Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meetings held on the 22 February 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

Apologies

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Adey and McPherson.

 

Reach Fair

 

The Mayor reminded Members that they would have received an invitation, via email, to attend the annual Proclamation of Reach Fair on bank holiday Monday 7 May. The Mayor asked for replies to be sent by email to Penny Jackson.

 

City Council Annual Meeting

 

The Mayor asked for members to let Penny Jackson know if they would be bringing a guest to the Annual Council Meeting so that seats around the perimeter of the Chamber could be allocated.

 

Heidelberg Easter Festival Reception

 

The Mayor was honoured to host a reception for visitors from Heidelberg recently and said it was wonderful to welcome so many young people to the Guildhall.

 

Installation Of The High Sheriff Of Cambridgeshire

 

The Mayor was privileged to be a part of the procession on the Installation of the High Sheriff of Cambridgeshire hosted in the Chamber recently.

 

Elections

 

The Mayor informed those present that Councillors Roberts, Holland, Sarris, T.Moore, Avery and Austin whose terms on the Council ended in May, had decided not to stand for re-election and Councillor Abbott had recently resigned. He went on to say that the Council were losing some extremely able Members and thanked them all for their service to the City. He wished those Councillors who were standing for re-election well.

 

Donald Mackay and Alan Carter

 

Members were asked to note that Donald Mackay, who was a member of the Council for 13 years and Mayor between 1979 – 1980, had sadly passed away.  Condolences had been sent to his family on behalf of the Council.

 

The Mayor also informed members of the passing of Alan Carter former Managing Director of the Housing Development Agency. Alan joined the city council as Head of Strategic Housing in February 2008 and was Managing Director of the Housing Development Agency from April 2016 until he left the council in the summer last year. 

 

Alan contributed much to the council and one of his major achievements was helping the council secure the £70m housing devolution deal

 

Councillor Price addressed the chamber and spoke about Alan.

 

The chamber observed a minutes silence to remember former Mayor Donald Mackay and Alan Carter. 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Roberts	18/22/CNLd	Motion refers to his employer
Councillor Johnson	18/22/CNLd and 18/22/CNLe	Both motions refer to his employer
Councillors Cantrill	18/22/CNLd	Member of Cambridge Stays
Councillor T.Moore	18/22/CNLd	Member of Cambridge Stays
Councillor R. Moore	18/22/CNLf	Works for a small sustainable food company
Councillor O’Connell	18/22/CNLf	Reference to Cambridge Live and is a council representative to the organisation
Councillor Benstead	18/22/CNLf	Reference to Cambridge Live and is a council representative to the organisation
Councillor Hart	18/22/CNLd	Dealt with EU work as part of employment.

 

 

Members of the Public asked a number of questions as set out below:

 

1.           Mr Slade raised the following:

     i.        The whole council would be up for election in 2020.

    ii.        Requested councillors reconsider if election by thirds should still be held each year. Issues raised:

a.   Voter fatigue.

b.   Voter apathy.

c.   The amount of paper waste generated.

   iii.        Requested details of the cost of the last three elections.

  iv.        Requested clarification on the advantages of election by thirds.

   v.        Queried if elections could be by halves or once every four years from 2020.

 

Councillor Benstead responded:

       i.       Cost of the last three elections:

a.   £114,000 in 2015.

b.   £112,000 in 2016.

c.   £115,000 in 2017.

     ii.       2018 was the first year in a number of years when only City Council elections would take place; in previous years other elections had taken place at the same time as City Council elections for example Parliamentary elections.

    iii.       The Council had considered elections by thirds and ‘all up’ elections every four years. Elections by halves was not an option the council could adopt.

   iv.       Factors considered during cross-party discussions:

a.   High turnover of electorate in city who wouldn’t get the chance to vote if elections were only held four yearly.

b.   Sophisticated/politicised electorate.

     v.       Elections by thirds should continue due to the above factors, this would assist the continuity of governance through gradual change and minimise risk to ensure the smooth running of the council.

