members over bank holiday pay. In August the NUJ agreed a deal to end the dispute, but they could not get Fire and Rehire taken off the table in negotiations with the newspapers’ owners Newsquest Media Group.[3]

In Oxfordshire, workers at the Jacob Douwe Egberts coffee factory in Banbury were threatened with Fire and Rehire in early 2020. The profitable factory succeeded in settling an agreement with Unite the Union in August 2021.[4]

Council resolves:

·         To publicly oppose any future use or threat of Fire and Rehire by employers in our City.

·         For the review of future contracts, contract renewals and procurement to seek to include a commitment for employers to not use or threaten Fire and Rehire, as part of their social clause.

·         For our City Council Leader to add her voice to that of our MPs Anneliese Dodds and Layla Moran in supporting national legislation to ban Fire and Rehire.

·         For our City Council Leader to write  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

Liberal Democrat Group member motion

Council notes:

The reopening of the stadium in Sandy Lane is a welcome addition to the leisure activities available to Oxford people.

The stadium has had a chequered history since the mid-1970s and decreasing interest in greyhound racing directly contributed to its decline. 

In 2005 Risk Capital Partners with Galliard Homes purchased the failing stadium. Plans for 150 houses and 75 flats were mooted but the Council’s statement in favour of keeping the land for leisure use stalled the development, and greyhound racing and speedway continued until 2012 when the Greyhound Racing Association closed the stadium down.

After a decade of disuse, Mr Boothby ‘stadium director’ announced[1] he had bought the lease and planned to bring back greyhound racing.

This is a concern for the following reasons:

·         The number of injuries caused to dogs on the racetrack (In 2019, the last full year of racing, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain recorded 4,970 injuries on registered tracks, in 2020: 3,575). Their welfare is poorly regulated on and off the track[2]. Often these dogs cannot race again and rehoming is far from guaranteed. The Government has failed to back up the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regs 2010 with stronger legislation[3].

• The 2014 Appraisal which led to the Oxford Stadium being listed as a Conservation Area refers to the stadium’s heritage significance – the ‘physical evidence that represents the collective memory of those working communities and their leisure pursuits.’ But these communities have moved on since the 1930s when the stadium was built and, while it should remain as evidence of an earlier era, people should be consulted about the future of this valuable space. British Cycling has informally suggested it would work as a velodrome combined with a BMX track and ancillary activities. Peckham BMX has revolutionised a Southwark neighbourhood[4]
• Inevitably greyhound-racing is focused on gambling. There has been considerable research about the effect of gambling on individuals and communities, recently by Dr N. Muggleton (Brasenose College): “gambling is associated with addiction and harmful outcomes for others.”[5]
• The Local Plan designates the site for leisure purposes with the implication that in these times the activities provided will facilitate active participation.
• Galliard Homes bills itself as ‘the capital’s largest privately-owned residential property developer.’ If the greyhound-racing venture fails, the way will be open for Galliard to revive its estate development plan, which will be difficult for city planners to contest.

This Council calls on the Leader to:

·         Issue a press release publicly opposing the return of greyhound racing to Oxford.

·         Write to the UK Government calling for the introduction of legislation incorporating the recommendations of the 2016 Greyhound Welfare EFRA Report.

This Council resolves to:

·         Support consultation with Oxford residents on their preferred options for leisure activities at the stadium as a part of the Local Plan Review and the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Reg 19 consultation[6]

Cllr Wade advised Council that this motion is withdrawn from this meeting.

Green Group member motion

Council notes

• The Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC), based at the Harwell Campus in Oxfordshire was established in 2018 as an institution that would develop vaccines and prepare for future pandemics. 
• The VMIC was established by a consortium of universities - the University of Oxford, Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It now operates as a non-profit company in which the founding universities are shareholders.
• The VMIC is set to become operational in 2022, and would be the UK’s first strategy vaccine development and advanced manufacturing facility. 
• Reports from the Financial Times, Observer and Independent among others have indicated that government officials are currently reviewing bids from the private sector to manage the centre - including multinational biotechnology firms and healthcare manufacturers. 
• Civil society groups including Keep Our NHS Public Oxfordshire and We Own It have publicly opposed any move to place the VMIC in the hands of the private sector.

