Agenda item

Motions

(A)  By Marianne Fredericks

To consider a Motion, submitted by Marianne Fredericks, concerning the implementation of a new standards regime.

For Decision

(Pages XX – XX)

 

(B)  By Natasha Lloyd-Owen

To consider a Motion, submitted by Natasha Lloyd-Owen, concerning the declaration of a climate emergency and associated actions.

For Decision

(Pages XX – XX)

 

 

Minutes:

Motion – “That this Honourable Court resolves that the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee begins the implementation of the recommendations made in Part 8 of Lord Lisvane’s Report by presenting a detailed report on a new standards regime to the Policy and Resources Committee which then presents a detailed report on that regime to the Court at its meeting in January 2021, with a view to the regime being implemented by the end of March 2021 at the latest.”

 

Marianne Fredericks spoke to introduce the Motion, reminding Members of the significant agreement amongst Members at the June meeting of the Court that reform of the standards regime was needed. She noted that Lord Lisvane’s Governance Review recommendations in relation to this matter had now been submitted and urged that they be taken forward as a matter of priority. Barbara Newman seconded the motion, concurring that reform was well overdue and observing that the Motion provided a manageable and realistic timetable for change.

 

Amendment – That the word “regimes” in the penultimate line of the Motion be deleted and replaced with “the regime’s system for handling complaints”.

 

During debate, it was noted that the work currently handled by the Standards Committee went further than simply complaints and it was suggested that an amendment could be beneficial to allow for a focus on that particular area of concern and mitigate against the risk of other issues preventing progress from being made. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion confirmed their willingness to accept this amendment, whereupon the Lord Mayor declared the Amendment to be carried.

 

Members proceeded to debate the Motion as amended.

 

Whilst expressing support for the aims of the Motion, concerns were raised that the wording in its current format had the effect of accepting Lord Lisvane’s findings as unquestionably correct. It was argued that it might be precipitate to assume this prior to the opportunity for wider scrutiny and review by all Members in the normal way, with it suggested that a rash decision now could have the unintended consequence of preventing a fair regime with the support of all Members from being created. It was ventured that the eagerness to initiate change meant that action might well be being over-simplified, with it observed that certain recommendations made by Lord Lisvane were more controversial than might necessarily be appreciated.

 

Amendment – That the word “implementation” be replaced with the word “consideration”.

 

Discussion ensued on a further prospective amendment, intended to alleviate concerns in relation to the direct implementation of Lord Lisvane’s recommendation without opportunity for further Member scrutiny. During debate, it was confirmed that the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee had given an undertaking to engage fully on the Lisvane Review’s proposals as part of the next steps.

 

A Division being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative – 67

ALDERMEN

Bowman, Sir Charles

Graves, D.A.

Langley, S., O.B.E.

Edhem, E.

Hailes, T.R.

Luder, I.D.

Estlin, Sir Peter

Howard, R.P.S.

Mainelli, Prof. M.R.M., Sheriff

Garbutt, J.

Hughes-Penney, R.C.

Parmley, Sir Andrew

Gifford, Sir Roger

Jones, G.P., Q.C.

Scotland, Baroness Patricia, Q.C.

Gowman, A.J.

Keaveny, V.T.

W.A.B. Russell, The Rt Hon The

Goyal, P.B., O.B.E.

King, A.J.N.

Lord Mayor

COMMONERS

Addy, C.K.

Haines, C.W.

Murphy, B.D.

Ali, M.

Hayward, C.M., Sheriff

Petrie, J.

Barrow, D.G.F.

Hoffman, T.D.D., M.B.E., Deputy

Pleasance, J.L.

Bennett, P.G.

Holmes, A.

Rogula, E., Deputy

Boden, C.P.

Joshi, S.J.

Sayed, R.

Bottomley, K.D.F., Deputy

Knowles-Cutler, A.

Sells, O.M., Q.C.

Bradshaw, D.J., Deputy

Levene, T.C.

Shilson, Dr G.R.E., Deputy

Chadwick, R.A.H., O.B.E., Deputy

Littlechild, V., M.B.E.

Simons, J.L.

De Sausmarez, H.J.

Lodge, O.A.