 

Mr Slade made a supplementary point to request that councillors/political parties consider how to deal with waste from election leaflets.

 

2.           Mrs Simms raised the following:

       i.       Stated the council had made a grave error and disservice to Shopmobility users by introducing charges for the service.

     ii.       The charges would deter people from using a life line service.

    iii.       Affordability of the service would have a great impact on low income users and their social independence.

   iv.       Took issue with the consultation process. Queried if consultation responses were considered. Posters suggested the charges would be introduced regardless of the consultation responses.

     v.       Queried if the council would review the mobility charges.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport responded:

       i.       Referred to discussions at Environment Scrutiny Committee and the February Council meeting where the issue of Shopmobility charges were discussed at length.

     ii.       Charges were introduced due to County Council funding being withdrawn. The City Council had picked up a shortfall in County Council funding for the previous two financial years.

    iii.       The City Council had sought sponsorship from retailers to offset the service cost but none was forthcoming.

   iv.       The City Council introduced charges to make the service sustainable. The City Council could not continue to dip into reserves to subsidise the Shopmobility charges.

     v.       Advice on charges had been sought from the National Federation of Shopmobility. Other cities had also introduced charges.

   vi.       The situation would be reviewed in future.

 

Mrs Simms made a supplementary point by reiterating concerns about social isolation.

 

3.           Mrs White raised the following:

     i.        Expressed concern about the Shopmobility charges.

    ii.        Commented that some cities had introduced charges for Shopmobility and some had not.

   iii.        The National Federation of Shopmobility did not cover all Shopmobility schemes as stated in the officer’s report.

  iv.        The charges in Cambridge would be higher than in other cities.

   v.        Commented that some Shopmobility users did not use car parks or have a blue badge so other services promoted with Shopmobility were not always relevant.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport responded:

       i.       The charges were only agreed in February 2018. The Council needed to look at the impact of the charges before reviewing further.

     ii.       Different cities had different charges for various services.

    iii.       The City Council had a responsibility to provide services to all residents across the city. It had to review this under the current financial climate. The charges would cover the £50,000 shortfall in funding from the County Council.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor used his discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, the minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

Unanimously resolved:

 

i.        To appoint Mr Rob Bennett as the Council’s Independent Person and Judge David Pearl as the Deputy Independent Person.

ii.       That both posts be for a three year fixed term with a further option to extend the appointment for a two year period subject to annual ratification at the Annual Meeting of the Council.

 

Unanimously resolved:

 

i.      To approve the changes to Part 3 section 6 of the Constitution as set out in Appendix A (Appendix B shown with tracked changes for reference) of the Officer’s report.

ii.     To agree the new scrutiny committees keep to the already agreed 2018/19 programme of meetings as referred to in paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 of the Officer’s report.

 

Unanimously resolved:

 

i.      To approve a submission on Council Size to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England of 42 councillors as set out in the officer report.

 

1) Councillor Roberts to the Leader

 

Could the Leader of the council please confirm that while several older and wealthier Cambridge colleges are marked on the Mayor's ceremonial chain, there is sadly no mention of any women's colleges, newer colleges nor Anglia Ruskin University?

 

The Leader responded:

     i.        The chain is a historical item and reflected the colleges that were in existence at the time. Significant changes had taken place since the chain was created as Cambridge University colleges accepted women and Anglia Ruskin University came into existence.

    ii.        The council had investigated costs for changing the chain and found these too high to be practicable.

   iii.        It was important to acknowledge the city had changed since the forging of the chain. For example, it now had two universities.

 

2) Councillor Page Croft to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

What representation has the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to stagecoach made about the lack of information given to residents when routes have changed?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

     i.        The County Council were responsible for liaising directly with Stagecoach.

    ii.        Service users were given basic information through screens at bus stops. Not all service users had access to information via tablets.

   iii.        Stagecoach should invest in greater information provision instead of expecting the City Council to subsidise them.