Council believes

• Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, private involvement in the health sector has been hugely damaging, with companies prioritising profit above public health. 
• Allowing the VMIC to pass into the hands of profit-driven private companies will reduce the efficacy of the centre, inhibit its ability to deliver proper preparedness for future pandemics and reduce the innovation in vaccine manufacturing the centre was designed to achieve.

Council resolves

• To oppose the privatisation of the VMIC.
• To request the Leader write to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy expressing the Council’s view that the VMIC should not be privatised.
• To request the Leader write to the three founding universities expressing the Council’s view that the VMIC should not be privatised.

Cllr Jarvis, seconded by Cllr Pegg, proposed the submitted motion as set out in the agenda and briefing note.

Cllr Linda Smith proposed the amendment in Cllr Aziz’s absence as set out in the briefing note.

Council debated the motion and amendment and Cllr Jarvis accepted the amendment put forward by Cllr Linda Smith.  On being put to the vote, the amendment motion was agreed.

Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

Council notes

·         The Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre (VMIC), based at the Harwell Campus in Oxfordshire was established in 2018 as an institution that would develop vaccines and prepare for future pandemics. 

·         The VMIC was established by a consortium of universities - the University of Oxford, Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It now operates as a non-profit company in which the founding universities are shareholders.

·         The VMIC is set to become operational in 2022, and would be the UK’s first strategy vaccine development and advanced manufacturing facility. 

·         Reports from the Financial Times, Observer and Independent among others have indicated that government officials are currently reviewing bids from the private sector to manage the centre - including multinational biotechnology firms and healthcare manufacturers. 

·         Civil society groups including Keep Our NHS Public Oxfordshire and We Own It have publicly opposed any move to place the VMIC in the hands of the private sector.

Council believes

• Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, private involvement in the health sector has been hugely damaging, with companies prioritising profit above public health. 
• Allowing the VMIC to pass into the hands of profit-driven private companies will reduce the efficacy of the centre, inhibit its ability to deliver proper preparedness for future pandemics and will not ensure that vaccines developed in Oxford are shared equitably to save the lives of people across the world. We must end the Covid-19 vaccine apartheid that is prioritising big pharma profits over saving the lives of predominately Black and Brown people in low income countries. While Britain has vaccinated the vast majority of its population, the whole of the continent of Africa has only been able to fully vaccinate 11% of its people, while low income countries, as a group, reached only 5.5%. This inequality is obscene.

Council resolves

• To oppose the privatisation of the VMIC.
• To request the Leader write to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy expressing the Council’s view that the VMIC should not be privatised.
• To request the Leader write to the three founding universities expressing the Council’s view that the VMIC should not be privatised.

Liberal Democrat Group member motion

Council notes:

The contribution that refugees and migrants seeking sanctuary have made to the city throughout recent history, and has played its part through past and existing programmes.

We understand that Afghan refugees have been housed in hotels since their arrival. This is not a sustainable solution as it prevents these refugees from beginning to rebuild their new lives. It is also very costly to the public purse.

The rapid displacement of Ukrainian civilians calls for decisive action to provide safe routes. But the government’s response is completely out of step with both the need for protection, as well as public opinion.

Whilst other countries are waiving visas, government have announced two pathways for people to get to the UK - but both are bureaucratic, and in practice make it very difficult for people to reach safety and family in the UK.

When someone is fleeing for their life, it is simply not practical or possible to wait for months, even years. We as a council need to be ready to make the best of schemes that are announced.

At the same time, the UK government is pushing through the damaging and reactionary Nationality and Borders Bill, the biggest roll-back of refugee rights that this country has ever seen.

The Council recognises that a comprehensive, co-ordinated, cross-council and forward-looking approach is needed.

We recognise that ‘welcome’ needs a whole community approach that engages with local refugee organisations, third sector partners, and other local stakeholders.

The Council resolves to:

1.    Request that the Executive Director for Communities and People submits a report to Cabinet with options to:

a)    Develop a Sanctuary Strategy to ensure that the council can respond quickly and efficiently to humanitarian crises such as the two (Afghanistan and Ukraine) we have seen unfold in just 6 short months.

b)    Undertake a review of service areas to ensure they are accessible to people fleeing war and persecution.

c)    Undertake a review which explores an approach that incentivises private landlords to come forward with offers of housing.

d)    Mark Refugee Week (End of June) (e.g. St Helens Refugee week 2021 featured a football match between sanctuary seekers and Cllrs).

e)    Ensure the council plays its part resettling Ukrainian refugees, when details of the Humanitarian Sponsorship scheme become available.

f)     Engage proactively with local and national third sector partners and stakeholders to ensure we can mitigate against ‘hostile environment’ policies within the limits of the current legal framework.

2.    Ask the leader to write to the Home Secretary Priti Patel to highlight the challenges with the current way resettlement works, such as, but not limited to:

o   South East and the challenges around finding housing limited by benefit cap.

o   The difficulty with having many different schemes (7 in total) which creates confusion and delay in welcoming people of sanctuary seeking background (unable to plan).

o   Scrap the Nationality and Borders bill, a bill predicted to add an additional £2.7bn a year, andis likely to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 131.

Cllr Gant, seconded by Cllr Miles, proposed the submitted motion as set out in the agenda and briefing note.

Cllr Diggins, seconded by Cllr Chapman, proposed the amendment as set out in the briefing note.

Council debated the amended motion.  Cllr Gant accepted the amended mtion put forward by Cllr Diggins.  On being put to the vote, the amended motion was agreed.

Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

Council notes:

The contribution that refugees and migrants seeking sanctuary have made to the city throughout recent history, and has played its part through past and existing programmes.

We understand that Afghan refugees have been housed in hotels since their arrival. This is not a sustainable solution as it prevents these refugees from beginning to rebuild their new lives. It is also very costly to the public purse.

The rapid displacement of Ukrainian civilians calls for decisive action to provide safe routes. But the government’s response is completely out of step with both the need for protection, as well as public opinion.

Whilst other countries are waiving visas, government have announced two pathways for people to get to the UK - but both are bureaucratic, and in practice make it very difficult for people to reach safety and family in the UK.

When someone is fleeing for their life, it is simply not practical or possible to wait for months, even years. We as a council need to be ready to make the best of schemes that are announced.

At the same time, the UK government is pushing through the damaging and reactionary Nationality and Borders Bill, the biggest roll-back of refugee rights that this country has ever seen.

The Council resolves to:

1.    Request that the Executive Director for Communities and People submits a report to Cabinet setting out what the Council is doing and considers whether it would be necessary to develop a Sanctuary Strategy to:

a)     Ensure that the council can respond quickly and efficiently to humanitarian crises such as the two (Afghanistan and Ukraine) we have seen unfold in just 6 short months.

b)    Ensure service areas are accessible to people fleeing war and persecution.

c)    Encourage private landlords to come forward with offers of housing.

d)    Mark Refugee Week (End of June) (e.g. St Helens Refugee week 2021 featured a football match between sanctuary seekers and Cllrs).

e)    Look after Ukrainian refugees, once details of the Humanitarian Sponsorship scheme become available.

f)     Engage proactively with local and national third sector partners and stakeholders to ensure we can mitigate against ‘hostile environment’ policies within the limits of the current legal framework.

2.    Ask the leader to write to the Home Secretary Priti Patel to highlight the challenges with the current way resettlement works, such as, but not limited to:

·         South East and the challenges around finding housing limited by benefit cap.

·         The difficulty with having many different schemes (7 in total) which creates confusion and delay in welcoming people of sanctuary seeking background (unable to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Green Group member motion

This council notes:

1. That Doughnut Economics offers a vision of what it means for humanity to thrive in the 21st century. It identifies a safe and just space for human society, supported by a strong social foundation of life’s essentials but sitting below the ecological ceiling, beyond which lies climate collapse. 
2. Doughnut Economics can guide local authorities to provide for a thriving city whilst keeping their activities within our social and planetary boundaries. 
3. The work done by Oxford University and Oxfam’s Kate Raworth and Oxford's Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL) to develop city-scale iterations of Doughnut Economics
4. The adoption of the Doughnut Economics model globally, including in Cornwall, Amsterdam, Portland and Philadelphia. 

This council resolves to:

1.    Request that the Executive Director for Development submits a report to Cabinet with options to:

a)    Run a series of workshops with the DEAL, the public, local organisations, council officers and members, and businesses to assess what Doughnut Economics means for Oxford. From this the Council will develop an “Oxford City Doughnut” to guide decision making.

b)    Use the Oxford City Doughnut to inform its decision making and achieve balance between social needs and ecological boundaries in the creation of its policies. This will include all cabinet decisions and procurement decisions, as well as the Oxford Economic Growth Strategy and the next iteration of the Local Plan. 

c)    Ask its wholly-owned companies to also adopt the Oxford City Doughnut in its decision making. 

d)    Use the Oxford City Doughnut to inform its responses to consultations and inquiries from external bodies, including those from national Government and other local authorities with which it works.

2. Request that the Scrutiny Committee evaluates its success after twelve months of the Council using the Oxford City Doughnut.

This motion was note taken as the time allotted for debate had finished.

Liberal Democrat Group member motion

One in five Local Authorities in England have cut budgets for addiction services and for support for drug users by more than half since 2015/16 and, with drug-related deaths at a record high, this Council believes that there needs to be greater commitment to setting up drug consumption rooms (DCRs).

These are units where drug users can take street drugs in a safe and clean environment, where antidotes are available for overdoses, and where users ready to move away from their drug habit can find support. The street homeless population is particularly vulnerable, so this Council seeks to give them the protection of a DCR.

Drugs policy is currently the province of the Home Office, which since June 2018 has been resisting calls from the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council for leave to open the first heroin assisted-treatment facility in the city, which would allow addicts to use drugs in a regulated environment.

In 2006 the Joseph Rowntree Independent Working Group on DCRs concluded that ‘well-designed and well-implemented DCRs would have an impact on some of the serious drug-related problems experienced in the UK’ and proposed the setting up of pilot DCRs. Its recommendations have not been taken forward.

·         This Council regrets the 2020 Home Office statement that it would not be decriminalising drug use.

·         This Council proposes a public health evidence-based approach to drug use. Reliance on the criminal justice system has been at best ineffective, and at worst has driven drug dealers and users underground.

·         Oxford City Council calls on the UK Government:

1.    To seek an explicit statement from the Home Office that the operation of DCRs is a matter for Local Authorities; specific rules can then be agreed by Police Forces, the CPS, Health Bodies and Local Authorities

2.    To make a ministerial commitment through the Home Secretary to protect the budgets of alcohol and drug partnerships

3.    To fund drug-testing services to be deployed at localities where there is a need, allowing ‘at risk’ users to find out what is in a substance and to offer advice on harm reduction.

4.    To allow the setting up of a pilot drug consumption room in Oxford City under an exemption from the 1971 UK Misuse of Drugs Act.

Oxford City Council asks the Leader of the Council to write to the Home Office and to Oxford’s MPs to inform them of this Resolution and urge them to take appropriate action.

References:

1. Independent Working Group on DCRs (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2006) https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/9781859354711.pdf

2. Volteface: Are DCRs viable in the UK? (28.11.17)

https://volteface.me/drug-consumption-rooms-viable-uk/

3. Room for Improvement: How Drug Consumption Rooms save lives (01.04.19) https://www.adamsmith.org/research/room-for-improvement-how-drug-consumption-rooms-save-lives

4. HIV Scotland ‘Charity backs plans for unofficial DCRs’ (07.03.20)

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51782882

5. British Medical Journal (5.08.21)

Scotland intends to set up safe spaces for drug users in defiance of UK Govt.

 https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1957

6. Safer drug consumption facilities: Glasgow Health & Social Care Partnership

 https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=38604&p=0

7. Mobilizing DCRs

http://www.sfu.ca/~emccann/HealthPlace%20DCRs.pdf

8. A critical analysis of UK news media  ...  view the full agenda text for item 133.

This motion was not taken as the time allotted for debate had finished.