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 listed at the end of the agenda pack attached to this item.

 

MOTIONS RECEIVED FOR FULL COUNCIL

 

Golden Motion - Green Mass Transit for Bristol

Full council notes that:

1. WECA has committed £5 million to conduct a feasibility study for an underground rail network for (Greater) Bristol, for ‘pinch points’ such as Temple Meads and the Gloucester Road.

1. This is an ambitious idea which could potentially help with efficiently moving large volumes of people in Bristol.
2. The proposed mass transit system represents a huge investment.
3. Significant challenges will need to be overcome to deliver subterranean tunnels, such as flood risk, ensuring it serves enough people to justify the cost, and that large scale construction projects of this nature also generate significant carbon emissions.
4. A mass transit system that relies on underground tunnels, as currently proposed will take many years to complete, well beyond the IPCC warning that we have just 8 years to make significant reductions in carbon emissions.
5. We are in a Climate Emergency and decarbonising transport has to be implemented as soon as possible.
   
   

Full council believes that:

1. Due to the “once in a generation” size of investment involved, the proposed underground mass transit system is a potential opportunity cost both financially and in terms of carbon emissions.

1. There is a risk that alternative mass transit options, which might be at least as effective or have a better benefit to cost ratio, may not be taken forwards if all political focus is on underground rail.
2. Only by comparing all options will Bristol be able to most wisely spend funding and deliver a world class mass transit system in a timely manner.
3. Other mass transit system options such as: improving, increasing and greening bus infrastructure; a tram system or similar mass transit such as electric trolley cars, should be assessed alongside the underground network.
4. This comparative approach is entirely consistent with all project and programme management approaches, including the latest Governmental guidance (i.e. Infrastructure and Projects Authority: assurance review toolkit) that suggests that the business case of projects of this sort should be kept under constant review.
5. If the study were to show that different transport systems would be more impactful than the underground proposal then these will need to be implemented instead.
   
   

Full council resolves that:

1. The Council and WECA must include in the £5million plan a strategic review of the business case by assessing the feasibility of other strategic options such as those listed above.

1. The review must assess the ongoing business case with comparisons of other options, with an independent assessment of what the options are and the criteria to be considered. This is likely to include (but not be limited to):

·         Cost

·         Delivery time

·         Environmental impact of project, to include construction as well as eventual impact

·         How many cars it would take off the road

·         How many areas/people of Bristol it could serve

·         Impact on deprived areas

·         How much space for active travel it could also deliver

·         Accessibility

·         Expected passenger numbers

·         Public interest and enthusiasm

·         Return on investment

 

Motion proposed by: Emma Edwards

Motion submitted: 3 March 2022

 

 

Silver Motion - Ukraine and the Borders and Nationalities Bill

 

This Council notes

1.       The Russian Federation has launched an unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine – a sovereign, democratic country. The brutality of the Russian invasion, notably, the alleged use of cluster munitions, thermobaric weaponry, and the direct targeting of civilians in Ukraine.

2.       Ukraine’s longstanding ambitions to join the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO), and believes these ambitions are legitimate, and that Russia has no right to dictate whether Ukraine can enter these organisations if Ukraine democratically chooses to do so.

3.       There is currently a Bill in Parliament titled the ‘Nationalities and Borders’ Bill that would reform the asylum system and make it much more difficult for people seeking sanctuary to claim asylum in the UK, and will create a two-tier system, penalising people seeking safety based on the journeys they make.

This Council believes

4.       Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and Bristol should stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression.

5.       President Putin’s claim that “Ukraine has never had any real claim to statehood”, and that it is just an “administrative region created by the Russian/Soviet Empires” is abhorrent and an attempt to assimilate Ukrainian identity with Russian identity – while the two are distinct.

6.       The invasion highlights the need to introduce measures that tackles the influence of Russian oligarchs on British politics and prevents them from being able to launder money in the UK.

7.       Proposals for the strongest possible sanctions imposed by the UK, the EU, and its allies, such as removing Russia from the SWIFT financial system are necessary.

8.       This conflict has already displaced over a half million Ukrainians, and as a City of Sanctuary, Bristol has a duty to accept as many refugees as possible – Ukrainian or otherwise. The Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill would hinder these efforts, as it would treat such people forced to make dangerous journeys to safety as criminals, and should not become law.