 

3) Councillor Avery to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Aside from attempting to deliver on the 500 homes to be funded from the devolution monies, what is the Executive Cllr for Housing doing to address the broken home rental market in Cambridge at all levels?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

     i.        The private sector provided twenty five percent of housing for residents.

    ii.        The gap was widening between social housing and market rents. Various actions had been taken to mitigate this. For example:

a.   Introducing housing benefit plus.

b.   Rebranding the rent deposit and rent advance loan scheme.

c.   Setting up the town hall lettings scheme for people on low incomes.

d.   The homelessness service.

e.   Setting up the Housing Development Agency.

 

4) Councillor O'Connell to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

What plans do the council have to review the applicability of national guidance on fire engine and emergency vehicle access to planning applications in Cambridge?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

     i.        No new guidance had been introduced.

    ii.        The media anticipated there would be changes to the building regulations in future as a result of the Grenfell Tower fire. This would probably impact building control more than planning applications.

 

5) Councillor Smart to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

 

Can the Executive Councillor update us on the River Cam Art project?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

     i.        There had been public interest in the art project for some time.

    ii.        Funding for phase 1 of the River Cam Art project was approved this year.

   iii.        Five shortlisted artists would be interviewed tomorrow (ie 20 April 2018) and would start work in May.

 

6) Councillor Bick to the Executive Councillor for Housing  

 

How would the Executive Councillor defend his doubling of the garage rent demanded from my 84 year-old resident who lives in a sheltered housing scheme in an on-street residents’ parking zone which she has no entitlement to join and is anyway oversubscribed by 2 to 1; the increase being informed to her without explanation and with no more notice than normal annual inflation-related increases in the past? 

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

 

i.             The decision to increase garage rents was taken as part of the HRA budget setting in January 2018.  The previous system of rents was overly complex, and required manual adjustments to each property. The intention of the creation of a new system of rent setting was to create a much simpler process to reduce the cost of administration, and at the same time to ensure rents were set fairly, taking into account the high demand for city centre garages and for designated parking spaces on new city centre developments.

ii.            In approving the rent-setting policy, the Executive Councillor took account of the impact that it would have on tenants, and ensured that city centre tenants renting garages in the high demand area, would not have the full increase applied immediately but would benefit from phasing. New tenants moving in to the city centre would be made aware of new garage rental charges and be able to make decisions on whether to accept a property or keep a car locally, with the information available to them.

iii.          With the benefit of hindsight, the Executive Councillor did not appreciate the impact that the new policy would have on a minority of garage tenants, those who were not tenants, but who needed to keep a car in the city, and whose financial circumstances made adjusting to the increase a real problem. Over recent weeks, the Executive Councillor heard from several such people, either directly or through their ward councillors, and having heard of the impact the policy had on them, he wanted to take action to make sure that they were treated fairly.

iv.          Council officers were not in a  position to determine which garage tenants were in hardship, so the Executive Councillor could not reasonably waive rent for one 84-year old tenant just on the basis of age, without taking account of others who may have had different circumstances. The only fair way to address this was to extend the protection offered to Council tenants to all local residents, and phase in the increase in garage rents.

v.           The Executive Councillor did not intend to wait for the next Housing Scrutiny Committee to revise this policy, but to take an out of cycle decision to extend the protection offered to council tenants, to other local residents who rented garages. This would mean that the charge increase for all residents was limited to £2.00 per annum, plus inflation and plus VAT. Where garages were rented to businesses, or people who lived outside of the city, no such phasing-in of the increase would apply.

vi.           The Executive Councillor hoped that the opposition spokes would support this proposal, so that he could ask officers to implement it quickly by writing to all affected garage tenants, issuing amended bills and revising direct debits as required.

7) Councillor Cantrill to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

 

Could the Executive Councillor indicate how frequently the public toilets are inspected across the city, and describe the nature and frequency of the maintenance plan used, and comment on whether this is adequate to ensure that the toilets are maintained to an acceptable standard for the residents of the city?

