Agenda item

Note:

Under the Council’s constitution, 30 minutes are available for the consideration of motions. In practice, this realistically means that there is usually only time for one, or possibly two motions to be considered. With the agreement of the Lord Mayor, motion 1 below will be considered at this meeting, and motion 2 is likely to be considered, subject to time. Details of other motions submitted (which, due to time constraints, are very unlikely to be considered at this meeting) are also set out for information.

 

MOTIONS RECEIVED FOR FULL COUNCIL – 15 JANUARY 2019

 

1. TACKLING POVERTY AND INEQUALITY, DELIVERING FOR BRISTOLIANS

 (LABOUR GROUP GOLDEN MOTION)

 

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Marg Hickman, Labour, Lawrence Hill Ward

Date submitted: 03/01/2019

 

Full Council notes that:

1.         The Government’s continued pursuit of ideological austerity, started under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, will see local government lose around three-quarters of its 2010 funding by 2025.

2.         The progressive budget, incorporating almost £1 million of cross-party amendments, passed by Labour councillors in February 2018 saw all three opposition parties oppose Mayor Marvin Rees’ administration’s commitment to cut senior management costs, innovate to increase income, invest in the city, and continue to protect frontline council services.

3.         Mayor Rees has prioritised delivering a real Living Wage, as did Labour councillors through work on the HR committee under his predecessor; accreditation has recently been awarded to the council by the Living Wage Foundation; and analysis which shows that wages are still worth less than a third in some parts of the country than a decade ago, with the average worker in the South West having lost £14,400 since 2008 according to the Trades Union Congress.

4.         Forecasts that Labour’s ambitious 2016 housing targets are set to be smashed: almost 2,900 new homes – including more than 800 new affordable homes – are due to be completed in the target year of 2020; Labour’s £100 million investment in a new housing company, City Hall making available £57 million to housing associations and earmarking £45 million for new council homes, and the memorandum of understanding for the Bristol Bond.

5.         Data showing that the UK’s progress on life expectancy stalled in 2015-17, against a historic trend of improvement, with life expectancy falling for the poorest for the first time since the end of the Second World War; deprived areas often suffer the worst health outcomes; and preventable diseases caused by smoking, obesity, and alcohol account for almost 110,000 early deaths each year in the UK, with smoking-related ill health alone costing local authorities some £760 million per annum in social care costs.

Full Council believes that:

1.         The Government should have listened to calls from Mayor Rees and Labour councillors, together with more than 5,000 Labour councillors and Labour council leaders ahead of both the Budget and Local Government Finance Settlement, to end austerity and invest in Bristol and other cities.

2.         The current administration has brought competence where the previous one left chaos: turning around a £30 million overspend; bringing genuine ambition and political leadership to the authority, as endorsed by the recent cross-party Local Government Association peer review; and, through financial discipline and despite Tory Government cuts, securing the future of the council at a time when other ones are going bust or teetering on the brink.

3.         Mayor Rees was right to set out the ambition of making Bristol the UK’s first real Living Wage City, and to engage with city employers, trade unions, and the Living Wage Foundation to work towards this.

4.         Contrary to views set out by some members of the chamber, Labour’s complete commitment to building affordable housing is not a ‘vanity project’: there’s nothing vain about lifting people out of rent poverty; there’s nothing vain about helping people off housing waiting lists and onto the property ladder.

5.         Cutting prevention services is a false economy. Cuts to public health grant funding, which will see local authorities left with over half a billion pounds less to spend next year than in 2015/16, must be reversed by the Government.

Full Council resolves to:

1.         Call on all Party Group Leaders (PGLs) to write to the Prime Minister and back the Mayor’s calls for fair funding for Bristol and an end to austerity.

2.         Ask all PGLs and whips to work to ensure that Bristol City Council agrees another progressive Labour budget, following on from the four-year plan to invest in Bristol and protect Bristolians’ services which was passed by Labour councillors in February.

3.         Encourage local employers to follow Bristol City Council’s lead on the real Living Wage, and back the Mayor’s plan to work with the Living Wage Foundation to roll out the real Living Wage across Bristol – making Bristol the first Living Wage City in the UK

4.         Celebrate much-needed historic progress in building new homes, including affordable, under the Mayor’s Labour administration, and welcome projections that ambitious manifesto targets look set to be exceeded by 50% due to be completed in the target year of 2020.

5.         Endorse calls from Cancer Research UK and others for the UK Government to invest in public health, and a sustainable health and social care system, and also back the One City Approach, which will deliver improved outcomes by utilising the resources, influence, and energy of city partners alongside that of the local authority.
2. Delivering the phasing out of pesticide/weed-killers in Bristol

(LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SILVER MOTION)

 

Motion submitted by: Cllr Antony Negus, Liberal Democrats, Cotham Ward

Date submitted: 27 / 12 / 2018

 

Council notes:

•         there is an increasing body of evidence concerning the dangers of unrestricted use of glyphosate. This is often referred to as a pesticide but although it is actually a herbicide it has deleterious effects on fauna as well as flora so diminishing our biodiversity.