9.       The Nationality and Borders Bill will lead to greater poverty and homelessness in Bristol and will undermine people’s ability to rebuild their lives. This Bill also risks undermining our obligations in international law.

10.   The UK needs an asylum system that empowers people seeking safety to rebuild their lives and enables communities to welcome them;

Full Council resolves to:

1.       Call on Party Group Leaders to collectively write a public letter to the Government stating the views laid out in this motion, calling on it to scrap the Nationality and Borders Bill, legislate to allow more refugees to be granted asylum in the UK, provide Councils with the necessary funding to support them, and call on the UK Government to work with Local Authorities and communities to build a fairer and more effective asylum system.

2.       Use Council resources to support drives providing aid to the over half a million refugees that have been forced to leave Ukraine.

3.       Support, where possible, the Russian citizens who have bravely protest their Government’s actions, - knowing full well of the potential consequences of protest in President Putin’s Russia - and look at ways to offer political asylum to outspoken critics of Putin’s regime, if given the support of the UK Government in these efforts.

Motion to be moved by: Cllr Bennett

Date of Submission: 1^st March 2022

 

 

Motion 1 – Golden Motion: Green Mass Transit for Bristol

 

Councillor Edwards moved the following motion:

 

Full council notes that:

1.             WECA has committed £5 million to conduct a feasibility study for an underground rail network for (Greater) Bristol, for ‘pinch points’ such as Temple Meads and the Gloucester Road.

2.       This is an ambitious idea which could potentially help with efficiently moving large volumes of people in Bristol.

3.       The proposed mass transit system represents a huge investment.

4.       Significant challenges will need to be overcome to deliver subterranean tunnels, such as flood risk, ensuring it serves enough people to justify the cost, and that large scale construction projects of this nature also generate significant carbon emissions.

5.       A mass transit system that relies on underground tunnels, as currently proposed will take many years to complete, well beyond the IPCC warning that we have just 8 years to make significant reductions in carbon emissions.

6.       We are in a Climate Emergency and decarbonising transport has to be implemented as soon as possible

 

Full council believes that:

1.             Due to the “once in a generation” size of investment involved, the proposed underground mass transit system is a potential opportunity cost both financially and in terms of carbon emissions.

2.       There is a risk that alternative mass transit options, which might be at least as effective or have a better benefit to cost ratio, may not be taken forwards if all political focus is on underground rail.

3.       Only by comparing all options will Bristol be able to most wisely spend funding and deliver a world class mass transit system in a timely manner.

4.       Other mass transit system options such as: improving, increasing and greening bus infrastructure; a tram system or similar mass transit such as electric trolley cars, should be assessed alongside the underground network. 

5.       This comparative approach is entirely consistent with all project and programme management approaches, including the latest Governmental guidance (i.e. Infrastructure and Projects Authority: assurance review toolkit) that suggests that the business case of projects of this sort should be kept under constant review.

6.       If the study were to show that different transport systems would be more impactful than the underground proposal then these will need to be implemented instead

 

Full council resolves that:

1.             The Council and WECA must include in the £5million plan a strategic review of the business case by assessing the feasibility of other strategic options such as those listed above.

2.             The review must assess the ongoing business case with comparisons of other options, with an independent assessment of what the options are and the criteria to be considered. This is likely to include (but not be limited to):

•     Cost

•     Delivery time

•     Environmental impact of project, to include construction as well as eventual impact · How many cars it would take off the road

•     How many areas/people of Bristol it could serve

•     Impact on deprived areas

•     How much space for active travel it could also deliver

•     Accessibility

•     Expected passenger numbers

•     Public interest and enthusiasm

•     Return on investment

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor Plowden

 

There was a debate, following which, the Lord Mayor invited Councillor Edwards as mover of the motion, to speak.

 

Following final remarks, upon being put to the vote, the original motion was unanimously CARRIED and it was:

 

RESOLVED:

Full council notes that:

1.             WECA has committed £5 million to conduct a feasibility study for an underground rail network for (Greater) Bristol, for ‘pinch points’ such as Temple Meads and the Gloucester Road.

2.       This is an ambitious idea which could potentially help with efficiently moving large volumes of people in Bristol.