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

     i.        The Council was responsible for a number of public toilets. Churchill was the cleaning contractor.

    ii.        The Executive Councillor outlined cleaning rotas/schedules. Toilets were inspected each time they were cleaned which was several times a day. Cleaners had to report faults at the time of inspection.

   iii.        Churchill operatives could undertake minor repairs. Council Officers would clean needles and offensive graffiti within one hour, other types of graffiti would take longer. Officers also responded to reports from members of the public.

 

The following oral questions were tabled but owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted, were not covered during the meeting. The Mayor asked Executive Councillors if a written response could be provided to those questions that had not been covered.

 

8) Councillor Holt to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

What does he regard as appropriate responsibilities of a major developer to the existing community around his development?

 

9) Councillor Nethsingha to the Executive Councillor for the Planning Policy and Transport

 

As summer approaches I am anticipating the usual frustration with attempting to cycle into town across an incredibly crowded Garrett Hostel Bridge.  Could the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport explain what action the City Council is taking to tackle the congestion on cycle routes into the city from the west, given the increase in cycle movements as a result of the expansion of the West Cambridge site and at Eddington.  In particular could he explain what is being done to remove the punting operation on Garrett Hostel Lane, which significantly increases congestion on this key route?

 

10) Councillor Austin to the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Open Spaces

 

Could the Executive Councillor tell us why, despite her repeated warm words in the past, absolutely nothing has changed to deter vehicles from parking illegally on Midsummer Common and whether she has the remotest idea how she is going to bring this under control?  

 

11) Councillor Baigent to the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

 

Air quality is a growing problem in cities across the world, what are we doing here in Cambridge to improve air quality for our residents and visitors?

 

12) Councillor Ratcliffe to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

 

Can the Executive Councillor update us on the improvements to the Jesus Green toilets?

 

13) Councillor Bird to the Executive Councillor for Communities

 

Can the Executive Councillor update Council on anti-poverty initiatives that aim to make children and families from low-income households more active, and to confirm what additional work in this area is to be proposed?

 

14) Councillor Sargeant to the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

 

Can the Executive Councillor give us an update on the work to maintain and enhance the tree cover in Cambridge?

 

15) Councillor Gehring to the Leader

 

Which reform steps for planning decisions will be agreed with South Cambs as part of the new shared planning service?

 

This Council believes that the UK’s immigration detention system is not fit for purpose and the Government must end indefinite detention.

 

Therefore, this Council:

•        Endorses the These Walls Must Fall Campaign and the declaration.

•        Calls on the Government to implement the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into detention.

•        Asks our local MPs to support the spirit of the motion, to raise the matter in the House of Commons, and to support changes in current laws and procedures to introduce alternatives to detention.

•        Seeks further support for the motion via the Local Government Association, and by encouraging other Councils in the UK to show their support on this issue.

 

http://detention.org.uk/manchester-council-passes-these-walls-must-fall-motion-against-detention/

 

Councillor Gillespie proposed and Councillor Cantrill seconded the following motion: 

 

This Council believes that the UK’s immigration detention system is not fit for purpose and the Government must end indefinite detention.

 

Therefore, this Council:

·                 Endorses the These Walls Must Fall Campaign and the declaration.

·                 Calls on the Government to implement the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into detention.

·                 Asks our local MPs to support the spirit of the motion, to raise the matter in the House of Commons, and to support changes in current laws and procedures to introduce alternatives to detention.

·                 Seeks further support for the motion via the Local Government Association, and by encouraging other Councils in the UK to show their support on this issue.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

 

The council notes:

•        The passing of world-leading scientist and author Professor Stephen Hawking, who died aged 76 at his Cambridge home on 14 March 2018.

•        That, as an academic, Hawking made an outstanding contribution to theoretical physics and theoretical cosmology, leading to widespread recognition, including being made a Fellow of the Royal Society, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and becoming the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge.