Sleigh, T., Deputy

Doshi-Smith, G.M.

Lord, C.E., O.B.E., Deputy

Snyder, Sir Michael

Duckworth, S.D., O.B.E., D.L.

Martinelli, P.N.

Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy

Durcan, M.

McGuinness, C.S., Deputy

Tumbridge, J.R.

Edwards, J.E.

Mead, W., O.B.E.

Upton, W.M., Q.C.

Everett, K.M., Deputy

Merrett, R.A., Deputy

Woodhouse, P.J., Deputy

Fairweather, A.H.

Meyers, A.G.D.

Wright, D.L.

Fernandes, S.A.

Moss, A.M., Deputy

 

Tellers for the affirmative – Deputy Edward Lord and Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark.

For the Negative – 33

ALDERMEN

Lyons, N.S.L.

Wootton, Sir David

Yarrow, Sir Alan

COMMONERS

Anderson, R.K.

Fletcher, J.W.

McMurtrie, A.S.

Barr, A.R.M.

Fredericks, M.B.

Mooney, B.D.F., Deputy

Bell, M.

Graham, T.

Patel, D., O.B.E.

Bennett, J.A., Deputy

Haines, Revd. S.D.

Pearson, S.

Bensted-Smith, N.B.

Harrower, G.G.

Pimlott, W.

Bostock, M.

Hill, C.

Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy

Chapman, J.D.

Hudson, M.

Quilter, S.D.

Colthurst, H.N.A.

Hyde, W.M., Deputy

Scott, J.G.S.

Dunphy, P.G., Deputy

Lloyd-Owen, N.M.C.

Tomlinson, J., Deputy

Fentimen, H.L., O.B.E.

Mayhew, J.P.

Wheatley, M.R.P.H.D.

Tellers for the negative – Tijs Broeke and Henry Colthurst.

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the Amendment to be carried.

 

Motion – That the Question (i.e. the Motion as amended) be now put.

 

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried and directed that the Motion as amended be put to the Court forthwith.

 

Upon the Motion as amended being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

Resolved – That this Honourable Court resolves that the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee begins the consideration of the recommendations made in Part 8 of Lord Lisvane’s Report by presenting a detailed report on a new standards regime to the Policy and Resources Committee which then presents a detailed report on that regime to the Court at its meeting in January 2021, with a view to the regime’s system for handling complaints being implemented by the end of March 2021 at the latest.

 

At this point in proceedings, the Town Clerk reported that the Lord Mayor needed to depart the meeting in order to attend an official engagement. Accordingly, at this point was produced and read in Court a Warrant, signed by the Right Honourable The Lord Mayor, appointing Alderman Ian Luder as Locum Tenens to transact all the business appertaining to the Office of Mayoralty of this City during his absence.

 

 

Motion – That, pursuant to Standing Order 6(3), the order of business be amended to allow for Item 16(A) to be considered as the next item of business.

 

Following a period of debate, the Motion to amend the order of business was withdrawn.

 

Motion – “That this Honourable Court declares a Climate Emergency with immediate effect, in light of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which outlined the need for immediate action if global temperatures are to be kept within 1.5 degrees of pre-industrial levels; and in line with hundreds of District, County, Unitary & Metropolitan Councils that have already declared a Climate Emergency.

 

That this Honourable Court agree the following commitments to support this declaration:

1.         Climate change is an existential threat, our highest corporate risk and will be prioritised accordingly.

2.         The amount of funding agreed in the Climate Action Strategy will be regarded as a minimum starting point.

3.         This funding will be protected, regardless of changes in funding sources.

4.         A clear roadmap to achieving the 2027 and 2040 net-zero targets for the Corporation and its whole value chain will be set out urgently, including interim target dates.

5.         Regular assessment will be made of our capacity to increase funding so as to reach the net-zero targets as soon as possible.

6.         Lord Lisvane’s recommendation that a “green impact assessment” should accompany every policy or project proposal submitted to a committee, will be implemented immediately. The Court must not wait for the full implementation of the Climate Action Strategy in April 2021.

7.         A Biodiversity Action Plan (to replace the Biodiversity Action Plan 2016-2020) will be implemented by April 2021, alongside the Climate Action Strategy.

