Motions received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.17.

 

Motions received by the Head of Law and Governance by the deadline of 1.00pm on 11 September 2015, as amended by the proposers, are below.

 

Substantive amendments to these motions must be sent by councillors to the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 1.00pm on 21 September 2015. Full details of the text and any substantive amendments submitted before publication will be included in the agenda briefing note.

 

 

 

1.    Oxford as a City of Sanctuary (proposed by Cllr Simmons)

 

Green member motion

 

On 6 October 2008, the Council passed a motion declaring itself to be a City of Sanctuary with the words that “this Council wishes to promote the inclusion and welfare of those coming to Oxford to seek refuge and sanctuary.”

 

We recognise the strong support local communities, voluntary bodies, faith groups and others in Oxford already give to those seeking refuge and sanctuary. The strength of public feeling was well expressed in the ‘Oxford Welcomes Refugees’ March on 6 September that attracted more than 2,000 people.

 

The UN refugee agency has asked EU Member States to immediately take 200,000 additional refugees to lessen the humanitarian crisis. In response, the EU has adopted a quota system which the UK Government has refused to participate in. Rather than the 25,000 that would represent it’s ‘fair share’ of migrants (spreading this across the country would mean about 60 refugees being accommodated in a City the size of Oxford), the Prime Minister has instead announced that his Government would make provision for only 4,000 each year.

 

Recognising its role and responsibility as a City of Sanctuary, this Council asks the Executive to:

·           work with the City of Sanctuary, Asylum Welcome, Refugee Resource and other local groups to develop a plan that would see upwards of 60 refugees being housed within the City through schemes such as ‘Host Oxford’

·           consider what support can be given to donation efforts, such as those by Emmaus, providing supplies to refugees in Calais

·           review its own budgets, services and policies to check that these are adequately supporting refugees and present no impediment to the accommodation in private homes of refugees

·           apply for Government funding under the Syrian Vulnerable Person Relocation (SVPR) scheme to help support its efforts

·           write to the City’s Universities encouraging them to consider extending their funded studentships to include more places specifically for refugees

·           write to the City’s MPs expressing concern over the UK Government’s weak response to the refugee crisis and asking them to lobby for the UK to welcome it’s fair share of refugees

 

2.    Air quality and cleaner city (proposed by Cllr Fooks)

 

Liberal Democrat member motion

 

Council notes the recent reports that suggest that the health impact of excessive NOx and particulate emissions has been seriously underestimated. Recent research by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants suggests that they may be responsible for as many as 60,000 premature deaths across the UK each year.

 

Council also notes that air quality in Oxford is relatively poor, breaching WHO and EU limits at times, and that diesel engines are a major contributor to this situation.

 

Council congratulates its own staff and others on the work done to prepare a bid to the Go Ultra Low City scheme run by the Office for Low Emissions Vehicles. If the bid is successful, funds would be available for financial incentives to promote uptake and for the installation of infrastructure across the city,

 

It also notes the work being done with taxi operators to obtain funds from this Office for ultra-low emission taxis.  Funds would be available to support the rollout of ultra-low emission taxis, both to reduce the upfront cost and to install charging infrastructure for taxi and private hire use.

 

Council therefore asks the Executive Board:

·         to give consideration to developing a Delivery and Service Plan for city centre Council premises;

·         to accelerate work with the County Council to examine the business case for freight consolidation for Oxford;

·         to continue to work with neighbouring authorities to develop common standards for taxi emissions;

·         if the bids are not successful, to instruct officers to pursue all possible alternative sources of funding to enable the city to meet the target of a zero-emission zone in the centre and cleaner air throughout the city;

·         as the plans for a cleaner city will require a big increase in the use of electric vehicles, needing extensive charging infrastructure, to investigate how this can be provided in all areas, including those without off-street parking.

 

3.    Encouraging Renewable Energy (proposed by Cllr Brandt)

 

Green member motion

 

Oxford is proud home to many social enterprises, research bodies, community groups, businesses and other organisations focused on the development, promotion and delivery of renewable solar energy.

 

It is therefore disappointed at the Government’s decision – published on 9 September – to remove pre-accreditation and pre-registration from the Feed In Tariff subsidy scheme (see Note 1). Even the Government admit that “this decision will introduce considerable uncertainty in the short term” and impact on the development of new schemes.

 

A second, related, consultation has now been launched (closing date: 23 October) that proposes reducing the FIT scheme subsidy itself (by up to 90%) even though the Government themselves admit that this will have a ‘negative impact’.

 

According the research by Friends of the Earth, such a cut will not only reduce the number of solar installations but also lead to 22,000 job cuts (a fact not even considered in the consultation). As home to many organisations in the sector, Oxford is likely to experience more than its proportionate share of these job losses.

 

Compared with fossil fuels, renewables continue to receive a lower subsidy. According to a recent report by the IMF (see Note 2) fossil fuels benefited to the tune of £400 per person in the UK each year, while renewables get £112.

Furthermore, the installation of solar on social housing has the potential for to significantly reduce poverty.

 

This Council therefore asks the Executive to work with local groups to prepare a response to the Government’s consultation opposing drastic reductions to the FIT highlighting both the impact on jobs, the environment and poverty.

 

Note 1: This will have the effect of removing the link to the tariff guarantee for 

installations currently able to pre-accredit under the FIT such that installations will only receive the tariff rate as at the date they apply for full accreditation. This will mean that a developer will not be certain of the level of support they will receive under the scheme until the point at which their application for accreditation is received by Ofgem.

Note 2: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/g20-countries-pay-over-1000-per-citizen-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies-say-imf

 

4.    Save our Children’s Centres (proposed by Cllr Thomas)

 

Green member motion

 

This Council notes the public consultation launched by the County Council on options for the future of the Children’s Centres and Early Intervention Service with the aim of cutting the budget by a staggering £8m.  

This Council strongly opposes these cuts and the effects this will have on vulnerable people across the City. It therefore asks the Executive to respond in the strongest terms to the County’s consultation.

Council had before it four motions on notice and amendments submitted in accordance with Council procedure rule 11.17 and reached decisions as set out below.

 

1.   Oxford as a City of Sanctuary

 

Councillor Simmons proposed his submitted motion, accepting the amendment proposed by Councillor Price. Councillor Price seconded the motion as amended.

 

After debate and on being put to the vote, the motion was declared carried with all councillors voting in support

 

Council resolved to adopt the motion set out below:

 

Oxford has a long tradition of welcoming immigrants and refugees from around the world. The cultural richness of the city is fundamental to its creativity, the excellence of our health services and the global reputation of our universities. Oxford is a truly global city, with one in three of our residents born overseas. 8000 students from 139 countries outside the UK are represented in the University of Oxford. Increasing numbers of refugees are fleeing bloody conflicts and oppressive regimes, deepening the global humanitarian crisis that has been developing over the last decade. Some of the most vulnerable people in the world are dying as they try to reach safety. The City Council welcomes the huge level of support shown by the Oxford and Oxfordshire communities for a local response to this crisis.

 

On 6 October 2008, the Council passed a motion declaring itself to be a City of Sanctuary with the words that “this Council wishes to promote the inclusion and welfare of those coming to Oxford to seek refuge and sanctuary.”

 

We recognise the strong support local communities, voluntary bodies, faith groups and others in Oxford already give to those seeking refuge and sanctuary. The strength of public feeling was well expressed in the ‘Oxford Welcomes Refugees’ March on 6 September that attracted more than 2,000 people.

 

The UN refugee agency has asked EU Member States to immediately take 200,000 additional refugees to lessen the humanitarian crisis. In response, the EU has adopted a quota system which the UK Government has refused to participate in.

 

Rather than the 18,000 that would represent the UK’s share of refugees, the Prime Minister has announced that his government would make provision for 20,000 over the course of this Parliament. This would simply be an extension of the existing UNHCR scheme for resettlement of vulnerable people (with a strong emphasis on young people) from the camps in the Lebanon and Jordan. This fails entirely to deal with the refugees who have fled the war and the camps and have already reached an EU country in order to find safety and refuge.