•        That, beyond academia, Hawking promoted scientific discovery and complex ideas to millions through his best-selling book 'A Brief History of Time' and a wide range of other popular books, documentaries, films and children's literature.

•        That, politically, Hawking was a staunch defender of universal and well-funded healthcare, nuclear disarmament and efforts to prevent climate change.

•        That, through a public poll in the UK in 2002, Hawking was ranked 25th in a list of the 100 Greatest Britons, with many voters citing his ability to inspire others, break down barriers and encourage free thinking.

•        That Hawking lived and worked in Cambridge for nearly all his adult life, helping both intentionally and coincidentally to promote the University of Cambridge and our city.

•        That there is a small statue of Hawking by the late artist Ian Walters at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, which was unveiled in 2007, and that Trinity Hall named a conference/seminar room after Professor Hawking in 2015 – neither of which is a publicly accessible tribute to his work and life.

 

The council believes:

•        That Professor Stephen Hawking was a proud resident of Cambridge.

•        That Cambridge gained from our city's association with Professor Stephen Hawking.

•        That – judging by the messages from the public, people-lined streets and media reaction following his death – the University of Cambridge, the scientific community and our city have lost a much-loved and respected ambassador.

•        That for someone who did so much to promote science among the public,

challenge stereotypes and inspire others, it would be remiss not to have a public and lasting tribute to Professor Hawking

 

The council resolves:

•        To work to put in place a lasting public tribute to Professor Stephen Hawking, taking into account the wishes of the Hawking family, Gonville and Caius College, his department and the University of Cambridge

•        To engage with Cambridge residents through the local media and other outlets, to ensure that the eventual project carries with it the widest possible support

•        To ask the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces to lead on the project, alongside the appropriate council committees

 

Councillor Roberts proposed and Councillor Sarris seconded the following motion: 

 

The council notes:

·       The passing of world-leading scientist and author Professor Stephen Hawking, who died aged 76 at his Cambridge home on 14 March 2018.

·       That, as an academic, Hawking made an outstanding contribution to theoretical physics and theoretical cosmology, leading to widespread recognition, including being made a Fellow of the Royal Society, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and becoming the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge.

·       That, beyond academia, Hawking promoted scientific discovery and complex ideas to millions through his best-selling book 'A Brief History of Time' and a wide range of other popular books, documentaries, films and children's literature.

·       That, politically, Hawking was a staunch defender of universal and well-funded healthcare, nuclear disarmament and efforts to prevent climate change.

·       That, through a public poll in the UK in 2002, Hawking was ranked 25th in a list of the 100 Greatest Britons, with many voters citing his ability to inspire others, break down barriers and encourage free thinking.

·       That Hawking lived and worked in Cambridge for nearly all his adult life, helping both intentionally and coincidentally to promote the University of Cambridge and our city.

·       That there is a small statue of Hawking by the late artist Ian Walters at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, which was unveiled in 2007, and that Trinity Hall named a conference/seminar room after Professor Hawking in 2015 – neither of which is a publicly accessible tribute to his work and life.

 

The council believes:

·       That Professor Stephen Hawking was a proud resident of Cambridge.

·       That Cambridge gained from our city's association with Professor Stephen Hawking.

·       That – judging by the messages from the public, people-lined streets and media reaction following his death – the University of Cambridge, the scientific community and our city have lost a much-loved and respected ambassador.

·       That for someone who did so much to promote science among the public, challenge stereotypes and inspire others, it would be remiss not to have a public and lasting tribute to Professor Hawking.

 

The council resolves:

·       To work to put in place a lasting public tribute to Professor Stephen Hawking, taking into account the wishes of the Hawking family, Gonville and Caius College, his department and the University of Cambridge

·       To engage with Cambridge residents through the local media and other outlets, to ensure that the eventual project carries with it the widest possible support

·       To ask the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces to lead on the project, alongside the appropriate council committees

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

Council calls on the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to immediately withdraw and reconsider the charges for the use of Shop Mobility which were introduced on 1 April.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded the following motion: 

 

Council calls on the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport to immediately withdraw and reconsider the charges for the use of Shop Mobility which were introduced on 1 April.