8.         Meaningful consultation will take place with a wide range of City residents, workers and students, alongside engagement with wider communities, particularly young people.

9.         If there is evidence for a projected increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees, we will revisit and increase our investment in climate resilience before 2030 to enable us to prepare for the worst-case scenario”.

 

Natasha Lloyd-Owen spoke to open the debate, outlining the rationale behind the various commitments proposed with the Motion. She argued that the Motion, if passed, would reinforce the aims of the Climate Action Strategy proposed for adoption at Item 16(A), as well as ensuring that the scale of climate change and the challenge faced was acknowledged and at the forefront of Members’ minds moving forwards.

 

Motion – That, in accordance with Standing Order 2, Standing Order 12(6) be suspended to allow for debate in respect of Motions to continue.

 

A Division being demanded and granted, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative – 70

ALDERMEN

Estlin, Sir Peter

Graves, D.A.

King, A.J.N.

Garbutt, J.

Hailes, T.R.

Langley, S., O.B.E.

Gifford, Sir Roger

Howard, R.P.S.

Mainelli, Prof. M.R., Sheriff

Gowman, A.J.

Jones, G.P., Q.C.

Parmley, Sir Andrew

Goyal, P.B., O.B.E.

Keaveny, V.T.

Wootton, Sir David

COMMONERS

Abrahams, G.C.

Hayward, C.M., Sheriff

Packham, G.D.

Addy, C.K.

Hill, C.

Patel, D., O.B.E.

Ali, M.

Holmes, A.

Pearson, S.J.

Anderson, R.K.

Ingham Clark, J., Deputy

Petrie, J.

Barr, A.R.M.

Joshi, S.J.

Pimlott, W.

Bell, M.

Knowles-Cutler, A.

Pleasance, J.L.

Bostock, M.

Levene, T.C.

Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy

Bottomley, K.D.F., Deputy

Littlechild, V., M.B.E.

Quilter, S.D.

Broeke, T.

Lloyd-Owen, N.M.C.

Sayed, R.

Chapman, J.D.

Lord, C.E., O.B.E., Deputy

Scott, J.G.S.

Duckworth, S.D., O.B.E., D.L.

Martinelli, P.N.

Simons, J.L.

Durcan, M.

Mayhew, J.P.

Sleigh, T., Deputy

Everett, K.M., Deputy

McGuinness, C.S., Deputy

Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy

Fairweather, A.H.

McMurtrie, A.S.

Tomlinson, J., Deputy

Fentimen, H.L., O.B.E.

Mead, W., O.B.E.

Upton, W.M., Q.C.

Fredericks, M.B.

Merrett, R.A., Deputy

Wheatley, M.R.P.H.D.

Graham, T.

Murphy, B.D.

Woodhouse, P.J., Deputy

Haines, C.W.

Newman, B.P., C.B.E.

Wright, D.L.

Harrower, G.G.

 

 

Tellers for the affirmative – Deputy Edward Lord and Susan Pearson.

For the Negative – 17

ALDERMEN

Bowman, Sir Charles

Edhem, E.

Hughes-Penney, R.C.

COMMONERS

Barrow, D.G.F.

Chadwick, R.A.H., O.B.E., Deputy

Hoffman, T.D.D., M.B.E., Deputy

Bennett, P.G.

De Sausmarez, H.J.

Hudson, M.

Bennett, J.A., M.B.E., Deputy

Edwards, J.E.

Rogula, E., Deputy

Boden, C.P.

Fletcher, J.W.

Tumbridge, J.R.

Bradshaw, D.J., Deputy

Haines, Revd. S.D.

 

Tellers for the negative – Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark and John Fletcher.

An abstention was recorded from Deputy Brian Mooney.

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to be carried.

 

Resolved – That, in accordance with Standing Order 2, Standing Order 12(6) be suspended to allow for debate in respect of Motions to continue.

 

Members proceeded to debate the Motion.

 

During discussion, the following arguments were advanced:

·      The value of declaring a Climate Emergency was queried, with it observed that, of those authorities who had declared such an Emergency, only half had published action plans and even fewer put funding plans in place. Consequently, it was suggested that it would be better to take action via the robust Climate Action Strategy proposed at Item 16(A), rather than focus on declarations, with it noted that the proposed Strategy was funded, based on detailed modelling and analysis, and set out achievable targets and tangible actions with established mechanisms for measurement and scrutiny.

