The following motions have been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 16:

The following motion was received from Councillor Donna Edmunds and supported by Councillors Kate Halliday, Caroline Bagnall, Rosemary Dartnall and Alan Mosley  

Amendment of Council Rules of Procedure on Submission Deadlines for Reports and Motions to Council 

Council notes that: 

1. Under section 11.6 of the Council Procedure Rules, reports are required to be made available with "sufficient time [...] afforded to members to consider the report and any associated papers." 

2. Case law and sector guidance issued by bodies such as the Local Government Association establish that unreasonable delay in the production or publication of reports and decision records may undermine democratic accountability, effective scrutiny, and public confidence in local government. 

3. Section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972 stipulates that copies of the agenda and associate reports must be made available to the public at least five clear days before meetings, and after having been made available to members. It further states that associated reports must be made available at the time an item is added to the agenda.  

4. The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended by the Local Government (Openness of Local Government Bodies) Regulations 2014, reinforce the principle that local authority decision-making must be transparent, timely, and accessible. 

5. Members are currently required to give 10 working days' notice in order to bring a motion to council under section 16.1 of the Council's Procedure Rules. 

Council therefore resolves that: 

1. The Council’s Procedure Rules be amended to reflect that officers responsible for preparing reports following a Full Council and Committee meeting must ensure that such reports, including minutes and any associated recommendations or outcome summaries, are submitted to the Proper Officer and published within five clear working days of the date of the meeting, in line with section 100B of the Local Government Act 1972.  

2. For the purposes of this motion, clear working days shall be those defined within section 1.14 of the Council’s Procedure Rules: to exclude the day of receipt, Saturdays, Sundays, other days when the Council’s offices are closed, and the day of the meeting itself. 

Where exceptional circumstances prevent the submission of a report within the five clear working day period, the responsible officer shall provide a written explanation to the relevant Committee Chair, Group Leaders, and the Proper Officer, outlining the reasons for delay and an expected submission date; 

And 

The Speaker will be required to make known to the same, giving their reasoning, whether they accept the related item onto the agenda or wish to defer, as per item 11.6 of the Council's Procedure Rules. 

3. Section 16.1 of the Council’s Procedure Rules be amended from: 

[…] must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least than 10 clear working days before the date of the meeting. 

To 

[…] must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 5 clear working days before the date of the meeting. 

Council further requests that: 

1. A six-month review of compliance with these new requirements be presented to the appropriate committee to identify any barriers to delivery. 

This was seconded by Councillor Rosemary Dartnall

In presenting her motion Councillor Edmunds pointed out that there was an erroring the resolution and that it should read “The Council’s Procedure Rules be amended to reflect that officers responsible for preparing reports ahead of a Full Council and Committee” rather than “follow”

By way of amendment the Chair Councillor Duncan Barrowman proposed that the motion be referred to the Constitution Working Group for consideration prior to a report being brought back to Council and that he and Cllr Edmunds should also attend this meeting.  This was seconded by Councillor Gary Groves.

On taking a vote the amendment was passed.

Motion received from Councillor Brendan Mallon and support by the Reform Group  

Globally, the transition to ‘Net Zero’ energy systems is in a state of rapid collapse. No large economy is persisting with this and only a handful of lesser economies are still fully committed. The US is unequivocally out. Russia, India, most of Asia and South America were never really in (despite the Paris Agreement) and China simply lies. 

China’s wind and solar ‘farms’ are merely a shop front for the planet’s primary manufacturer of that equipment. Meanwhile, they rapidly expand Coal and Nuclear use. China alone is 32% of global emissions (Our World in Data), more than the combined developed world. Chinese per capita emissions surpassed the UK in 2022 and are now already double the UK’s, with no slowdown in the increase. China plus just the USA and India make up fully half of global emissions. 

The latest domino to fall is Germany. Previous dependence on Russian gas and their abandonment of Nuclear makes Germany now heavily dependent on coal and lignite (14% - AG Enrgiebilanzen) and LNG and thus the EU’s largest emitter at 22% of the total (EDGAR 2024 report). Unaffordable energy has resulted in large scale off-shoring of German heavy industry. Thus, Chancellor Merz’s announcement to reverse their energy policies, maintaining Net Zero in name only. 

What?remains is a handful of smaller European economies plus Australia still pursuing Net Zero to a similar extent as the UK, with a combined output circa 7% of global emissions (Net Zero Tracker and EDGAR 2024). Canada nominally has Net Zero policies but, unlike the UK, continues with extensive hydrocarbon production. Clearly, 7% of Net Zero is little more than a rounding error. Thus, any further spending on Net Zero is an obvious waste of money. 

A number of?Councils around the country, including Labour-led Islington, have heavily curtailed or suspended Net Zero spending.??In the context of?our Financial Emergency,?in order?to?reduce both capital and revenue spend,?we move that the Council?immediately?suspend all Net Zero related spending, pending a review of value-for-money beyond?clearly?ineffectual?reductions in CO2 emissions.? 

After a short debate Councillor R Evans proposed that the motion be put and on taking a vote the motion was not supported

Motion received from Councillor Carl Rowley and supported by the Reform Group  

The Chairman advised that this motion had been withdrawn