To consider the following motions submitted by members in accordance with Standing Order 5:
(1) Liberal Democrat Motion:
Care Experience as a Protected Characteristic
This Council recognises that the Equality Act 2010 currently protects people against discrimination for protected characteristics including age, race, gender and sexuality, but not care-experience.
The council notes that there is research suggesting that those who are care-experienced are more likely than the general population to face significant challenges in their life, such as mental health issues, barriers to further education, prison sentences and early mortality.
This council will therefore write to the Government asking them to amend the Equality Act 2010 to include care-experience as a protected characteristic and commits that Warwickshire County Council will ensure that in designing its policies and undertaking any form of Equality Impact Assessment care experience is considered as a protected characteristic pending any change to legislation.
Proposer: Councillor Jerry Roodhouse
Seconder: Councillor Kate Rolfe
(2) Labour Motion 1:
Average Speed Cameras
There are areas of the County where residents have raised significant concerns about excessive speeding by drivers.
There has also been a report published by the RAC Foundation on the effectiveness of average speed cameras. On average, the permanent average speed camera sites analysed saw a reduction in injury collisions, particularly those of a higher severity:
• Fatal and serious injury collisions fell by 25-46%
• Personal injury collisions fell by 9-22%
The report also suggested that average speed cameras are becoming more cost effective.
The Council’s pilot of average speed cameras was approved in November 2022.
This Council resolves that:
1. A report is brought to Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee in Summer 2024 to update on findings of the pilot and explain the policy for installation and operation of average speed cameras, and
2. Consideration is given to increasing average speed camera use across the county as part of the MTFS budget proposals
Proposer: Councillor Sarah Feeney
Seconder: Councillor Sarah Millar
(3) Labour Motion 2:
Electric Vehicle Charging
Electric Vehicle numbers are on the increase in Warwickshire (and across the country there are more than 1 million plug in vehicles according to figures from the Society of Motoring Manufacturers and Traders).
There are concerns that the rate of uptake is not being matched by the availability of chargers. In some of Warwickshire’s towns there are specific off street vehicle charging challenges.
Whilst innovative technologies exist and others are emerging, like lamppost chargers and pavement cable bays, attempts at deployment have been challenging.
This Council resolves that:
1. Consideration is given to accelerating the implementation of EV charging facilities across the county as part of the MTFS budget proposals;
2. A report is brought to Cabinet before the end of March 2024 recommending an electric vehicle charging policy; and
3. A strategic approach to the procurement of charging technology is taken to support a flexible roll out that identifies community need and engages local members in identification of additional sites.
Proposer: Councillor Sarah Millar
Seconder: Councillor Sarah Feeney
Minutes:
(a) Care Experience as a Protected Characteristic
Councillor Jerry Roodhouse moved the following motion, which was seconded by Councillor Kate Rolfe:
“This Council recognises that the Equality Act 2010 currently protects people against discrimination for protected characteristics including age, race, gender and sexuality, but not care-experience.
The council notes that there is research suggesting that those who are care-experienced are more likely than the general population to face significant challenges in their life, such as mental health issues, barriers to further education, prison sentences and early mortality.
This council will therefore write to the Government asking them to amend the Equality Act 2010 to include care-experience as a protected characteristic and commits that Warwickshire County Council will ensure that in designing its policies and undertaking any form of Equality Impact Assessment care experience is considered as a protected characteristic pending any change to legislation.”
Debate:
Councillor Sue Markham explained the work that the Council already undertook with care leavers, including a wide range of financial support, guaranteed interview schemes and support for young parents. She noted that this provision provided care leavers with a level of protection and the opportunity to build a prosperous, healthy, and happy future. She asserted that widening the number of protected characteristics gave them less meaning and children did not need further labelling.
Councillor John Holland considered that the Council would not be making the provision described by Councillor Markham if it was not needed. In terms of widening the number of protected characteristics, he asserted that the introduction of the Equality Act in 2010 listed the lowest number of protected characteristics in order to smooth its path through to assent but there was evidence to show that wider definitions needed to be added.
Councillor Penny-Anne O’Donnell drew on her experience sitting on the Corporate Parenting Panel to highlight that the robust support available demonstrated that the voices of care experienced individuals and care leavers were already central to any policy considerations.