3.       The proposed mass transit system represents a huge investment.

4.       Significant challenges will need to be overcome to deliver subterranean tunnels, such as flood risk, ensuring it serves enough people to justify the cost, and that large scale construction projects of this nature also generate significant carbon emissions.

5.       A mass transit system that relies on underground tunnels, as currently proposed will take many years to complete, well beyond the IPCC warning that we have just 8 years to make significant reductions in carbon emissions.

6.       We are in a Climate Emergency and decarbonising transport has to be implemented as soon as possible

 

Full council believes that:

1.             Due to the “once in a generation” size of investment involved, the proposed underground mass transit system is a potential opportunity cost both financially and in terms of carbon emissions.

2.       There is a risk that alternative mass transit options, which might be at least as effective or have a better benefit to cost ratio, may not be taken forwards if all political focus is on underground rail.

3.       Only by comparing all options will Bristol be able to most wisely spend funding and deliver a world class mass transit system in a timely manner.

4.       Other mass transit system options such as: improving, increasing and greening bus infrastructure; a tram system or similar mass transit such as electric trolley cars, should be assessed alongside the underground network. 

5.       This comparative approach is entirely consistent with all project and programme management approaches, including the latest Governmental guidance (i.e. Infrastructure and Projects Authority: assurance review toolkit) that suggests that the business case of projects of this sort should be kept under constant review.

6.       If the study were to show that different transport systems would be more impactful than the underground proposal then these will need to be implemented instead

 

Full council resolves that:

1.         The Council and WECA must include in the £5million plan a strategic review of the business case by assessing the feasibility of other strategic options such as those listed above.

2.             The review must assess the ongoing business case with comparisons of other options, with an independent assessment of what the options are and the criteria to be considered. This is likely to include (but not be limited to):

•     Cost

•     Delivery time

•     Environmental impact of project, to include construction as well as eventual impact · How many cars it would take off the road

•     How many areas/people of Bristol it could serve

•     Impact on deprived areas

•     How much space for active travel it could also deliver

•     Accessibility

•     Expected passenger numbers

•     Public interest and enthusiasm

•     Return on investment

 

Following a short adjournment, it was moved by the Lord Mayor that standing order CPR2.1(xi) be suspended to allow the item to go past the 30 minutes time limit for motions.  Following a vote it was agreed to proceed up until the limit of 2 hours and 30 minutes for the meeting was reached.

 

Motion 2 – Ukraine and the Borders and Nationalities Bill

 

Councillor Bennett moved the following motion:

 

This Council notes

1.             The Russian Federation has launched an unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine – a sovereign, democratic country. The brutality of the Russian invasion, notably, the alleged use of cluster munitions, thermobaric weaponry, and the direct targeting of civilians in Ukraine.

2.             Ukraine’s longstanding ambitions to join the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO), and believes these ambitions are legitimate, and that Russia has no right to dictate whether Ukraine can enter these organisations if Ukraine democratically chooses to do so.

3.             There is currently a Bill in Parliament titled the ‘Nationalities and Borders’ Bill that would reform the asylum system and make it much more difficult for people seeking sanctuary to claim asylum in the UK, and will create a two-tier system, penalising people seeking safety based on the journeys they make.

 

This Council believes

4.             Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and Bristol should stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression.

5.             President Putin’s claim that “Ukraine has never had any real claim to statehood”, and that it is just an “administrative region created by the Russian/Soviet Empires” is abhorrent and an attempt to assimilate Ukrainian identity with Russian identity – while the two are distinct.

6.             The invasion highlights the need to introduce measures that tackles the influence of Russian oligarchs on British politics and prevents them from being able to launder money in the UK.

7.             Proposals for the strongest possible sanctions imposed by the UK, the EU, and its allies, such as removing Russia from the SWIFT financial system are necessary.

8.             This conflict has already displaced over a half million Ukrainians, and as a City of Sanctuary, Bristol has a duty to accept as many refugees as possible – Ukrainian or otherwise. The Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill would hinder these efforts, as it would treat such people forced to make dangerous journeys to safety as criminals, and should not become law.

9.             The Nationality and Borders Bill will lead to greater poverty and homelessness in Bristol and will undermine people’s ability to rebuild their lives. This Bill also risks undermining our obligations in international law.