•         there is considerable debate about the carcinogenic risks from glyphosate and a recent high profile court case in the United States. Concerns for those particularly vulnerable, including children, are even more sustainable.

•         ending the use of such weed killers was a pledge in the Mayor Rees and Labour Party 2016 election vision statement.

•         glyphosate is applied at present in parks and green spaces and in highways by Bristol Waste Company.

•         it is also used by many different contractors and agencies commissioned for the city’s housing estates, schools, nurseries, hospitals and other institutions.

•         discussions about the use of this weed killer have for some time been less about its health risks and more about the viability, particularly financial, of  suitable alternative treatments. Nevertheless cities and Local Authorities in this country and abroad have taken a variety of measures to limit or exclude the use of glyphosate pesticides for treatment of weeds. Recently Croydon Council has confirmed they are phasing out glyphosate for this purpose over the next three years.

•         there have been several attempts within Bristol City Council over recent years to examine this problem and to seek a resolution. In 2014 the then Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission confirmed a study of alternative treatments based on a year-long trial in Cotham ward. This study did not deliver its objective as it did not practically trial any alternatives, except the use of vinegar, with all other options considered on a desktop study basis only. There is still some doubt as to whether the correct number of treatments was carried out during this trial period.

•         subsequent attempts, including a well-attended meeting of all relevant parties and pressure groups in 2017 did raise one alternative option, pelargonic acid, for which this council failed to obtain a licence and so was unable to trial. All attempts to arrange a follow-up meeting over more than 12 months were rebuffed.

•         the Mayor’s response to a members question on 11th September 2 018 was that “our options are based on finding affordable alternatives”.

 

Council believes:

•         this council has a duty of care to its citizens regarding concerns over the use of glyphosate.  In the same way that this council is looking to address the risks from air pollution caused largely by vehicles under the control; of others, it should establish the risks to all of its residents from unrestricted spraying of certain types of weed killers.

•         this council should use its considerable influence and leadership to impress and inform all other users of such weed killers of its study’s findings of the risks and alternatives.

 

Council resolves:

•         to request the Mayor to commission a report to establish the risks to human health and to our biodiversity from unrestricted use of glyphosate as a weed killer.

•         to request the Mayor to commission a report that meaningfully tests and evaluates the practicality and the cost of alternative forms of treatment in parks and highways

•         to request the Mayor to set up a stakeholder forum as requested by the Pesticide Safe Bristol Alliance. The University of Bristol, Sustrans, Bristol Zoo and the Soil Association have shown interest in being part of such a body. It should be charged with planning and delivering a phased withdrawal from the use of glyphosates over a period of three years based on the information from the studies commissioned by the Mayor building on the experience of other authorities.

•         to request the Mayor to provide regular updates to members on the progress of this initiative

 

 

3. MOTION SUPPORTING LOCAL SHOPS

Motion submitted by: Cllr Graham Morris, Conservative, Stockwood Ward

Date submitted: 03 / 01 / 19

 

Council has growing concern over the future vibrancy of many of Bristol’s high streets.

 

Nationally, one study found that we are losing 16 shops per day through closure with an estimated 50,000 jobs lost between January and June in this year alone. Some of the latest casualties include such well-known retail chains as Toys-R-Us, Maplin and most recently Debenhams.

 

This is due to a ‘perfect storm’ of many interlaced factors including (i) spiralling rents; (ii) rising business rates; (iii) increased labour costs; (iv) declining foot-fall; and (v) the choice, convenience and competition provided by the internet.

 

With local authorities more dependent than ever before on retention of business rates to balance their budgets, Council believes it is essential that more is done to support struggling small businesses in secondary or satellite retail areas around the city.

 

The Chancellor’s cut in business rates by one third for two years for small businesses and the creation of a Future High Streets Fund and new High Streets Taskforce is a welcome step in the right direction. 

 

A planned 2% tech-tax targeted at online retail giants should also help to level the playing field between digital shopping outlets and traditional bricks & mortar stores.  The £10m ‘Love our High Streets’ pilot projects by the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) are also welcome.

 

However, even more needs to be done locally.  To this end, Council calls on the Mayor to allocate resources from his capital budget to actually invest in these precincts to make them attractive places to visit.  As one designer has put it, these destinations need to become ‘galleries of experience’ to draw people to them.

 

Consequently, consideration needs to be given to changing the city’s parking strategy/priorities, more free short-term parking provided at these locations, and improved CCTV coverage to increase public safety.

 

Council requests that a report be prepared for Scrutiny which outlines the existing options available for providing temporary business rate relief on particularly hard-pressed retailers. In addition, that this report forms the basis of a submission to the ‘High Streets Fund’ once the full details of the new scheme become available. 

 

Finally, following the outcome of such a review, the Mayor is asked to lobby Ministers to consider a root-and-branch reform of the Business Rates system (which is based on rateable values and ignores important factors such as profit and turnover), to bring it up to date with current economic conditions and in order to save UK retailing.”

 

4. MOTION ON ENFORCING PLANNING POLICY ON PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOMES

Motion submitted by: Cllr Richard Eddy, Conservative, Bishopsworth Ward

Date submitted: 03 / 01 / 19

 

This Council is becoming increasingly alarmed that local policy guidelines on the amount of Affordable Housing to be included in new developments appear to be regularly undermined, circumvented or ignored.

