To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
a) Council resolves to pledge its support to the maintenance and health of the Grantham Canal in the Borough of Rushcliffe as an integral wildlife and wellbeing corridor, and asks Communities Scrutiny Group to oversee the following actions:
· To raise awareness of the importance of the Grantham Canal with the wider community, the County Council, and other relevant agencies to ensure water is retained in the watered section of the Canal within Rushcliffe, to benefit the environment, Mental Health, Wellbeing and Sport.
· To raise awareness amongst the adjoining authorities through which the Grantham Canal passes.
· To review the Service Level Agreement with the Canal and Rivers Trust to include specific reference to water retention (it is due for renewal in 2024 and is being considered by Communities Scrutiny Group on 21 July 2022).
· To write to DEFRA requesting that it reclassify remainder waterways in order that they may benefit from Government funding in light of the health benefits of the canal environment which have been proven during Covid and the consequent lock down.
Councillor N Clarke
b) From June 2022, over 40,000 railway workers, mainly represented by the RMT and ASLEF trades unions, are taking strike action, paralysing much of the UK’s train network. This has and will impact on the residents of Rushcliffe and our local businesses with -
1. Worry and stress for hospital patients as appointments are delayed, cancelled, or rearranged
2. Some schools’ exams being potentially disrupted
3. Many more cars on the roads causing congestion, delays, and a huge spike in pollution
4. Many workers unable to get to work
5. Holiday plans disrupted or cancelled
6. Uncertainty, inconvenience and increased costs for business and leisure travel
Other public sector Trades Unions are also threatening a summer of industrial action across a range of essential services at time when the economy is just beginning to recover from the devastating impacts of the pandemic and many residents are facing a cost of living crisis.
As a Council, we call on the Unions calling these strikes and causing so much misery and inconvenience to our residents, to cease this industrial action immediately and get back to the negotiating table to seek an agreement.
Councillor S Robinson
c) UNICEF’s Child friendly status is relevant to Communities and Cities alike. It emphasises that consultation is vital to developing our communities, including where children and young people can:
· Have a say about decisions that affect them
· Express their views freely and are encouraged and supported to do that
· Access good health, education, transport, and other services
· Feel safe, prioritised, and protected from discrimination and harm
· Enjoy public spaces and meet other children and young people freely.
This Council resolves to investigate UNICEF’s Child Friendly City programme to allow Rushcliffe to become a recognised Child Friendly Community and to show that Rushcliffe is a place where children feel safe, are heard, cared-for, and able to flourish.
Councillor R Jones
Minutes:
Having declared an interest, the Mayor left her seat but remained in the Council Chamber and did not take part in the debate or vote for this item and the Deputy Mayor took the Chair.
a. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Clarke and seconded by Councillor R Mallender
Council resolves to pledge its support to the maintenance and health of the Grantham Canal in the Borough of Rushcliffe as an integral wildlife and wellbeing corridor, and asks Communities Scrutiny Group to oversee the following actions:
· To raise awareness of the importance of the Grantham Canal with the wider community, the County Council, and other relevant agencies to ensure water is retained in the watered section of the Canal within Rushcliffe, to benefit the environment, Mental Health, Wellbeing and Sport.
· To raise awareness amongst the adjoining authorities through which the Grantham Canal passes.
· To review the Service Level Agreement with the Canal and Rivers Trust to include specific reference to water retention (it is due for renewal in 2024 and is being considered by Communities Scrutiny Group on 21 July 2022).
· To write to DEFRA requesting that it reclassify remainder waterways in order that they may benefit from Government funding in light of the health benefits of the canal environment which have been proven during Covid and the consequent lock down.
Councillor Clarke informed Council, in moving the motion that this related to the leisure corridor of the Grantham Canal and advised that the canal was leaking and losing water, and in turn losing important flora and fauna. Councillor Clarke referred to the importance of leisure and relaxation, particularly when associated with water in promoting health and wellbeing and stated that this had become even more important in the last few years due to Covid. The Council needed to ensure that the Government understood the value of waterways, such as the Grantham Canal, and the benefits that it brought, and reiterated that the motion was calling on DEFRA to reclassify the Grantham Canal and other remainder waterways, to ensure that it could receive funding for those vital repairs. Councillor Clarke referred to the process of ‘Blue Prescribing’ used by doctors, and the importance of such waterways in combating mental health issue and stated that it was vital that this valuable resource be protected. This motion was about conserving this valuable resource, and Councillor Clarke referred to the four main actions required, which were listed in the motion and asked that the motion be supported.