Councillor Isobel Seccombe welcomed the support that the Council was delivering for young people in Warwickshire and noted that the Council’s practice was to speak to, listen to, and react to the needs of children. She did not consider that the Council needed to adopt care leaver as a protected characteristic simply because other councils had done so and, in so doing, create a label for young people who had not been asked if they wanted it. She considered the best course of action was to continue to deliver in the right place, at the right time.
Councillor Marian Humphreys recollected her visit to the House project and meeting members of the Youth Council and how proud she was of their achievements and enthusiasm. She did not consider that they needed to be labelled.
Councillor Kam Kaur noted that the Chamber had previously spoken about issues of equality and diversity but she agreed with the list of protected characteristics as it stood at the time of this meeting. She considered it was more important to take time and focus resources on engaging with young people to find out what their needs were.
Councillor Jonathan Chilvers sought an understanding of what the motion would mean in practice and how an equality impact assessment would influence the Council’s work.
Councillor Sarah Feeney expressed her support for the motion and did not consider that it would ‘label’ care leavers, but rather influence the treatment that they received. She considered the motion sought to influence systemic responses, making sure that they were fit for purpose and the affected individuals were protected in such a way that their care experience did not cause discrimination.
Councillor Peter Butlin thanked Councillor Markham for sharing details of the Council’s work as a corporate parent and expressed his dislike for labels, preferring to view each child as an individual. He did not consider that adding care leaver to the list of protected characteristics would achieve any more than had already been achieved by the Council as corporate parent.
Councillor Pete Gilbert recognised both sides of the debate but sought to understand what the motion would positively achieve. He considered that the Corporate Parenting Panel listened to care leavers and applauded their efforts to move on with their lives. He did not think that labelling these individuals would resolve anything. Instead, he considered it was important to celebrate the achievements of care leavers and help them to move on in their lives without label or stigma.
Councillor Brian Hammersley reflected on his experience as a businessman employing individuals and how the relationship between employer-employee did not need to focus on characteristics, but more about mutual support to achieve business and individual goals.
Councillor Kate Rolfe stated that she had anticipated some of the comments made in the debate and the motion was not tabled as a criticism. She expressed her pride in the work the Council conducted for children and young people. She considered that the Council’s best practice should be shared with the government.
Councillor Jerry Roodhouse responded that the motion did not intend to label individuals, but to provide them with a level of protection. He stated that the young people he had spoken to were supportive and viewed the outcome as a way for them to have more consideration in reports and policies. He reiterated Councillor Rolfe’s assurance that the motion was not intended as a criticism, but rather to underscore the good practice that was taking place and provide an extra layer of support.
Vote:
A vote was held and the motion was defeated.
(b) Average Speed Cameras
Councillor Sarah Feeney moved the following motion, which was seconded by Councillor Sarah Millar:
“There are areas of the County where residents have raised significant concerns about excessive speeding by drivers.
There has also been a report published by the RAC Foundation on the effectiveness of average speed cameras. On average, the permanent average speed camera sites analysed saw a reduction in injury collisions, particularly those of a higher severity:
The report also suggested that average speed cameras are becoming more cost effective.
The Council’s pilot of average speed cameras was approved in November 2022.
This Council resolves that:
1. A report is brought to Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee in Summer 2024 to update on findings of the pilot and explain the policy for installation and operation of average speed cameras, and
2. Consideration is given to increasing average speed camera use across the county as part of the MTFS budget proposals”
In moving the motion, Councillor Feeney noted that all Members of the Labour Group had recently received complaints about speeding. She noted the increasing number of accidents and casualties on roads in Warwickshire and considered that average speed cameras would have a positive impact. The motion sought to shorten the existing timescales for a proposed speed trial and consider how funding for a scheme to introduce average speed cameras could be introduced into the MTFS. The motion was seconded by Councillor Sarah Millar.
Debate:
Councillor Sarah Boad noted that she received more complaints about speeding than any other issue. She noted that it was possible to hold a speed survey on a road for a small sum which was good value for money and provided high quality data. She noted that average speed cameras were located at each end of many villages in Cornwall and when she had made enquiries with Council officers about their installation, the key differences in geography had been explained to her. She considered that further investigation was required and if average speed cameras could be implemented at reasonable cost, it would be a very positive outcome.
Councillor Jan Matecki highlighted the good work the Council had done undertaken to reduce accidents on Warwickshire roads, the scheme in place with Warwickshire Police, and the funding levels that would be required to implement average speed cameras on all routes. He noted that a report to Overview and Scrutiny was already scheduled for 2024 and considered that the motion reiterated the work that the Council was already committed to undertake.