 

For example, the recently approved plans by Legal & General to build 120 flats at Temple Quay was originally granted on the basis that 23 of these units would be reserved or retained as ‘affordable’ homes.  This modest figure (20%) was subsequently radically reduced or downgraded to just 4 properties or (3%) of the total build.

 

Council is concerned that this kind of revisionism sets a dangerous precedent for private developer housing provision.  Moreover, acceptance of this practice could also have implications in relation to the any future redevelopment plans for the vacant Arena Island site.

 

To avoid any misunderstanding on this issue, Council reiterates the conviction that any planning application to redevelop the land by Temple Meads for housing must comply with the principles contained in our adopted Local Plan and policy framework.  Aside from very special dispensations granted by the Authority to deviate from the norm on a case-by-case basis, it is essential that such developments uphold our policy commitment of 40% Affordable Housing in the central areas of the city

 

 

5. MOTION TO REOPEN LOCAL LAVATORIES

 

Motion submitted by: Cllr Steve Smith, Conservative, Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze

Date submitted: 03/01/2019

 

“This Council is concerned over the significant shortcomings and economic impact on tourism, and local high streets, arising from the Mayor’s decision to close nearly half of the city’s on-street public toilets.

 

“Whilst appreciating the rationale behind this move, it was justified as an important money-saving measure, it is clear that the planned replacement of a network of conveniences provided by businesses and organisations signing up to a ‘Community Toilet Scheme’ has been, at best, a mixed success.

 

“Members of the public and the Council’s own Communities Scrutiny Commission have identified continuing problems with this inadequate provision and many remain unconvinced over this policy.

 

“As a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Autumn Budget, which exempts public toilets from business rates, these are now much cheaper to maintain.  To reflect this change in circumstances, Council believes it should now be possible to reopen some of the public amenities – particularly those next or near to parks and formerly serving important local high streets – which have been boarded up.

 

“Accordingly, Council calls upon the Mayor to recognise the very real and practical need for accessible public toilets at locations where families congregate and urgently reverse some of these closures.

 

“Until this is done, it is inevitable that Councillors of all Parties and campaigners for those groups especially hard-hit by this short-sighted strategy will continue to press for changes to be made on this basic and most fundamental issue.”

 

 

 

6. MOTION TRIAL OF RECYCLED PLASTICS FOR BRISTOL ROADS

 

Motion submitted by: Cllr Claire Hiscott, Conservative, Horfield ward

Date submitted: 03/01/2019

 

“Council notes with great interest the innovative road surfacing experiment currently being trialled in London which utilises recycled plastics.

 

In 2016, Cumbria County Council became the first authority in the country to use this material on its roads. It was found to be an affordable, more environmentally friendly alternative repair resource to address their road repair problems. For their project, resurfacing the A7 in Carlisle, the volume of plastic applied was equivalent to 500,000 plastic bottles and more than 800,000 one-use plastic carrier bags.

 

Council understands that many benefits are derived from these 'plastic roads' which can be constructed entirely out of recycled plastic or as a composite mix with traditional mineral aggregates and asphalt. For example, as well as obviously reducing resort to landfill, it uses a material which is plentiful, cost effective, easy to apply and proven durability.

 

With the LGA estimating it will cost around £11.8 billion to bring the nation's roads up to standard, any viable cheap alternative must be considered by cash-strapped authorities.

 

Accordingly, in order to better evaluate these claims, Council calls on the Mayor to commission a detailed report on this subject for scrutiny members, with particular attention given to the Enfield project and special consideration given to conducting our own trial(s) here in Bristol.

 

Any such local study should also seek to identify those component combinations which maximise surface noise reduction. No doubt, the really bad weather last winter took a heavy toll on the city’s road network and now we are entering a new seasonal cycle. So, it would seem to be especially timely to try out these plastic formulations as a repair solution at the earliest possible opportunity.”

 

7. Avon Pension Fund – Divestment and Diversification

Motion submitted by: Councillor Martin Fodor, Green Party, Redland Ward

Date submitted: 03/01/2019

 

Full Council notes that:

1.         In 2015 the Full Council resolved that the Avon Pension Fund (APF) should consider divestment from fossil fuels and diversification into clean technologies like renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage;

2.         Action to divest from fossil fuels has the support of staff union Unison;

3.         In 2015 Council agreed that the Mayor should contact Avon Pension Fund and ask for a report on the issue;

4.         There is widespread and growing concern from scientists that declared worldwide fossil fuel reserves, if exploited, constitute a threat to the stability of the global climate;

5.         There is growing recognition that fossil fuel reserves are therefore a class of asset held by investors which have growing risks of being ‘stranded’ i.e. left with reducing value due to the fact not all claimed reserves now have the value being imputed to them, due to the need for them to remain in the ground;  

6.         An ever growing number of public and private sector funds, endowments and investment portfolios are choosing to divest from fossil fuels worldwide, including several local government pension funds. MPs have now called for their own funds to be divested.