 

On a show of hands the motion was lost by 13 votes to 24.

With less than a year to go before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave campaigners told the British people a set of falsehoods.

 

We were told the negotiations would be easy but the Rt Hon David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described Brexit being “as complicated as moon landing”.

 

We were told that by leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would then be given to the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government spending more of our taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the horrendous increases in child and pensioner poverty. 

 

People were told that Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants albeit from outside of the EU.

 

Meanwhile:

·        The UK economy is now the slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity of the UK and of Cambridge residents;

·        Cambridge businesses, in particular those that are international in outlook and related to the knowledge economy, are cutting or delaying investment because of the continued uncertainty;

·        Both private business and public-sector organisations such as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour shortages;

·        New investment in Cambridge is being jeopardised and new job opportunities are being lost;

·        Inflation caused by Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs for Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in our city.

 

The Council agrees that the current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be fully protected.

 

At the Referendum over 73% of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European Union and that nobody voted to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on Brexit.

 

This Council calls on the government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and to give the people of Cambridge a vote on whatever deal it ends up getting along with the opportunity to vote on keeping the many benefits Britons currently enjoy by staying in the European Union.

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Gehring seconded the following motion: 

 

With less than a year to go before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave campaigners told the British people a set of falsehoods.

 

We were told the negotiations would be easy but the Rt Hon David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described Brexit being “as complicated as moon landing”.

 

We were told that by leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would then be given to the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government spending more of our taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the horrendous increases in child and pensioner poverty. 

 

People were told that Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants albeit from outside of the EU.

 

Meanwhile:

·        The UK economy is now the slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity of the UK and of Cambridge residents;

·        Cambridge businesses, in particular those that are international in outlook and related to the knowledge economy, are cutting or delaying investment because of the continued uncertainty;

·        Both private business and public-sector organisations such as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour shortages;

·        New investment in Cambridge is being jeopardised and new job opportunities are being lost;

·        Inflation caused by Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs for Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in our city.

 

The Council agrees that the current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be fully protected.

 

At the Referendum over 73% of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European Union and that nobody voted to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on Brexit.

 

This Council calls on the government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and to give the people of Cambridge a vote on whatever deal it ends up getting along with the opportunity to vote on keeping the many benefits Britons currently enjoy by staying in the European Union.

 

Councillor Herbert proposed and Councillor R. Moore seconded the following amendment to motion (deleted text struck through and additional text underlined):

 

With less than a year to go before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave campaigners told the British people a set of falsehoods.

 

We were told the negotiations would be easy but the Rt Hon David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described Brexit being “as complicated as moon landing”.

 

We were told that by leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would then be given to the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government spending more of our taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the horrendous increases in child and pensioner poverty. 

 

People were told that Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants albeit from outside of the EU.

 

Meanwhile:

·        The UK economy is now the slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity of the UK and of Cambridge residents;

·        Cambridge businesses, in particular those that are international in outlook and related to the knowledge economy, are cutting or delaying investment because of the continued uncertainty;

·        Both private business and public-sector organisations such as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour shortages;

·        New investment in Cambridge is being jeopardised and new job opportunities are being lost;

·        Inflation caused by Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs for Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in our city.

 

The Council agrees that the current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be fully protected.

 

At the Referendum over 73% of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European Union and that nobody voted to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on Brexit.

 

This Council calls on the government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and fully supports the actions of our MP Daniel Zeichner who has campaigned against Brexit and repeatedly challenged the Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit, and stood up for the interests of Cambridge and all its residents including to secure full rights for all our non-UK EU citizens.

The Council supports his demand for a meaningful vote on the final deal in Parliament and to give the people of Cambridge a vote on whatever deal it ends up getting along with the opportunity to vote on keeping the many benefits Britons currently enjoy by staying in the European Union.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 25 votes to 13.