10.         The UK needs an asylum system that empowers people seeking safety to rebuild their lives and enables communities to welcome them;

 

Full Council resolves to:

1.             Call on Party Group Leaders to collectively write a public letter to the Government stating the views laid out in this motion, calling on it to scrap the Nationality and Borders Bill, legislate to allow more refugees to be granted asylum in the UK, provide Councils with the necessary funding to support them, and call on the UK Government to work with Local Authorities and communities to build a fairer and more effective asylum system.

2.             Use Council resources to support drives providing aid to the over half a million refugees that have been forced to leave Ukraine.

3.             Support, where possible, the Russian citizens who have bravely protest their Government’s actions, - knowing full well of the potential consequences of protest in President Putin’s Russia - and look at ways to offer political asylum to outspoken critics of Putin’s regime, if given the support of the UK Government in these efforts.

 

Councillor Hussain seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Denyer then moved the following amendment:

 

‘That the motion be amended to read as follows:

 

This Council notes

1.       The Russian Federation has launched an unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine – a sovereign, democratic country. The brutality of the Russian invasion, notably, the alleged use of cluster munitions, thermobaric weaponry, and the direct targeting of civilians in Ukraine.

2.       Ukraine’s longstanding ambitions to join the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO), and believes these ambitions are legitimate, and that Russia has no right to dictate whether Ukraine can enter these organisations if Ukraine democratically chooses to do so.

3.       There is currently a Bill in Parliament titled the ‘Nationality and Borders’ Bill that would reform the asylum system and make it much more difficult for people seeking sanctuary to claim asylum in the UK, and will create a two-tier system, penalising people seeking safety based on the journeys they make.

 

This Council believes

1.       Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and Bristol should stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression.

2.       President Putin’s claim that “Ukraine has never had any real claim to statehood”, and that it is just an “administrative region created by the Russian/Soviet Empires” is abhorrent and an attempt to assimilate Ukrainian identity with Russian identity – while the two are distinct.

3.       The invasion highlights the need to introduce measures that tackle the influence of Russian oligarchs on British politics and prevents them from being able to launder money in the UK.

4.       Proposals for the strongest possible sanctions imposed by the UK, the EU, and its allies, such as removing Russia from the SWIFT financial system are necessary.

5.       This conflict has already displaced over a half million Ukrainians, and as a City of Sanctuary, Bristol has a duty to accept as many refugees as possible – Ukrainian or otherwise. The Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill would hinder these efforts, as it would treat such people forced to make dangerous journeys to safety as criminals, and should not become law.

6.       The right to seek asylum is a universal right. It is  deeply unfair of the UK government and EU to treat asylum seekers from Ukraine differently to those from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. This council supports refugees from all parts of the world regardless of race or creed.

7.       The Nationality and Borders Bill will lead to greater poverty and homelessness in Bristol and will undermine people’s ability to rebuild their lives. This Bill also risks undermining our obligations in international law.

8.       The UK needs an asylum system that empowers people seeking safety to rebuild their lives and enables communities to welcome them. This not only includes people fleeing from wars or oppression but in the future will also include those fleeing the effects of climate change.

 

Full Council resolves to:

1.       Call on Party Group Leaders to collectively write a public letter to the Government stating the views laid out in this motion, and calling on it to:

·      scrap the Nationality and Borders Bill,

·      waive visa requirements for refugees trying to enter from Ukraine (as the EU has already done) and any other conflict areas.

·      provide Councils with the necessary funding to support refugees, 

·      work with Local Authorities and communities to build a fairer and more effective asylum system, including providing safe and legal routes to claim asylum, lifting the ban on asylum seekers working, and lifting the ban on asylum seekers receiving benefits (the ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ condition).

2.       Use Council resources to support drives providing aid to the over half a million refugees that have been forced to leave Ukraine.

3.       Publicly restate its commitment to refugees through its website, public statements and its partnership with City of Sanctuary.

4.       Support, where possible, the Russian citizens who bravely protest their Government’s actions - knowing full well of the potential consequences of protest in President Putin’s Russia - and look at ways to offer political asylum to outspoken critics of Putin’s regime, if given the support of the UK Government in these efforts.

5.       Review the Council’s policies and practices regarding housing, social care, education and information provided on our website to ensure that we are helping asylum seekers and refugees to the maximum of our legal ability, with reference to the LGA guidance ‘Resettling refugees’ and the NRPF Network’s ‘Guidance for Councils’.