In seconding the motion, Councillor R Mallender stated that the Grantham Canal ran close by to a number of Rushcliffe’s towns and villages, it was an asset to the Borough and provided a haven for wildlife, with a variety of habitats and a safe environment that people could enjoy. The canal was part of the Borough’s shared history, as it had originally been built to transport various products between Grantham and Nottingham. The canal was a benefit to the environment and helped improve peoples’ mental health, wellbeing, and sporting activities, especially during Covid lockdown. Councillor Mallender reminded Council that since 1968 the canal had been classified as a remainder waterway, which meant that maintenance would only take place if it was considered to be a health and safety issue. However, since that time canal use had evolved, with more leisure and social use, and that had coincided with the formation of various community groups, which helped to preserve, protect, and restore the canal, including the Grantham Canal Society, which undertook a great deal of restoration work. At Hickling, community works kept the Basin in water and in use, and at Lady Bay, the Friends of Lady Bay Canal worked to keep the canal as a wildlife corridor. In supporting all elements of the motion, Councillor Mallender stated that the most critical was to review the Service Level Agreement with the Canal and Rivers Trust, to include specific reference to water retention, and it was pleasing to note that this would be considered by the Communities Scrutiny Group. Council was advised that much of the canal no longer contained any water, with other areas now critically low, and given that it was a haven for wildlife, it was important that it was saved.
In supporting the motion, Councillor J Walker stated how much she enjoyed visiting the Grantham Canal and had been shocked and saddened to see areas that she had recently cycled by where completely dry.
Councillor Price, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group confirmed that the Group would be supporting the motion, acknowledged the significant impact that this waterway had, particularly in urban areas, as both a leisure facility and a wildlife corridor, and hoped that this motion would lead to tangible action.
Councillor Thomas advised that whilst supporting the preservation and maintenance of the Grantham Canal, she questioned the motion’s inclusion on the Council agenda, given that the issue would be considered by the Communities Scrutiny Group.
Councillor Butler reiterated previous comments and commended the volunteers who had worked to preserve and restore the canal and anything that could be done to raise the profile of the canal would be welcomed to safeguard it for the future.
Councillor S Mallender clarified that the original use of the canal had been to take night soil from the city of Nottingham, to be spread on the fields in Lincolnshire.
Councillor Moore stated that this issue was not new, as he had been aware of the problems since moving to the area in 1984. It was pleasing that this motion had been brought forward, as this was a big issue, which would require significant funding and support to move forward. If this motion was agreed, it would be very positive if the Borough Council could put pressure on DEFRA, as this frustrating situation had gone on for too long.
Councillor Upton raised concerns that if action was not taken soon then the whole canal would become dry within the next 18 months, and without water, it would lose most of the environmental and wellbeing benefits that it currently had. The canal was very well used by many during Covid, and although in the future it was unlikely that the whole canal would be restored, now was the time for significant investment, to save as much of the waterway as possible.
Councillor Clarke referred to the comment made by Councillor S Mallender regarding the night soil and confirmed that this had helped to improve agriculture in many areas around the canal basin. Councillor Clarke thanked Council for its support and reiterated that this motion was hopefully just the start of bringing this issue to the forefront and increasing awareness. In conclusion, Councillor Clarke stated that he hoped when the Communities Scrutiny Group considered the issue, that representatives of the Canal and Rivers Trust had been invited to the meeting.
On being put to the vote the motion was carried.
b. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Brennan.
From June 2022, over 40,000 railway workers, mainly represented by the RMT and ASLEF trades unions, are taking strike action, paralysing much of the UK’s train network. This has and will impact on the residents of Rushcliffe and our local businesses with:
1. Worry and stress for hospital patients as appointments are delayed, cancelled, or rearranged
2. Some schools’ exams being potentially disrupted
3. Many more cars on the roads causing congestion, delays, and a huge spike in pollution
4. Many workers unable to get to work
5. Holiday plans disrupted or cancelled
6. Uncertainty, inconvenience and increased costs for business and leisure travel
Other public sector Trades Unions are also threatening a summer of industrial action across a range of essential services at time when the economy is just beginning to recover from the devastating impacts of the pandemic and many residents are facing a cost of living crisis.
As a Council, we call on the Unions calling these strikes and causing so much misery and inconvenience to our residents, to cease this industrial action immediately and get back to the negotiating table to seek an agreement.
The Leader informed Council, in moving the motion, that he supported the right of railway workers to withdraw their labour and strike. Council was reminded of the importance of the rail network and infrastructure that was used by many residents in Rushcliffe. The Leader informed Council that he had been contacted by many residents whose travel plans, and engagements had been impacted by the rail strikes and that he had been touched by their personal stories of frustration and, in some cases, despair. Council was reminded that difficulties in rail travel had also led to increased car usage resulting in more congestion on the roads and, longer term, more pollution. The Leader referred to the significant cost of the recent rail strike and highlighted the increased levels of stress and hardship for individuals and businesses during the post-Covid recovery period.
The Leader informed Council that the rail industry required modernisation and to adapt to the post-Covid era, to meet the needs of users, many of whom were Rushcliffe residents. The current strikes organised by the main rail unions were in protest to those changes; however, they were impacting on the very people that this Council was elected to represent, and this motion encouraged the rail unions to return to the negotiating table.
Councillor Brennan seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor J Walker stated that this motion was an attack on rail workers who were struggling to survive after years of austerity and stressed that the Labour Group would like to take the opportunity to show public solidarity for the rail workers and focus on building bridges rather than pointing the finger of blame. She proposed an amendment to the motion:
“As a Council, we call on the Government, Rail companies and the Unions, to cease this industrial action immediately and get back to the negotiating table to seek an agreement and end the misery that is being caused to some of our residents”.
In seconding the amendment to the motion, Councillor Gaunt advised that by calling upon the Government and rail companies to join the unions around the negotiating table, it recognised that a joint effort was required to resolve issues. Councillor Gaunt stated that the unions had been discussing those changes for the last two years and had been unable to reach agreement. Council was reminded that the rail network in this country was dependent on many different bodies and organisations working together and this did not work unless everybody was willing to do that. Councillor Gaunt questioned why this motion had been brought forward and challenged the scale of the impact of the rail strike on Rushcliffe’s residents. Council was also reminded that post-Covid many residents worked from home, or at least had the option to do so, negating the need for such frequent rail travel. Councillor Gaunt agreed that any delays to hospital appointments and treatment were unfortunate; however, he also considered that there had been delays due to the pandemic, and the disruption to foreign holidays was mainly caused by the chaos at the country’s airports recently. He also touched upon the cost-of-living crisis and stated that there were bigger problems impacting upon this Borough’s residents than a few days without trains.
The Mayor asked the Leader if he was willing to accept the amendment to the motion and the Leader advised that he would not, as he considered that the Government was not and should not be involved in negotiations of this kind.
Councillor Thomas stated that the rail unions faced very difficult decisions, and the Government was understandably very busy but there was little Rushcliffe could do to influence this situation. She asked that the debate be halted, and the discussion moved to the next item of business. This procedural motion was seconded by Councillor Way.
The Mayor exercised her discretion on receiving this procedural motion to allow those who had already indicated a desire to speak to do so.
Councillor R Mallender stated that he was supportive of the amendment, which would encourage the Government and rail companies to come together in an effort to resolve the dispute and considered it imperative that the Secretary of State should also be involved as disruption to the rail network had nationwide ramifications.
Councillor Jones expressed regret that the original motion had been brought forward to Council and pointed to proposed strikes in other areas that would equally impact upon Rushcliffe residents but were, in many cases, being used as a last resort. Councillor Jones felt that the amendment to the motion put forward by Councillor J Walker added much needed balance and highlighted the part the Government needed to take in the negotiations.
The Chief Executive explained that a vote would now be taken on the procedural motion put forward by Councillor Thomas.
On being put to the vote, the motion was lost and the debate on the amendment was resumed.
Councillor Gowland informed the Council that striking rail workers were not paid and added that the RMT had been trying to negotiate for two years but now felt that it had no choice but to strike to get the attention of Government. Council was informed that there needed to be compromise on both sides, additional Government funding could help to restore services, but it was not forthcoming and continued cuts had a massive impact on service standards, maintenance and safety.
Councillor S Mallender reiterated that people on strike did not get paid, though there were schemes to support those in dire circumstances. Council was advised that many rail workers were only earning minimum wage and did not take the decision to strike lightly. The consequences of the Government and the rail operators not working with the unions to resolve the issues was also impacting on the lowest paid rail staff.
Councillor Brennan reminded Council that rail operators were private companies and that this industrial action was likely to speed up the improvements that unions were against as rail operators struggled to deliver vital services. The pandemic had sped up the pace of change for workers and the rail companies needed to evolve and adapt too. Councillor Brennan agreed that workers had every right to strike; however, to add the Government and rail operators into this motion did not make sense as they were not on strike and could therefore not return to work. Councillor Brennan suggested taking the word ‘Government’ out of the motion but leaving rail companies in.
Councillor J Walker, in summing up, reminded Council that rail workers were striking over the right to fair pay and a safe working environment, and quoted from correspondence with a rail worker confirming that the unions were still negotiating, they had never stopped, but that other parties were required to take their place at the table for those negotiations to be effective.
Councillor Robinson advised that the Conservative Group would accept the motion if the word ‘Government’ was removed.
The Mayor asked Councillor J Walker if she was prepared to remove the word ‘Government’ from the amendment to the motion. Councillor Walker declined and the Mayor called a five-minute recess.
On resuming the meeting, Councillor J Walker asked for a recorded vote on the amendment to the motion. Councillors cast their votes as follows:
FOR: Councillors Begum, Gaunt, Gowland, Gray, R Mallender, S Mallender, Murray, Purdue-Horan, Shaw, Thomas, J Walker.
AGAINST: Councillors Adair, Bailey, Barney, Brennan, Buschman, Butler, Clarke, Cottee, Dickman, Edyvean, Healy, Inglis, Jeffreys, Mason, Moore, Phillips, Robinson, Upton, Virdi, R Walker, G Wheeler.
ABSTENTION: Councillors Beardsall, Combellack, Simms and Way.
On being put to the vote, the amendment to the motion was lost.
The Mayor asked if any Councillor wished to speak to the original motion.
Councillor Jones expressed his opposition to the motion and reiterated that the motion failed to recognise that strikes were also being proposed in other areas. In addition, the motion proposed that the unions started negotiations when in reality those had been ongoing over the last two years and continued to take place. He reminded Council that the primary factor behind the strikes was Government enforced efficiencies, which would effectively lead to reduced safety measures affecting both rail staff and passengers.
Councillor R Mallender informed Council that he would not be supporting the motion as he believed that the Government had an important role to play in resolving the issues that had left rail workers with no option but to strike.
Councillor Thomas reiterated that she felt the motion had nothing to do with the Council and that debating it at all had been inappropriate.
Councillor Gray asked Council to reflect on the previous item, which had covered the findings of the Bingham Town Council Improvement Board and asked whether this issue would really be at the forefront of residents’ minds. He suspected that the current cost of living crisis was what residents really cared about and suggested that Council’s time would be better spent discussing how it could alleviate financial concerns more locally.
Councillor Edyvean expressed his disappointment in the Chamber and reiterated that the intention behind the motion was to end a situation where everybody lost, and negotiations continued until a resolution could be mapped out.
Councillor Brennan expressed the desire to move on with the motion and proposed an amendment which was seconded by Councillor Simms.
The amendment to the motion read:
“As a Council, we call on the train operators, and the Unions calling these strikes and causing so much misery and inconvenience to our residents, to cease this industrial action immediately and get back to the negotiating table to seek an agreement.”
On being put to the vote, the amendment to the motion was accepted.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.
The Mayor announced that given the time, it would not be possible to conclude all of the remaining business on the agenda and proposed that the meeting should move on to Item 12 Questions and that Motion c) be considered at the next meeting.
It was RESOLVED that the meeting move on to Item 12 Questions and that Motion c) be moved to the next ordinary Council meeting in September 2022.