 

Resolved (by 38 votes to 1) that:

 

With less than a year to go before the UK leaves the EU it’s now plain to see that Leave campaigners told the British people a set of falsehoods.

 

We were told the negotiations would be easy but the Rt Hon David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, described Brexit being “as complicated as moon landing”.

 

We were told that by leaving the EU, we would save “£350 million a week” which would then be given to the NHS but instead we now see the madness of a government spending more of our taxes on Brexit than it is on our NHS or dealing with the horrendous increases in child and pensioner poverty. 

 

People were told that Brexit would cut immigration, but the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP stated that Brexit could see Britain accept more immigrants albeit from outside of the EU.

 

Meanwhile:

·        The UK economy is now the slowest growing economy in Europe, reducing the prosperity of the UK and of Cambridge residents;

·        Cambridge businesses, in particular those that are international in outlook and related to the knowledge economy, are cutting or delaying investment because of the continued uncertainty;

·        Both private business and public-sector organisations such as Addenbrookes hospital are facing major labour shortages;

·        New investment in Cambridge is being jeopardised and new job opportunities are being lost;

·        Inflation caused by Brexit-related depreciation of the pound is driving up living costs for Cambridge residents, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in our city.

 

The Council agrees that the current rights of EU citizens living in the UK should always be fully protected.

 

At the Referendum over 73% of Cambridge residents voted to remain in the European Union and that nobody voted to spend £50 billion of tax payers’ money on Brexit.

 

This Council calls on the government to abandon any plans for a hard Brexit and fully supports the actions of our MP Daniel Zeichner who has campaigned against Brexit and repeatedly challenged the Government’s shambolic handling of Brexit, and stood up for the interests of Cambridge and all its residents including to secure full rights for all our non-UK EU citizens.

The Council supports his demand for a meaningful vote on the final deal in Parliament on whatever deal it ends up getting along with the opportunity to vote on keeping the many benefits Britons currently enjoy by staying in the European Union.

This Council notes the following points.

 

Evidence shows that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals are one of the most addictive forms of gambling available to Cambridge residents. Casework from worried residents has already caused Daniel Zeichner MP to call for action to lower the maximum bet to £2.

 

There are 64 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in Cambridge in 16 betting shops. The legal maximum is four terminals per shop and every shop has the maximum.

 

It is possible to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds on a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal, making payment with cash or a card.

 

Because more than 80% of money spent in betting shops comes from Fixed Odds Betting Terminals the gambling industry lobbies, supports and promotes their continued usage.

 

Over the past decade the amount of money lost on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in the UK has doubled to £2bn per year and continues to grow.

 

The government appointed industry regulator, the Gambling Commission, has continued to allow Fixed Odds Betting Terminals to be increasingly used whilst at the same time the government receives £400m every year in betting duty tax from this form of gambling, and indeed, has increased the percentage of tax. 

 

Daniel Zeichner MP and many others have called for the maximum bet to be set at £2 on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. This, together with a package of other sensible measures, would at least help to limit the damage done to the lives of vulnerable people, to their families and friends; indeed to society as a whole.

 

This Council believes that the maximum bet should be set at no higher than £2 for every 20 seconds of use of a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal.

 

This Council requests that the Leader will write to the following.

 

The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2.

 

The Chair of the Gambling Commission and the interim Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2.

 

The two Cambridge MP’s, Daniel Zeichner MP to support him in his resolve to champion this issue, and to Heidi Allen MP to ask her to put pressure on government to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2.

 

 

 

Councillor Smart proposed and Councillor Ratcliffe seconded the following motion: 

 

This Council notes the following points.

 

Evidence shows that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals are one of the most addictive forms of gambling available to Cambridge residents. Casework from worried residents has already caused Daniel Zeichner MP to call for action to lower the maximum bet to £2.

 

There are 64 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in Cambridge in 16 betting shops. The legal maximum is four terminals per shop and every shop has the maximum.

 

It is possible to bet up to £100 every 20 seconds on a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal, making payment with cash or a card.