 

Recognising the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in recent months and our moral responsibility to respond to it, this Council asks the Executive to:

 

1. Continue to coordinate the work of local charities, voluntary bodies and the public authorities in the Oxford area to ensure that there are effective procedures in place to welcome refugees of all ages and to offer appropriate housing and support.
2. Continue to encourage people in Oxford and the wider county to make financial donations to support the charities and voluntary bodies involved
3. Ensure that its policies and procedures are as effective as possible in supporting refugees and facilitating the accommodation of refugees in private homes.
4. Work with the Home Office to implement the extended Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme
5. write to the City’s Universities encouraging them to consider extending their funded studentships to include more places specifically for refugees
6. write to the City’s MPs expressing concern over the UK Government’s weak response to the refugee crisis and asking them to lobby for the UK to welcome it’s fair share of refugees

 

 

2.    Air quality and cleaner city

 

Councillor Fooks proposed her submitted motion, seconded by Councillor Wilkinson:

 

Council notes the recent reports that suggest that the health impact of excessive NOx and particulate emissions has been seriously underestimated. Recent research by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants suggests that they may be responsible for as many as 60,000 premature deaths across the UK each year.

 

Council also notes that air quality in Oxford is relatively poor, breaching WHO and EU limits at times, and that diesel engines are a major contributor to this situation.

 

Council congratulates its own staff and others on the work done to prepare a bid to the Go Ultra Low City scheme run by the Office for Low Emissions Vehicles. If the bid is successful, funds would be available for financial incentives to promote uptake and for the installation of infrastructure across the city,

 

It also notes the work being done with taxi operators to obtain funds from this Office for ultra-low emission taxis. Funds would be available to support the rollout of ultra-low emission taxis, both to reduce the upfront cost and to install charging infrastructure for taxi and private hire use.

 

Council therefore asks the ExecutiveBoard:

·         to give consideration to developing a Delivery and Service Plan for city centre Council premises;

·         to accelerate work with the County Council to examine the business case for freight consolidation for Oxford;

·         to continue to work with neighbouring authorities to develop common standards for taxi emissions;

·         if the bids are not successful, to instruct officers to pursue all possible alternative sources of funding to enable the city to meet the target of a zero-emission zone in the centre and cleaner air throughout the city;

·         as the plans for a cleaner city will require a big increase in the use of electric vehicles, needing extensive charging infrastructure, to investigate how this can be provided in all areas, including those without off-street parking.

 

Councillor Tanner, seconded by Councillor Hollingsworth, proposed an amendment:

 

Delete paragraph 2 and replace with:

Council also notes that the air quality across Oxford is steadily improving although there remain some hotspots which still breach WHO and EU limits. Council recognises that diesel engines are a major cause of this pollution

 

Delete last paragraph and replace with:

Council congratulates the Executive Board on:

• Developing a Delivery and Service Plan for the City Council’s own premises

• Pressing the County Council to examine the business case for freight consolidation in Oxford
• Working with neighbouring authorities to develop a common standard for taxi emissions
• Seeking to develop a network of electric charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles
• The City Council’s growing use of its own electric vehicles.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried.

 

On being put to the vote, the amended motion was declared carried.

 

Council resolved to adopt the motion set out below:

 

Council notes the recent reports that suggest that the health impact of excessive NOx and particulate emissions has been seriously underestimated. Recent research by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants suggests that they may be responsible for as many as 60,000 premature deaths across the UK each year.

 

Council also notes that the air quality across Oxford is steadily improving although there remain some hotspots which still breach WHO and EU limits. Council recognises that diesel engines are a major cause of this pollution.

 

Council congratulates its own staff and others on the work done to prepare a bid to the Go Ultra Low City scheme run by the Office for Low Emissions Vehicles. If the bid is successful, funds would be available for financial incentives to promote uptake and for the installation of infrastructure across the city,

 

It also notes the work being done with taxi operators to obtain funds from this Office for ultra-low emission taxis. Funds would be available to support the rollout of ultra-low emission taxis, both to reduce the upfront cost and to install charging infrastructure for taxi and private hire use.

 

Council congratulates the Executive Board on:

·                     Developing a Delivery and Service Plan for the City Council’s own premises

·                     Pressing the County Council to examine the business case for freight consolidation in Oxford

·                     Working with neighbouring authorities to develop a common standard for taxi emissions

·                     Seeking to develop a network of electric charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles

·                     The City Council’s growing use of its own electric vehicles.

 

3.    Encouraging Renewable Energy (proposed by Councillor Brandt)

 

Councillor Brandt proposed her submitted motion, seconded by Councillor Wolff.

 

After debate and on being put to the vote, the motion was declared carried.

 

Council resolved to adopt the motion set out below:

 

Oxford is proud home to many social enterprises, research bodies, community groups, businesses and other organisations focused on the development, promotion and delivery of renewable solar energy.

 

It is therefore disappointed at the Government’s decision – published on 9 September – to remove pre-accreditation and pre-registration from the Feed In Tariff subsidy scheme (see Note 1). Even the Government admit that “this decision will introduce considerable uncertainty in the short term” and impact on the development of new schemes.

 

A second, related, consultation has now been launched (closing date: 23 October) that proposes reducing the FIT scheme subsidy itself (by up to 90%) even though the Government themselves admit that this will have a ‘negative impact’.

 

According the research by Friends of the Earth, such a cut will not only reduce the number of solar installations but also lead to 22,000 job cuts (a fact not even considered in the consultation). As home to many organisations in the sector, Oxford is likely to experience more than its proportionate share of these job losses.

 

Compared with fossil fuels, renewables continue to receive a lower subsidy. According to a recent report by the IMF (see Note 2) fossil fuels benefited to the tune of £400 per person in the UK each year, while renewables get £112.

Furthermore, the installation of solar on social housing has the potential for to significantly reduce poverty.

 

This Council therefore asks the Executive to work with local groups to prepare a response to the Government’s consultation opposing drastic reductions to the FIT highlighting both the impact on jobs, the environment and poverty.

 

Note 1: This will have the effect of removing the link to the tariff guarantee for 

installations currently able to pre-accredit under the FIT such that installations will only receive the tariff rate as at the date they apply for full accreditation. This will mean that a developer will not be certain of the level of support they will receive under the scheme until the point at which their application for accreditation is received by Ofgem.

Note 2: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/g20-countries-pay-over-1000-per-citizen-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies-say-imf

 

4.    Save our Children’s Centres

 

Councillor Thomas proposed his submitted motion, seconded by Councillor Benjamin:

 

This Council notes the public consultation launched by the County Council on options for the future of the Children’s Centres and Early Intervention Service with the aim of cutting the budget by a staggering £8m.

 

This Council strongly opposes these cuts and the effects this will have on vulnerable people across the City.

 

It therefore asks the Executive to respond in the strongest terms to the County’s consultation.

 

Councillor Turner proposed an amendment, accepted by Councillor Thomas:

 

Replace text after paragraph 1 with that in italics:

 

Council believes that these cuts are part of an ideologically motivated attack on local government pursued by this government and by its forerunners in the Coalition, which have imposed unacceptable reductions in government funding, leading to atrocious cutbacks in these services, and also in youth services, services for those with learning disabilities, support for the homeless, and cuts in adult social care.  These cutbacks represent a comprehensive assault on the most vulnerable in our society.

 

This Council strongly opposes these cuts and the effects they will have on vulnerable people across the City.

 

It therefore asks the Executive to respond in the strongest terms to the County’s consultation imploring the County Council to save as many of the vital services in children’s centres as it can, and also asking the Executive to consider any ways in which the City Council (although it is also subject to similar government cutbacks) might support the retention of any services.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried.

 

Councillor Fooks, supported by Councillor Wade, proposed an amendment:

 

Replace the second paragraph with

“This Council finds the proposals to close all 44 children’s centres entirely unacceptable and asks the Executive to inform the County Council that this would have very serious impacts indeed, not only on the most vulnerable, but on all the users of the centres who find their support invaluable. While this Council acknowledges the appalling cuts in local government funding, it asks that proper consultation with the centres and the public is done to develop alternative ways to achieve the savings without taking away what is for many a lifeline.”

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment proposed by Councillor Fooks was declared lost.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion as amended by Councillor Turner was declared carried.

 

Council resolved to adopt the motion set out below:

 

This Council notes the public consultation launched by the County Council on options for the future of the Children’s Centres and Early Intervention Service with the aim of cutting the budget by a staggering £8m.

 

Council believes that these cuts are part of an ideologically motivated attack on local government pursued by this government and by its forerunners in the Coalition, which have imposed unacceptable reductions in government funding, leading to atrocious cutbacks in these services, and also in youth services, services for those with learning disabilities, support for the homeless, and cuts in adult social care.  These cutbacks represent a comprehensive assault on the most vulnerable in our society.

 

This Council strongly opposes these cuts and the effects they will have on vulnerable people across the City.

 

It therefore asks the Executive to respond in the strongest terms to the County’s consultation imploring the County Council to save as many of the vital services in children’s centres as it can, and also asking the Executive to consider any ways in which the City Council (although it is also subject to similar government cutbacks) might support the retention of any services.