Councillor Adrian Warwick agreed that all councillors would like to reduce speeding but did not consider that this was the right methodology. He considered that the data in the RAC report referred to was aged and car safety technology had since improved, so he would have liked to see more recent evidence to support the motion. Whilst he agreed with the sentiments of the motion, he noted the costs of introducing Average Speed Cameras including maintenance and running costs and expressed a preference for the use of intelligent speed assistance technology, compulsory for all new cars since July 2022, which monitored position and limited speed. This helped to ensure safety on all roads, not just those which met the criteria to fund an average speed camera.
Councillor Jeff Clarke noted that the work sought by the motion was already underway and it had been on the Scrutiny Work Programme for some time. He considered the trials should take place as planned so that the data was available to inform policy moving forward.
Councillor Judy Falp shared her experiences of volunteering with Speed Watch, considered it was important to reduce speeding in the county and welcomed the debate to raise awareness.
Councillor Andy Crump, the portfolio holder with responsibility for community safety, noted that road traffic injuries were now almost at the levels seen pre-Covid-19 pandemic. However, he explained that speeding was not the only reason for road deaths and cited driving under the influence, undue care and attention, poorly maintained cars, and poor parking as other possible causes. He agreed with the need to raise awareness but did not think this was the right time to consider this motion, and preferred to wait for the evidence base from the trial to be considered by Scrutiny as planned.
Councillor Daren Pemberton shared his personal experience of the impact of speeding and expressed the opinion that it was important to gather evidence and data as planned. He noted that average speed cameras were only one of the tool available to address speeding and considered that three elements were needed for success: enforcement, engineering and education. He considered that the motion therefore missed the point as cameras were not the whole solution with speeding also needing to be considered socially unacceptable. He called on all councillors to call out residents in their division on poor driving behaviour.
Councillor Tim Sinclair reiterated the view that the motion was redundant as the work was already taking place and funding streams would be considered at the budget meeting in February 2024.
Councillor Peter Butlin considered that both Labour motions were seeking funding in a way that should be debated as part of the MTFS and suggested that the group consider this as part of their budget in February 2024. He echoed comments from other councillors about the improvements in car safety being a major driver for the reduction in road deaths over the years, and around the poor timing of the motion.
Councillor John Holland expressed the view that car technology did not help pedestrians or cyclists and did not support the Highway Code’s hierarchy of road users. He considered that the proposal supported the Police in their duty to enforce speed limits which would enable them to focus resources on other crimes.
Councillor Dave Humphreys commented on the availability of funding for average speed cameras and that this could not be covered by delegated budgets. He went on to note the improvements in road safety that had been achieved, particularly when compared to countries like the USA. He was of the view that the pilot schemes needed to take place as planned.
Councillor Tracey Drew shared her own personal experience of the impact of speeding and considered that relying on car design at the expense of increasing personal responsibility was a mistake. She supported the motion.
Councillor Ian Shenton also noted the need to have more evidence and research to make a decision and noted that the RAC report ended by saying there was a need to understand the cost benefit ratio. He noted that cameras were not always suitable and methods such as Speed Watch, which Councillor Falp had referred to, were also helpful.
Councillor Hammersley shared his personal experience of the impact of speeding and considered that drivers taking personal responsibility played a key part.
Councillor Sarah Millar thanked councillors who had brought their lived experiences to the debate. She considered that it was important to address rising road casualty figures and pointed out that improved car design protected those inside the vehicle, not outside it. She acknowledged that whilst education for drivers was needed, it was also important to make it difficult to speed and average speed cameras could play a part in that as the evidence suggested that they were more effective in influencing driver behaviour as well as offering the complimentary benefits of supporting better traffic flow, less congestion and less road rage.
Councillor Feeney also thanked those Members who had shared their personal experiences as part of the debate. She stated the view that the Council was behind the curve on this issue and the reality of the motion was about road safety and commencing the proposed trial at an earlier time so that the data would be available before 2025. She understood the cost considerations, but was not proposing to cover every centimetre of road in the county, rather to identify problem roads and find the funding to pay for cameras.
Vote:
A vote was held and the motion was defeated.
(c) Electric Vehicle Charging
Councillor Sarah Millar moved the motion below, stating that areas with terraced housing in particular did not have access to EV charging. She noted that one in four registrations in 2023 were for hybrid/electric vehicles and the Council needed to respond to demand. The Motion was seconded by Councillor Sarah Feeney.