 

Because more than 80% of money spent in betting shops comes from Fixed Odds Betting Terminals the gambling industry lobbies, supports and promotes their continued usage.

 

Over the past decade the amount of money lost on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in the UK has doubled to £2bn per year and continues to grow.

 

The government appointed industry regulator, the Gambling Commission, has continued to allow Fixed Odds Betting Terminals to be increasingly used whilst at the same time the government receives £400m every year in betting duty tax from this form of gambling, and indeed, has increased the percentage of tax. 

 

Daniel Zeichner MP and many others have called for the maximum bet to be set at £2 on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. This, together with a package of other sensible measures, would at least help to limit the damage done to the lives of vulnerable people, to their families and friends; indeed to society as a whole.

 

This Council believes that the maximum bet should be set at no higher than £2 for every 20 seconds of use of a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal.

 

This Council requests that the Leader will write to the following.

 

The Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2.

 

The Chair of the Gambling Commission and the interim Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2.

 

The two Cambridge MP’s, Daniel Zeichner MP to support him in his resolve to champion this issue, and to Heidi Allen MP to ask her to put pressure on government to call for the maximum bet on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals be set at £2.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to support the motion.

Cambridge City Council notes:

·      That the government has tried to take away free school meals for 1.1 million children while subsidising parliamentary bars and restaurants by £4 million in the last year.

·      That public demand for reducing plastic waste has soared, forcing the government to bring in a bottle deposit scheme.

·      That soil degradation now means we have only 30 to 40 years of soil fertility left, which was acknowledged at the parliamentary launch of the Sustainable Soils Alliance.

·      That Scotland is considering enshrining the right to food in law, after the recommendation was made by an Independent Working Group on Food Poverty.

·      That Cambridge Sustainable Food have done superb work engaging with businesses and residents, and the new Food Poverty Alliance comes at a time when it is much needed.

·      That the University of Cambridge in 2016 launched its sustainable food policy.

·      That food security is put at critical risk by the economic consequences of Brexit, because of the volume of food which we currently import, and the food footprint of Cambridge.

·      That the councils excellent work promoting recycling champions risks being undermined by the development of a new incinerator near Waterbeach.

·      That there is a UK health epidemic due to unhealthy eating.

·      The introduction of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy.

·      That Iceland have banned palm oil from all own-brand products, realising that there is no such thing as sustainable palm oil.

·      That Waitrose will ban all disposable coffee cups this year.

·      That 3.5 million UK residents (7%) currently identify as vegan according to new research by comparethemarket.com and Gresham college.

·      The activities of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vegetarianism and Veganism. 

·      That the German government has banned meat and fish from being served at government functions, and insisted on food which is seasonal, regional, produced on organic farms, and sourced from Fair Trade providers if available.

·      The many benefits that the Cambridge Sustainable Food Hub project would bring to the region, including increased scope for food waste innovation and sustainable food startups.

·      That climate change, mass extinctions, and ocean dead zones are being caused by human activity.

 

Cambridge City Council resolves:

·      To draft and begin consultation on a Sustainable Food Policy, which can incorporate the Food Poverty Action Plan being worked up by the Food Poverty Alliance. To include the following points as items within the draft (amendments are very welcome):

·      To reduce catering and hospitality spend on food where possible by offering simple plant-based food from a local social enterprise rather than lavish fare, and donate any savings found this way to the Food Poverty Alliance.

·      To pledge to seeking gold standard accreditation from Sustainable Food Cities.

·      To reaffirm its commitment to being a fair trade city, and examine whether the resolutions made regarding fair trade in 2002 have been fully held up.

·      To support the Refill scheme to encourage reusing bottles for drinking water, to provide drinking water fountains in city parks to support this, and to ask Visit Cambridge, Cambridge Live and Cambridge BID  ...  view the full agenda text for item 18/22/CNLf

Members were asked to note the written question and answer that had been placed in the information pack circulated around the Chamber.

 

The decision was noted.