6.       Encourage partners through the One City partnership to pledge active measures they can take to support any asylum seekers and refugees who live in our city, and ask them to report back in a similar approach to the “One City Climate Ask”.

 

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Mohamud.

 

Following debate and final remarks from the mover of the amendment and the mover of the original motion, upon being put to the vote, the amendment was CARRIED (42 Members voting for, 12 against, 2 abstentions).

 

There was a debate on the susbstantive motion (as amended).  The Lord Mayor then invited Councillor Bennett, as mover of the original motion, to speak.

 

Following final remarks, upon being put to the vote, the original motion was CARRIED (42 Members voting for, 12 against, 2 abstentions) and it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes

1.       The Russian Federation has launched an unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine – a sovereign, democratic country. The brutality of the Russian invasion, notably, the alleged use of cluster munitions, thermobaric weaponry, and the direct targeting of civilians in Ukraine.

2.       Ukraine’s longstanding ambitions to join the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO), and believes these ambitions are legitimate, and that Russia has no right to dictate whether Ukraine can enter these organisations if Ukraine democratically chooses to do so.

3.       There is currently a Bill in Parliament titled the ‘Nationality and Borders’ Bill that would reform the asylum system and make it much more difficult for people seeking sanctuary to claim asylum in the UK, and will create a two-tier system, penalising people seeking safety based on the journeys they make.

 

This Council believes

1.       Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and Bristol should stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression.

2.       President Putin’s claim that “Ukraine has never had any real claim to statehood”, and that it is just an “administrative region created by the Russian/Soviet Empires” is abhorrent and an attempt to assimilate Ukrainian identity with Russian identity – while the two are distinct.

3.       The invasion highlights the need to introduce measures that tackle the influence of Russian oligarchs on British politics and prevents them from being able to launder money in the UK.

4.       Proposals for the strongest possible sanctions imposed by the UK, the EU, and its allies, such as removing Russia from the SWIFT financial system are necessary.

5.       This conflict has already displaced over a half million Ukrainians, and as a City of Sanctuary, Bristol has a duty to accept as many refugees as possible – Ukrainian or otherwise. The Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill would hinder these efforts, as it would treat such people forced to make dangerous journeys to safety as criminals, and should not become law.

6.       The right to seek asylum is a universal right. It is  deeply unfair of the UK government and EU to treat asylum seekers from Ukraine differently to those from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. This council supports refugees from all parts of the world regardless of race or creed.

7.       The Nationality and Borders Bill will lead to greater poverty and homelessness in Bristol and will undermine people’s ability to rebuild their lives. This Bill also risks undermining our obligations in international law.

8.       The UK needs an asylum system that empowers people seeking safety to rebuild their lives and enables communities to welcome them. This not only includes people fleeing from wars or oppression but in the future will also include those fleeing the effects of climate change.

 

Full Council resolves to:

1.       Call on Party Group Leaders to collectively write a public letter to the Government stating the views laid out in this motion, and calling on it to:

·      scrap the Nationality and Borders Bill,

·      waive visa requirements for refugees trying to enter from Ukraine (as the EU has already done) and any other conflict areas.

·      provide Councils with the necessary funding to support refugees, 

·      work with Local Authorities and communities to build a fairer and more effective asylum system, including providing safe and legal routes to claim asylum, lifting the ban on asylum seekers working, and lifting the ban on asylum seekers receiving benefits (the ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ condition).

2.       Use Council resources to support drives providing aid to the over half a million refugees that have been forced to leave Ukraine.

3.       Publicly restate its commitment to refugees through its website, public statements and its partnership with City of Sanctuary.

4.       Support, where possible, the Russian citizens who bravely protest their Government’s actions - knowing full well of the potential consequences of protest in President Putin’s Russia - and look at ways to offer political asylum to outspoken critics of Putin’s regime, if given the support of the UK Government in these efforts.

5.       Review the Council’s policies and practices regarding housing, social care, education and information provided on our website to ensure that we are helping asylum seekers and refugees to the maximum of our legal ability, with reference to the LGA guidance ‘Resettling refugees’ and the NRPF Network’s ‘Guidance for Councils’.

6.       Encourage partners through the One City partnership to pledge active measures they can take to support any asylum seekers and refugees who live in our city, and ask them to report back in a similar approach to the “One City Climate Ask”.