7.         The recent clarifications of the fiduciary duty of fund managers confirms that they should take into account a range of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and have a clear statement of investment policies;

8.         The Avon Pension Fund now uses investment provided by the Brunel Pensions Partnership, which is a leading local government pension partnership offering low carbon investment opportunities.

Full Council believes that:

1.         The long term future of the APF is as a fund that is divested from fossil fuels and one that ensures a wide range of investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency technologies, energy storage and smart energy technologies, and other types of investments that will benefit the city and its future residents

2.         Council recognises that a carbon neutral city will create substantial, valuable new jobs in the future sustainable economy.

3.         The investment strategy and policies of the APF should be brought into line with this vision of the future inclusive prosperity and sustainability of the city;

4.         The APF should be leading this process of divestment and diversification, not waiting until the likelihood of stranded assets become more of a risk to the wealth of the fund;

5.         The process of divestment and diversification is also important and should be managed in a way that ensures just transition to new employment, supporting skills development for new sectors and a range of opportunities - with backing from WECA.

Full Council therefore resolves to call on the Mayor:

1.         To meet with the head of the Avon Pension Fund to discuss the divestment of funds over the next 5 years and the review of the fund’s ESG policies;

2.         To promote the diversification of the fund into clean technologies that support renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy storage among other investments that are in line with such policies and the city’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2030;

3.         To liaise with fund members in the city and council unions to explain how this secures future prosperity and pensions income while ensuring a just transition for workers in sectors that will change, while helping achieve a carbon neutral city by 2030

 

8. Expansion of Bristol International Airport and Climate Change

Motion submitted by: Cllr Jerome Thomas, Green Party, Clifton Ward

Date submitted: 03/01/2019

 

Full Council notes:

1.         Bristol Airport Limited (1) has applied to North Somerset Council for infrastructure development that include a 50% increase in passenger numbers from the current figure of 8 million to 12 million, with an anticipated more than doubling to 20 million passengers per year in the longer term. The public will be able to comment on the application until 26 January.

2.         The proposals include an aspiration to be carbon neutral by 2030 but the Airport has no intention to include emissions from flights in its target. (2)

3.         Air travel remains the most climate-damaging form of travel, and expansion of air travel will therefore have a significant climate impact. (3)

4.         Such an increase will lead to an enormous increase in the number of journeys to get to the airport to meet the increased usage – a fact which in itself will lead to significant issues around congestion, pollution and infrastructure.

5.         The commitment – in Bristol – to be carbon-neutral by 2030, and the Climate Change Act to achieve an 80% cut in emissions across the UK by 2050.

6.         The Joint Spatial Plan – which includes North Somerset and the geographical area covered by the airport– contains an explicit commitment to making a 50% cut in emissions by 2036.

7.         The widespread concern that the expansion of Heathrow Airport which was supported by MPs on 25th June will make it even harder to meet the UK’s commitments under the Climate Change act. (4)

8.         Airport expansion, whether in Bristol or Heathrow, locks the UK into emissions increases.

9.         47% of the UK population has flown in the last year, and this figure has been stable over the last 15 years. Most (31%) only make one or two trips per year. This means that 10% of the population makes about 60% of all flights, and these people are mainly from the highest income groups. (5)

Full Council believes that:

1.         The airport must conform to the commitment contained in the Joint Spatial Plan to make a 50% cut in emissions by 2036 and such a commitment must include emissions from the aircraft using it.

2.         Airport expansion disproportionally benefits high income households while negatively affecting all households through climate change, air pollution and noise pollution.

 

Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor:

1.         To pass on these views to the airport, North Somerset Council, the West of England Combined Authority and the Joint Committee.

2.         To respond directly to the consultations making the points above.

Notes:

1.         In 2017, Bristol Airport Limited employed 283 people, had sales of £100 million, made a pre-tax profit of £36 million and paid tax of £3.8million.

2.         Correspondence between Bristol Councillor Carla Denyer and the Bristol Airport consultation team in June 2018 confirmed that emissions from flights are not included in the Airport’s carbon neutrality targets (copy available on the Bristol Green Party website: https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/library/Appendix_-_Airport_emails.pdf).

3.         In the UK the Carbon Trust’s recent report sets aviation emissions at 0.68 tonnes per person per year. (Our individual annual total is 10.92 tonnes). This is 6.2%. If one then adds a factor of 3 by which CO2 at high altitudes is contributing to global warming (radiative forcing) then our flying accounts for 18.6% of the UK’s climate change effects from CO2. This is more than any other category in the Carbon Trust’s list. (Thanks to John Grimshaw for this research).

4.         The Committee on Climate Change found that the UK target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent below 1990 levels could be achieved only if emissions from the UK aviation industry do not exceed 37.5 million tons – the level seen in 2005. And yet, a report released by the Department for Transport has already revealed that aviation emissions will hit 43 million tons by 2030 if the Heathrow expansion goes ahead. https://www.independent.co.uk/infact/heathrow-airport-expansion-vote-third-runway-climate-change-chris-grayling-a8415881.html

5.         Calculated by David Banister based on the National Travel Survey data and the Civil Aviation Authority’s Air Passenger Surveys: https://theconversation.com/heathrows-third-runway-is-expensive-polluting-and-unequal-why-the-poor-will-lose-out-98781

 

9. Sims Hill, the ‘Blue finger’ and park and rides

Motion submitted by: Councillor Charlie Bolton, Green Party, Southville Ward

Date submitted: 03/01/2019

 

Full Council notes: 

1.         The  West of England ‘Joint Spatial Plan Emerging Findings Transport Report’ which on pages 40-42 (1) outlines the case for building a park and ride on the M32 corridor. Of the 17 sites proposed, 16 have been excluded, leaving (according to the report):‘Sims Hill: The site is located west of the M32 and east of Stoke Lane, to the north of the new MetroBus bridge. ‘

2.         Sims Hill is a community supported agriculture project which grows local produce which is distributed locally. It also has projects targeting those who are vulnerable and on low incomes

3.         The land on which the project is located is part of the ‘Blue finger’. This is classified as “Grade 1 Agricultural land,” which means it is classified within the top 3% of all agricultural land in the whole of the UK as the “best and most versatile”.

4.         The land is in the South Gloucestershire council geographical area, but Sims Hill CSA rent the land from Bristol City Council

5.         Moves by the council and partner organisations for Bristol to become a Gold standard Sustainable Food City.

6.         Moves in the revised Bristol local plan to offer protection to the Blue Finger land

Full Council recognises: 

1.         The value of the Sims Hill project to local food growing

2.         The importance of ‘blue finger land’

Full Council believes:

1.         A Gold standard sustainable food city cannot tolerate the loss of land which is both a CSA and Grade ‘A’ agricultural land

Full Council calls on:

1.         The West of England combined authority to drop any proposal to build on ‘Blue Finger’ land

2.         The Bristol Mayor to publicly oppose any proposal to build on ‘Blue Finger’ land

3.         The administration to make it clear that it will not support the use of the site as a park and ride

4.         WECA to find an alternative site for any park and ride

Notes

https://www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk/gf2.ti/-/978402/43116357.1/PDF/-/WED_008_Emerging_Findings_Transport_Report_Nov_2018.pdf

 

10. Support for the Human Rights Act

Motion submitted by: Cllr Stephen Clarke, Green Party, Southville Ward

Date submitted: 03/01/2019

 

Full Council notes:

1.         The positive impact that the Human Rights Act has had on the protection of the rights of individuals in the UK.

2.         The valuable guidance the Act provides for public authorities in ensuring policies are developed in line with international human rights standards.

 

Full Council believes that:

1.         The UK should be proud of respecting the human rights of its citizens and should not be considering diluting their statutory protections at this time of increased threat to civil liberties.

 

Full Council resolves to call on the Mayor:

1.         To lobby the Government to retain the Act, the protections within it, and the UK's international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

2.         To request that the leader of the opposition publically voices support for the retention of the Human Rights Act in future negotiations or statements on Brexit.

 

Motion 1 – Tackling Poverty And Inequality, Delivering For Bristolians

 

Councillor Hickman moved the following motion:

 

Full Council notes that:

1.  The Government’s continued pursuit of ideological austerity, started under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, will see local government lose around three-quarters of its 2010 funding by 2025.

2.  The progressive budget, incorporating almost £1 million of cross-party amendments, passed by Labour councillors in February 2018 saw all three opposition parties oppose Mayor Marvin Rees’ administration’s commitment to cut senior management costs, innovate to increase income, invest in the city, and continue to protect frontline council services.

3.  Mayor Rees has prioritised delivering a real Living Wage, as did Labour councillors through work on the HR committee under his predecessor; accreditation has recently been awarded to the council by the Living Wage Foundation; and analysis which shows that wages are still worth less than a third in some parts of the country than a decade ago, with the average worker in the South West having lost £14,400 since 2008 according to the Trades Union Congress.

4.  Forecasts that Labour’s ambitious 2016 housing targets are set to be smashed: almost 2,900 new homes – including more than 800 new affordable homes – are due to be completed in the target year of 2020; Labour’s £100 million investment in a new housing company, City Hall making available £57 million to housing associations and earmarking £45 million for new council homes, and the memorandum of understanding for the Bristol Bond.

5.  Data showing that the UK’s progress on life expectancy stalled in 2015-17, against a historic trend of improvement, with life expectancy falling for the poorest for the first time since the end of the Second World War; deprived areas often suffer the worst health outcomes; and preventable diseases caused by smoking, obesity, and alcohol account for almost 110,000 early deaths each year in the UK, with smoking-related ill health alone costing local authorities some £760 million per annum in social care costs.

 

Full Council believes that:

1.  The Government should have listened to calls from Mayor Rees and Labour councillors, together with more than 5,000 Labour councillors and Labour council leaders ahead of both the Budget and Local Government Finance Settlement, to end austerity and invest in Bristol and other cities.

2.  The current administration has brought competence where the previous one left chaos: turning around a £30 million overspend; bringing genuine ambition and political leadership to the authority, as endorsed by the recent cross-party Local Government Association peer review; and, through financial discipline and despite Tory Government cuts, securing the future of the council at a time when other ones are going bust or teetering on the brink.

3.  Mayor Rees was right to set out the ambition of making Bristol the UK’s first real Living Wage City, and to engage with city employers, trade unions, and the Living Wage Foundation to work towards this.

4.  Contrary to views set out by some members of the chamber, Labour’s complete commitment to building affordable housing is not a ‘vanity project’: there’s nothing vain about lifting people out of rent poverty; there’s nothing vain about helping people off housing waiting lists and onto the property ladder.

5.  Cutting prevention services is a false economy. Cuts to public health grant funding, which will see local authorities left with over half a billion pounds less to spend next year than in 2015/16, must be reversed by the Government.

Full Council resolves to:

1.  Call on all Party Group Leaders (PGLs) to write to the Prime Minister and back the Mayor’s calls for fair funding for Bristol and an end to austerity.

2.  Ask all PGLs and whips to work to ensure that Bristol City Council agrees another progressive Labour budget, following on from the four-year plan to invest in Bristol and protect Bristolians’ services which was passed by Labour councillors in February.

3.  Encourage local employers to follow Bristol City Council’s lead on the real Living Wage, and back the Mayor’s plan to work with the Living Wage Foundation to roll out the real Living Wage across Bristol – making Bristol the first Living Wage City in the UK

4.  Celebrate much-needed historic progress in building new homes, including affordable, under the Mayor’s Labour administration, and welcome projections that ambitious manifesto targets look set to be exceeded by 50% due to be completed in the target year of 2020.

5.  Endorse calls from Cancer Research UK and others for the UK Government to invest in public health, and a sustainable health and social care system, and also back the One City Approach, which will deliver improved outcomes by utilising the resources, influence, and energy of city partners alongside that of the local authority.

Councillor Seargant seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Combley then moved the following amendment:

 

Full Council notes that:

1.  The Government’s continued pursuit of ideological austerity will see local government face a £7.8 billion funding gap by 2025, according to the Local Government Association.

2.  Data showing that the UK’s progress on life expectancy stalled in 2015-17, against a historic trend of improvement, with life expectancy falling for the poorest for the first time since the end of the Second World War; deprived areas often suffer the worst health outcomes; and preventable diseases caused by smoking, obesity, and alcohol account for almost 110,000 early deaths each year in the UK, with smoking-related ill health alone costing local authorities some £760 million per annum in social care costs.

Full Council believes that:

1.  The Government should have listened to calls from across the political spectrum to end austerity and invest in Bristol and other cities.

2.  We should make Bristol the UK’s first real Living Wage City, and engage with city employers, trade unions, and the Living Wage Foundation to work towards this.

3.  Cutting prevention services is a false economy. Cuts to public health grant funding, which will see local authorities left with over half a billion pounds less to spend next year than in 2015/16, must be reversed by the Government.

Full Council resolves to:

1.  Call on all Party Group Leaders (PGLs) and the Mayor to write to the Prime Minister and call for fair funding for Bristol and an end to austerity.

2.  Work to ensure that the 2019 budget is as progressive as possible by protecting support for the most vulnerable through the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and Local Crisis and Prevention Fund, and standing up for local services.

3.  Encourage local employers to follow Bristol City Council’s lead on the real Living Wage, and back the Mayor’s plan to work with the Living Wage Foundation to roll out the real Living Wage across Bristol – making Bristol the first Living Wage City in the UK

4.  Work to support progress in building new homes, especially affordable and social, and with high standards of energy efficiency to keep people’s bills low.

5.  Endorse calls from Cancer Research UK and others for the UK Government to invest in public health, and a sustainable health and social care system, and also back the One City Approach of utilising the resources, influence, and energy of city partners alongside that of the local authority.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Hance.

 

Following debate after being put to the vote, the amendment was LOST.

 

Following further remarks on the substantive motion, upon being put to the vote, the original motion was CARRIED (34 members voting in favour, 13 against, with 10 abstentions), and it was then

 

RESOLVED:

 

Full Council notes that:

1.  The Government’s continued pursuit of ideological austerity, started under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition, will see local government lose around three-quarters of its 2010 funding by 2025.

2.  The progressive budget, incorporating almost £1 million of cross-party amendments, passed by Labour councillors in February 2018 saw all three opposition parties oppose Mayor Marvin Rees’ administration’s commitment to cut senior management costs, innovate to increase income, invest in the city, and continue to protect frontline council services.

3.  Mayor Rees has prioritised delivering a real Living Wage, as did Labour councillors through work on the HR committee under his predecessor; accreditation has recently been awarded to the council by the Living Wage Foundation; and analysis which shows that wages are still worth less than a third in some parts of the country than a decade ago, with the average worker in the South West having lost £14,400 since 2008 according to the Trades Union Congress.

4.  Forecasts that Labour’s ambitious 2016 housing targets are set to be smashed: almost 2,900 new homes – including more than 800 new affordable homes – are due to be completed in the target year of 2020; Labour’s £100 million investment in a new housing company, City Hall making available £57 million to housing associations and earmarking £45 million for new council homes, and the memorandum of understanding for the Bristol Bond.

5.  Data showing that the UK’s progress on life expectancy stalled in 2015-17, against a historic trend of improvement, with life expectancy falling for the poorest for the first time since the end of the Second World War; deprived areas often suffer the worst health outcomes; and preventable diseases caused by smoking, obesity, and alcohol account for almost 110,000 early deaths each year in the UK, with smoking-related ill health alone costing local authorities some £760 million per annum in social care costs.

 

Full Council believes that:

1.  The Government should have listened to calls from Mayor Rees and Labour councillors, together with more than 5,000 Labour councillors and Labour council leaders ahead of both the Budget and Local Government Finance Settlement, to end austerity and invest in Bristol and other cities.

2.  The current administration has brought competence where the previous one left chaos: turning around a £30 million overspend; bringing genuine ambition and political leadership to the authority, as endorsed by the recent cross-party Local Government Association peer review; and, through financial discipline and despite Tory Government cuts, securing the future of the council at a time when other ones are going bust or teetering on the brink.

3.  Mayor Rees was right to set out the ambition of making Bristol the UK’s first real Living Wage City, and to engage with city employers, trade unions, and the Living Wage Foundation to work towards this.

4.  Contrary to views set out by some members of the chamber, Labour’s complete commitment to building affordable housing is not a ‘vanity project’: there’s nothing vain about lifting people out of rent poverty; there’s nothing vain about helping people off housing waiting lists and onto the property ladder.

5.  Cutting prevention services is a false economy. Cuts to public health grant funding, which will see local authorities left with over half a billion pounds less to spend next year than in 2015/16, must be reversed by the Government.

Full Council resolves to:

1.  Call on all Party Group Leaders (PGLs) to write to the Prime Minister and back the Mayor’s calls for fair funding for Bristol and an end to austerity.

2.  Ask all PGLs and whips to work to ensure that Bristol City Council agrees another progressive Labour budget, following on from the four-year plan to invest in Bristol and protect Bristolians’ services which was passed by Labour councillors in February.

3.  Encourage local employers to follow Bristol City Council’s lead on the real Living Wage, and back the Mayor’s plan to work with the Living Wage Foundation to roll out the real Living Wage across Bristol – making Bristol the first Living Wage City in the UK

4.  Celebrate much-needed historic progress in building new homes, including affordable, under the Mayor’s Labour administration, and welcome projections that ambitious manifesto targets look set to be exceeded by 50% due to be completed in the target year of 2020.

5.  Endorse calls from Cancer Research UK and others for the UK Government to invest in public health, and a sustainable health and social care system, and also back the One City Approach, which will deliver improved outcomes by utilising the resources, influence, and energy of city partners alongside that of the local authority.

 

Motion 2 –  Delivering the phasing out of pesticide/weed-killers in Bristol

Councillor Negus moved the following motion:

 

Council notes:

1.    There is an increasing body of evidence concerning the dangers of unrestricted use of glyphosate. This is often referred to as a pesticide but although it is actually a herbicide it has deleterious effects on fauna as well as flora so diminishing our biodiversity.

2.    There is considerable debate about the carcinogenic risks from glyphosate and a recent high profile court case in the United States. Concerns for those particularly vulnerable, including children, are even more sustainable.

3.    The 2016 Labour manifesto pledged to ‘stop using harmful pesticides’ and ‘eliminate the use of the most harmful substances and ensure proper safety for employees and contractors using pesticides.’

4.    Mayor Marvin Rees’ column in the November 2018 SERA New Ground magazine which highlighted the administration’s work ‘exploring alternatives with other councils so that we can be able to phase out the use of glyphosate’: https://www.sera.org.uk/bristol_a_leading_green_city

5.    Glyphosate is applied at present in parks and green spaces and in highways by Bristol Waste Company.

6.    It is also used by many different contractors and agencies commissioned for the city’s housing estates, schools, nurseries, hospitals and other institutions.

7.    Discussions about the use of this weed killer have for some time been less about its health risks and more about the viability, particularly financial, of  suitable alternative treatments. Nevertheless cities and Local Authorities in this country and abroad have taken a variety of measures to limit or exclude the use of glyphosate pesticides for treatment of weeds. Recently Croydon Council has confirmed they are phasing out glyphosate for this purpose over the next three years. Bristol’s Labour administration are already actively working with other councils to identify viable alternatives to glyphosate.

8.    There have been several attempts within Bristol City Council over recent years to examine this problem and to seek a resolution. In 2014 the then Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission confirmed a study of alternative treatments based on a year-long trial in Cotham ward. This study did not deliver its objective as it did not practically trial any alternatives, except the use of vinegar, with all other options considered on a desktop study basis only. There is still some doubt as to whether the correct number of treatments was carried out during this trial period.

9.    Subsequent attempts, including a well-attended meeting of all relevant parties and pressure groups in 2017 did raise one alternative option, pelargonic acid, for which this council failed to obtain a licence and so was unable to trial. All attempts to arrange a follow-up meeting over more than 12 months were rebuffed.

10.    The Mayor’s response to a members question on 11th September 2018 was that “our options are based on finding affordable alternatives”.

 

Council believes:

1.    This council has a duty of care to its citizens regarding concerns over the use of glyphosate.  In the same way that this council is looking to address the risks from air pollution caused largely by vehicles under the control; of others, it should establish the risks to all of its residents from unrestricted spraying of certain types of weed killers.

2.    This council should use its considerable influence and leadership to impress and inform all other users of such weed killers of its study’s findings of the risks and alternatives.

 

Council resolves:

1.    To request the Mayor to produce a report on the risks to human health and to our biodiversity from unrestricted use of glyphosate as a weed killer, using evidence including but not limited to that from the European Chemical Agency, which relicensed the substance until 2022, the World Health Organistion, who have expressed concerns, and the European Food Safety Agency, which felt it ‘unlikely’ to pose a public health risk

2.    To request the Mayor to meaningfully test and evaluate the practicality and the cost of alternative forms of treatment in parks and highways, informed by the report produced and work with other councils.

3.    To request the Mayor to set up a stakeholder forum/task force as requested by the Pesticide Safe Bristol Alliance. The University of Bristol, Sustrans, Bristol Zoo and the Soil Association have shown interest in being part of such a body. It should be charged with planning and delivering a phased withdrawal from the use of glyphosates over a period of three years based on the information from the studies commissioned by the Mayor building on the experience of other authorities.

4.    To request the Mayor to provide regular updates to members on the progress of this initiative

 

Councillor Clark seconded the motion.

 

Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (57 members voting in favour), and it was then

 

RESOLVED:

 

Council notes:

1.    There is an increasing body of evidence concerning the dangers of unrestricted use of glyphosate. This is often referred to as a pesticide but although it is actually a herbicide it has deleterious effects on fauna as well as flora so diminishing our biodiversity.

2.    There is considerable debate about the carcinogenic risks from glyphosate and a recent high profile court case in the United States. Concerns for those particularly vulnerable, including children, are even more sustainable.

3.    The 2016 Labour manifesto pledged to ‘stop using harmful pesticides’ and ‘eliminate the use of the most harmful substances and ensure proper safety for employees and contractors using pesticides.’

4.    Mayor Marvin Rees’ column in the November 2018 SERA New Ground magazine which highlighted the administration’s work ‘exploring alternatives with other councils so that we can be able to phase out the use of glyphosate’: https://www.sera.org.uk/bristol_a_leading_green_city

5.    Glyphosate is applied at present in parks and green spaces and in highways by Bristol Waste Company.

6.    It is also used by many different contractors and agencies commissioned for the city’s housing estates, schools, nurseries, hospitals and other institutions.

7.    Discussions about the use of this weed killer have for some time been less about its health risks and more about the viability, particularly financial, of  suitable alternative treatments. Nevertheless cities and Local Authorities in this country and abroad have taken a variety of measures to limit or exclude the use of glyphosate pesticides for treatment of weeds. Recently Croydon Council has confirmed they are phasing out glyphosate for this purpose over the next three years. Bristol’s Labour administration are already actively working with other councils to identify viable alternatives to glyphosate.

8.    There have been several attempts within Bristol City Council over recent years to examine this problem and to seek a resolution. In 2014 the then Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission confirmed a study of alternative treatments based on a year-long trial in Cotham ward. This study did not deliver its objective as it did not practically trial any alternatives, except the use of vinegar, with all other options considered on a desktop study basis only. There is still some doubt as to whether the correct number of treatments was carried out during this trial period.

9.    Subsequent attempts, including a well-attended meeting of all relevant parties and pressure groups in 2017 did raise one alternative option, pelargonic acid, for which this council failed to obtain a licence and so was unable to trial. All attempts to arrange a follow-up meeting over more than 12 months were rebuffed.

10.    The Mayor’s response to a members question on 11th September 2018 was that “our options are based on finding affordable alternatives”.

 

Council believes:

1.    This council has a duty of care to its citizens regarding concerns over the use of glyphosate.  In the same way that this council is looking to address the risks from air pollution caused largely by vehicles under the control; of others, it should establish the risks to all of its residents from unrestricted spraying of certain types of weed killers.

2.    This council should use its considerable influence and leadership to impress and inform all other users of such weed killers of its study’s findings of the risks and alternatives.

 

Council resolves:

1.    To request the Mayor to produce a report on the risks to human health and to our biodiversity from unrestricted use of glyphosate as a weed killer, using evidence including but not limited to that from the European Chemical Agency, which relicensed the substance until 2022, the World Health Organistion, who have expressed concerns, and the European Food Safety Agency, which felt it ‘unlikely’ to pose a public health risk

2.    To request the Mayor to meaningfully test and evaluate the practicality and the cost of alternative forms of treatment in parks and highways, informed by the report produced and work with other councils.

3.    To request the Mayor to set up a stakeholder forum/task force as requested by the Pesticide Safe Bristol Alliance. The University of Bristol, Sustrans, Bristol Zoo and the Soil Association have shown interest in being part of such a body. It should be charged with planning and delivering a phased withdrawal from the use of glyphosates over a period of three years based on the information from the studies commissioned by the Mayor building on the experience of other authorities.

4.    To request the Mayor to provide regular updates to members on the progress of this initiative