·      A Member queried the suggestion of Climate Change being the highest corporate risk, with it noted that this was not currently the case and that any such amendment to the corporate risk register would require proper institutional support and costed measures; making such a change without any preparatory activity could give the impression that the City Corporation was merely seeking to undertake “greenwashing” and would be an inappropriate way to take forward such a fundamental issue.

·      Whilst welcoming the attention being brought to such an important issue, it was urged that the significant leadership role the City Corporation had taken in this area over the past years not be forgotten. Particular reference was made to the Green Finance Taskforce and Green Finance Institute, as well as the wide range of engagements which had sought to find tangible and practical ways to mobilise investment into carbon-related initiatives. A Member expressed concern that the Motion gave the impression that the City had been slow to take action to date and risked trivialising the substantial efforts made.

·      Several Members argued that the Motion and the Climate Action Strategy should not be seen as mutually exclusive and that it was a false dichotomy to suggest so. Whilst the Strategy was clearly to be welcomed and would take the City Corporation a long way forwards, the Motion would provide complementary support and protection to the commitments made within the Strategy, thereby enhancing it.

·      Reference was made to the Duke of Cambridge’s “Earthshot” campaign and the need to be highly ambitious in taking action on this vital issue.

 

Motion – That the Question be now put.

 

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

 

Natasha Lloyd-Owen spoke to close the debate.

 

A Division being demanded and granted in respect of the substantive Motion, there appeared:-

For the Affirmative – 18

COMMONERS

Abrahams, G.C.

Chapman, J.D.

Murphy, B.D.

Ali, M.

Fentimen, H.L., O.B.E.

Newman, B.P.

Anderson, R.K.

Fredericks, M.B.

Pearson, S.J.

Bell, M.

Hill, C.

Pimlott, W.

Bostock, M.

Lloyd-Owen

Quilter, S.D.

Broeke, T.

Lord, C.E., O.B.E., Deputy

Upton, W.M.

Tellers for the affirmative – Natasha Lloyd-Owen and Deputy Edward Lord.

For the Negative – 59

ALDERMEN

Bowman, Sir Charles

Graves, D.A.

Luder, I.D.

Edhem, E.

Hailes, T.R.

Lyons, N.S.L.

Estlin, Sir Peter

Howard, R.P.S.

Mainelli, Prof. M.R., Sheriff

Gifford, Sir Roger

Hughes-Penney, R.C.

Parmley, Sir Andrew

Gowman, A.J.

Keaveny, V.T.

Wootton, Sir David

Goyal, P.B., O.B.E.

Langley, S., O.B.E.

 

COMMONERS

Addy, C.K.

Hayward, C.M., Sheriff

Morris, H.F.

Barr, A.R.M.

Hoffman, T.D.D., M.B.E., Deputy

Packham, G.D.

Barrow, D.G.F.

Holmes, A.

Patel, D., O.B.E.

Bennett, J.A., M.B.E., Deputy

Hudson, M.

Petrie, J.

Bennett, P.G.

Ingham Clark, J., Deputy

Pleasance, J.L.

Bottomley, K.D.F., Deputy

Joshi, S.J.

Pollard, J.H.G., Deputy

Bradshaw, D.J., Deputy

Knowles-Cutler, A.

Rogula, E., Deputy

De Sausmarez, H.J.

Littlechild, V., M.B.E.

Scott, J.G.S.

Durcan, M.

Martinelli, P.N.

Simons, J.L.

Edwards, J.E.

Mayhew, J.P.

Thomson, J.M.D., Deputy

Fernandes, S.A.

McGuinness, C.S., Deputy

Tomlinson, J., Deputy

Fletcher, J.W.

McMurtrie, A.S.

Woodhouse, P.J., Deputy

Graham, T.

Mead, W., O.B.E.

Wright, D.L.

Haines, C.W.

Mooney, B.D.F., Deputy

 

Tellers for the negative – Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark and Doug Barrow.

Upon the results of the Division being announced, the Lord Mayor declared the Motion to be lost.

Supporting documents: