7
The Chairman advised that one Motion had been submitted by Councillor Rachel Smith-Lyte pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 11. In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules set out in the East Suffolk Council Constitution, the Chairman sought a proposer and seconder on discussing the Motion immediately.
On the proposition of Councillor Gallant, seconded by Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw it was by a unanimous vote
RESOLVED
That the Motion be discussed immediately.
The Chairman invited Councillor Smith-Lyte to propose her Motion.
When introducing her motion, Councillor Smith-Lyte highlighted that the global temperature had already risen by 1% from pre-industrial levels and that without more significant action the world would exceed a 1.5% increase in contravention of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, and that the harm from a 2% rise would be significant. Councillor Smith-Lyte considered the government's target to achieve net zero by 2050 was too late.
Councillor Smith-Lyte said that the overexploitation of resources and poor land management risked a mass extinction of species and loss of habitat, and that ambitious action was needed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5%. Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill (referred to hereafter as the Bill) was a Private Members' Bill formed by cross-party support of 12 Members of Parliament (MPs) and was co-sponsored by several different organisations.
The Bill had received its first reading on 22 September 2020 and was awaiting its second reading, and Councillor Smith-Lyte advised that it was supported by 103 MPs and 20 county, district and town/parish councils. Councillor Smith-Lyte highlighted that several town and parish councils in East Suffolk had pledged to support the Bill and had written to Dr Therese Coffey MP to seek her support for the bill.
Councillor Smith-Lyte referred to the declaration of a climate change emergency made by the Council in 2019 and highlighted the work undertaken since then to tackle this issue, but considered the Council needed to go even further to address climate change.
Councillor Smith-Lyte proposed that
Council notes that
i. This council has declared a climate and ecological emergency;
ii. Many local authorities have established Citizens’ Assemblies that are playing an important role in assisting them in their plans to achieve net zero by 2030 or before; and that
iii. There is a Bill before Parliament - the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill (published as the “Climate and Ecology Bill”) - according to which the Government must develop an emergency strategy that:
a. requires that the UK plays its fair and proper role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures;
b. ensures that all the UK’s consumption emissions are accounted for;
c. includes emissions from aviation and shipping;
d. protects and restores biodiverse habitats along overseas supply chains;
e. restores and regenerates the UK’s depleted soils, wildlife habitats and species populations to healthy and robust states, maximising their capacity to absorb CO2 and their resistance to climate heating;
f. sets up an independent Citizens’ Assembly, representative of the UK’s population, to engage with Parliament and Government and help develop the emergency strategy.
Council therefore resolves to:
i. Support the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill
ii. Inform the local media of this decision;
iii. Write to local MPs, asking them to support the Bill; and
iv. Write to the CEE Bill Alliance, the organisers of the campaign for the Bill, expressing its support (campaign@ceebill.uk).
The Motion was seconded by Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw, who reserved her right to speak.
The Chairman invited the Council to debate the proposed Motion.
Councillor Mallinder opened debate and proposed that the Motion be amended to read as follows:
This Council accordingly resolves to:
Refer this matter to the Environmental Task Group for it to investigate the aims of the Bill and to in turn action the Council’s response.
Councillor Mallinder expressed his great respect for his Green Party colleagues but was disappointed with the original Motion, as it should be specifically relevant to the Council and its residents. Councillor Mallinder acknowledged that some aspects of the Motion were important but considered it to be a wasted opportunity to encourage collaborative working; he stated that his proposed amendment was to allow for cross-party support in responding to the Bill.
Councillor Mallinder considered that the Administration was leading the way on environmental policy in Suffolk through actions, due to the commitment of the entire Cabinet who understand the importance of the environment. Councillor Mallinder highlighted that the environment was a key point of the Council's Strategic Plan and that key changes had already been made to how the Council delivered its services.
Councillor Mallinder agreed that the urgency of addressing climate change was undisputed and was of the view that the Council was taking action on this week by week, and as it moved towards the goals of reducing emissions and increasing biodiversity it was protecting skilled jobs, developing the economy supporting residents and digitally transforming communities.
Councillor Mallinder acknowledged that the Bill highlighted the importance of the climate change emergency but did not agree with its proposed implementations needed further consideration, as the environment should not be an external issue to be dealt with separately and considered the Environment Task Group the best place for this to happen.
At this point, Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw raised a point of order; she considered that Councillor Mallinder's proposed amendment was so significant it constituted a new Motion and negated the original Motion, and sought the advice of the Council's Monitoring Officer. Mrs Slater, the Monitoring Officer, considered that the amendment was taking words out of the original Motion and replacing them with new ones, and was a valid amendment.
Councillor Mallinder continued his speech and said that the Environment Task Group was a cross-party group and the centre of the Council's environmental discussion and was a key part of formulating environmental policy.
Councillor Mallinder's proposed amendment was seconded by Councillor Cloke, who reserved her right to speak.
The Chairman invited the Council to debate the proposed amendment to the Motion.
Councillor Topping was disappointed with the proposed amendment. She expressed her respect for the Environment Task Group but was concerned that as it only met once a quarter, it would not be able to address the Bill in sufficient time. Councillor Topping asked that the Council take the original matter seriously and do not refer it on to the Environment Task Group. Councillor Topping took the opportunity to thank the expert contributors who had helped draft the Bill and cited the importance of the Citizen Assemblies it proposed.
Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw objected to some of the language that had been used by Councillor Mallinder in respect of the original Motion; she reminded Members that the opposition was entitled to submit a Motion to Council and it was an important part of the democratic process. Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw considered that the Bill should be discussed by the Council in the public domain.
It was acknowledged by Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw that Councillor Mallinder had been consulted on the original Motion before its submission, and had asked for the matter to be referred to the Environment Task Group, but the GLI Group had been of the view that it was more appropriate for the matter to be debated by the Council.
Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw said there was nothing to fear from Citizen Assemblies and considered them to be an incredible way to work through complex issues, as seen in Ireland with issues such as abortion.
Councillor Gallant considered that the Environment Task Group was the best forum to consider the Bill as it was already embedded in delivering the Council's environmental agenda. Councillor Gallant said that Councillor Mallinder was not following a political agenda with his amendment but an environmental one. Councillor Gallant said it was important to look at whether the Bill provided what was best for residents, which he considered to be actions and not words. Councillor Gallant said he was not afraid of engagement and cited the establishment of the Community Partnerships as an example of this.
Councillor Gooch stated that she was in support of the Bill and considered it right that the Council be seen as a forum to discuss issues that affect both a local and national level. Councillor Gooch said she trusted the judgement of those who had drafted the Bill as a lot of research had gone into it. Councillor Gooch admitted that she had some reservations about Citizen Assemblies but remained of an open mind on the subject, concluding that if the matter was referred to the Environment Task Group, she would work with her colleagues on that Task Group to ascertain how to take the best sentiments of the Bill forward.
Councillor Byatt concurred with Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw's earlier comments about the amendment constituting a new Motion; he wanted to debate the original Motion given the sense of urgency on the issue and said it was important that any representations were made as soon as possible, before the Bill's second reading.
Councillor Blundell highlighted that significant work to address environmental issues had been completed by volunteers throughout East Suffolk, funded by Community Partnerships. Councillor Blundell considered that the Council should not wait on words as action was taking place.
Councillor Wiles considered that the Council was renowned for its environmental aspirations and efforts and supported the amendment made by Councillor Mallinder, stating that change only happened when everyone worked together. Councillor Mallinder said he supported the work of the Environment Task Group and supported the proposed amendment.
Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that her original Motion did not imply action was not already taking place; she asked Members not to become too focussed on Citizen Assemblies as it was only one part of the Motion. Councillor Smith-Lyte reminded the Council that the Bill had been put together by experts as well as a cross-party group of MPs and makes the point that more speed on the issue is needed. Councillor Smith-Lyte said she did not accept Councillor Mallinder's amendment.
Councillor Cloke concluded the debate on the proposed amendment by stating that she did not see the need for Citizen Assemblies, as there was already elected representatives to represent the views of residents. Councillor Cloke noted that she had recently attended the Greenprint Forum and from this and other experiences knew how much Councillor Mallinder was committed to tackling environmental issues and making real and sustainable differences.
There being no further debate the Chairman moved to the vote on the proposed amendment which was by a majority vote CARRIED. The proposed amendment therefore became the substantive Motion.
The Chairman invited the Council to debate the substantive Motion.
Councillor Mallinder considered that the Environment Task Group was the most appropriate place to discuss the matter and drill down to see how it can support residents' goals and the ambitions of the Council.
Councillor Byatt reiterated that the Environment Task Group needed to review the Bill as soon as possible to ensure that representations were made within its parliamentary timetable and suggested that it prioritise the issue and meets more frequently. Councillor Byatt expressed some reservations about Citizen Assemblies and considered if another layer of democracy was needed.
Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw acknowledged the concerns raised about Citizen Assemblies and noted that researching the concept had shown her how effective they could be, as they would enable the Council to bring the community with it when addressing such issues, rather than imposing a solution. Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw sought clarity on when the Environment Task Group would hear the issue.
Councillor Gallant was of the view that had the original Motion remained, the Council would not have been able to fully understand the implications of what it was being asked to debate. Councillor Gallant considered that the Environment Task Group was best placed to debate the merits of the Bill and suggested that its prioritisation needed to be in line with the current parliamentary timetable for the Bill.
Councillor Bird was pleased the original Motion had been amended and said he could support it in this form. Councillor Bird enforced the earlier comments made stating that actions speak louder than words and highlighted work undertaken by Suffolk County Council to plant 200,000 trees in Suffolk, funded by the Suffolk Fund, with 100,000 trees having been planted in the first five months of the project.
Councillor Kerry supported the amended motion and highlighted the steps already been taking by the Council's Housing service to tackle environmental issues, including developing housing with the latest energy saving devices and air or ground source heat pumps.
Councillor Haworth-Culf was of the view that East Suffolk Council led the way on various matters and said this was evident with the establishment of the Environment Task Group and the actions the Council had taken to address climate change such as the grass roof at East Suffolk House, changing to electric vehicles, installing electric vehicle charging points and working to reduce the use of single-use plastic. Councillor Haworth-Culf highlighted that a school in her Ward was having the environment as its theme in April 2021 and this was a result of influence of Leiston Together and the net zero project for the town.
Councillor Brooks outlined the launch of quiet lanes in Suffolk last week and highlighted that a significant number of these lanes were located within East Suffolk. Councillor Brooks said that the Council was one of the leading districts in the region, and possibly the country, on environmental issues.
Councillor Topping said she was delighted to hear of so many positive actions across the district and detailed her own personal actions for a number of years, stating that everyone had to contribute to addressing climate change. Councillor Topping directed Members to the website for the Bill, where they could find an executive summary of changes and a list of the recent environmental disasters to have occurred. Councillor Topping suggested that the Bill be included on the Environment Task Group's agenda for its meeting on 14 April 2021.
Councillor Gooch considered that words and actions were not separate and said she would have been happy to support the original Motion. Councillor Gooch said that a co-operative approach was needed to address climate change in a comprehensive way.
Councillor Byatt raised a point of order, suggesting that the debate was returning to the original Motion, and asked that the Council move to the vote on the substantive Motion.
There being no further debate it was by a majority vote
RESOLVED
This Council accordingly resolves to:
Refer this matter to the Environmental Task Group for it to investigate the aims of the Bill and to in turn action the Council’s response.
Following the conclusion of this item, the Chairman adjourned the meeting for a short break. The meeting was adjourned at 8.12pm and was reconvened at 8.20pm. During this adjournment, Councillor T-J Haworth-Culf left the meeting and Councillor Ray Herring joined the meeting.