“Electric Vehicle numbers are on the increase in Warwickshire (and across the country there are more than 1 million plug in vehicles according to figures from the Society of Motoring Manufacturers and Traders).
There are concerns that the rate of uptake is not being matched by the availability of chargers. In some of Warwickshire’s towns there are specific off street vehicle charging challenges.
Whilst innovative technologies exist and others are emerging, like lamppost chargers and pavement cable bays, attempts at deployment have been challenging.
This Council resolves that:
1. Consideration is given to accelerating the implementation of EV charging facilities across the county as part of the MTFS budget proposals;
2. A report is brought to Cabinet before the end of March 2024 recommending an electric vehicle charging policy; and
3. A strategic approach to the procurement of charging technology is taken to support a flexible roll out that identifies community need and engages local members in identification of additional sites.”
Debate:
Councillor Tim Sinclair highlighted that this work had already been undertaken by the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Electric Vehicle Charging Points Task and Finish Group which had reported to Cabinet in December 2022 and he encouraged councillors to read the report.
Councillor Bill Gifford had read the report of the Task and Finish Group and, whilst officers were doing a good job, he believed there were constraints in terms of what could be done and the pace of work had slowed. He appreciated the spirit of the motion and was minded to vote in favour. Councillor Gifford noted that the government had previously suggested no petrol or diesel vehicles should be sold after 2030 and lamented the fact that this had been pushed back to 2035. As well as the costs involved, one of the reasons that put people off buying a hybrid or electric vehicle was the fear of not being able to charge.
Councillor Richard Baxter-Payne spoke on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning, Councillor Jan Matecki, who had left the meeting due to an urgent engagement and had left his response with Councillor Baxter-Payne. He highlighted the work the Council was doing to encourage drivers to switch to electric vehicles, including ease of access to charging points at home and other locations, reviewing parking arrangements at charge point locations, securing £3.3m of levy funding to produce additional publicly available charge points for residents without access to off street home charging, a new EV webpage offering information and guidance and the opportunity to suggest sites for charge point installation, work with district and borough councils to understand beneficial locations and the equitable distribution of charging opportunities across the county, and work with partners to explore the deployment of new technology. Procurement rules did provide some constraints but officers were in the process of drafting a specification to go out to the market in the new year. He advised that local members would be kept appraised of any trials and deployments in their divisions.
Councillor John Holland considered that there was not a credible strategy to provide sufficient charging points and consultation with local councillors was required.
Councillor Jonathan Chilvers considered that the correct strategy, considering the Council’s sphere of influence and budget envelope, was in place following the work of the Electric Vehicle Charging Points Task and Finish Group. He considered that large/long charges were best done from supermarket charging points, but street furniture could be utilised to support those residents who could not benefit from off street parking and it was important to implement this as fast as possible. He welcomed the motion.
Councillor Adrian Warwick noted that war in Ukraine had caused a shift in the electric vehicle market. He noted that over a quarter of properties could not easily charge and many people wanted to be able to charge at home. In terms of street furniture, in some areas lamp posts were owned by the parish councils but at circa 7kwh this would take some time to charge. The Council was working to find solutions, as had already been outlined by the Task and Finish Group, but it was important to be sensible in terms of the time frame.
Councillor Sarah Feeney considered that the motion recognised that efforts to introduce electric vehicle charging had stalled and residents were frustrated and not aware of schemes and trials available. She believed that residents wanted to charge from home but did not always have access to their own drive or off-street parking and, whilst the Portfolio Holder had recognised this, she had not heard a solution in the debate. She questioned Councillor Baxter-Payne’s comments about the meaning of an equitable distribution of charging since the county was very diverse and some areas would not need it as much as others. It was important to support those residents who wanted to get a modal shift away from fossil fuels to do so without the current difficulties. A flexible policy was needed as well as power for officers to have a purchasing solution in place without the need for special permissions.
Councillor Sarah Millar responded that a plan wasn’t implementation, which was what the motion was seeking. She considered that the price rise for fossil fuels because of war in Ukraine was a driver for seeking electric/hybrid alternatives. The motion also recognised that the Council had declared a climate emergency and the net zero targets that had been set, which she considered meant that a faster roll out and better implementation was required. Whilst the Council had previously been on the front foot, she considered that the pace had now stalled and the Council was not keeping pace with the uptake of electric vehicles and the associated need for services.
Vote:
A vote was held and the motion was defeated.