Agenda item
Notice of Motion - Climate and Ecological Emergency
The following Motion has been received in the names of Councillors Liz Leffman and Mathew Parkinson, namely:-
“On 20 September 2020, an Early Day Motion entitled the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill was tabled in the House of Commons. A second reading is to be held shortly. While the Government’s recent Ten Point Plan is an important step towards tackling the UK’s carbon emissions, this Bill recognises that our carbon footprint extends beyond the UK’s borders. The Bill calls for:
· the UK to make and enact a serious plan to combat climate change. This means dealing with our real fair share of emissions so that we don’t go over critical global rises in temperature
· our entire carbon footprint be taken into account (in the UK and overseas)
· the protection and conservation of nature here and overseas along supply chains, recognising the damage we cause through the goods we consume
· those in power not to depend on technology to save the day, which is used as an excuse to carry on polluting as usual
· people to have a real say on the way forward in a citizens’ assembly with bite
Many residents have made it clear through social media and by forming campaign groups that they want to see this Bill succeed, and Oxfordshire County Council has already given the Bill its support. This Council agrees with the principles of this Bill and supports residents in their efforts to see it come into law. We ask the Leader of this Council to write to our MP, asking him to support this Bill and its principles when it returns to the House of Commons”.
Minutes:
The following Motion was provided to Council in the names of Councillor Liz Leffman and Councillor Mathew Parkinson, namely:-
“On 20 September 2020, an Early Day Motion entitled the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill was tabled in the House of Commons. A second reading is to be held shortly. While the Government’s recent Ten Point Plan is an important step towards Page 4 tackling the UK’s carbon emissions, this Bill recognises that our carbon footprint extends beyond the UK’s borders. The Bill calls for:
• the UK to make and enact a serious plan to combat climate change. This means dealing with our real fair share of emissions so that we don’t go over critical global rises in temperature
• our entire carbon footprint be taken into account (in the UK and overseas)
• the protection and conservation of nature here and overseas along supply chains, recognising the damage we cause through the goods we consume
• those in power not to depend on technology to save the day, which is used as an excuse to carry on polluting as usual
• people to have a real say on the way forward in a citizens’ assembly with bite
Many residents have made it clear through social media and by forming campaign groups that they want to see this Bill succeed, and Oxfordshire County Council has already given the Bill its support. This Council agrees with the principles of this Bill and supports residents in their efforts to see it come into law. We ask the Leader of this Council to write to our MP, asking him to support this Bill and its principles when it returns to the House of Commons”.
Councillor Leffman proposed that the Leader of the Council write to the local MP, asking him to support the Bill and its principles when it returned to the House of Commons.
She thanked Councillor Harvey for the report from the Climate Action Working group, stated that climate change was also at the heart of the County Council’s agenda and that today she was talking about the national issue. She stated that the aim of the Bill was to broaden what government proposed as part of the 10 point plan and how more could be done to tackle our carbon footprint. There were a number of issues she hoped the Government could provide support for. One issue for housing was that there was no legislation to support building to net zero so developers could refuse to do it. Councillor Leffman queried the Government’s stance on buuilding standards in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc and was advised that it was hoped there would be a 70% reduction in carbon against what was currently being built. Councillor Leffman felt this was not good enough and stated it must be legislated. If larger house builders could build to a lower standard, then smaller builders would find themselves outpriced.
Councillor Parkinson seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mead stated that as the Bill had come through parliament in June, she had taken the liberty of writing to Robert Courts MP outlining the motion. A response had been received, which Councillor Mead read for the benefit of the Members:
“I am encouraged that the UK remains committed to environmentally sustainable development as set out in the Millennium Development Goals and the sustainable Development Goals. In September 2019 the Prime Minister committed to doubling the UK’s International Climate Finance over the next five years which I hope will enable the UK to play an active part in protecting the environment and reversing biodiversity loss.
I know that a Climate Assembly UK was formed as a result of work conducted by Parliamentary Select Committees. I welcome that many of their recommendations, which were published in their report, are already either in place or in the pipeline as a result of the Government working towards net zero. Achieving net zero will affect everyone and it is important that we work together to achieve it.
Therefore, I do not believe that the Bill is required as work is already underway to achieve our net zero target and protect our environment.”
Councillor Mead stated that she could not support the motion based on the response from the MP.
Councillor Harvey was disappointed to see this motion to Council as the authority had already played a large role in tackling Climate Change and there was no mention of the progress made over the past two years. He felt it was more important for the Council to reduce its own CO2 emissions rather than get involved in gesture politics. He went on to say that the Council was making great progress in Climate Change and biodiversity and gave some examples.
Councillor Harvey stated he had been actively involved in the Oxfordshire tree mapping project which had made a real and tangible difference for the businesses and residents in the area. These were all reasons he could not support the motion and felt Council should focus on what could be done locally.
Councillor Davies stated that from a Planning aspect, although the carbon toolkit was available, it meant nothing without the powers to enforce it. She agreed that Government support was key to make that happen.
Councillor Dingwall was concerned for new homebuyers. He felt that these measures would make homes more expensive than they already were. He believed that rather than looking at national policies the Council should look locally for things that could help. He advised that solar panels were very expensive to install on a house but solar farms were more affordable and community solar areas should be looked at within developments. He stated that flooding was also an issue due to the water table being very high. He stated that the whole of California runs on geo thermal energy and asked if that could be used here with the cost shared by everyone rather than using individual air source heat pumps.
Councillor Postan said he was an advocate for solar panels and the savings they made and that maintenance was little or nothing in his experience. He felt that the Bill recognised that the Council’s carbon footprint extended beyond its border.
Councillor Levy was surprised by the defensiveness of the comments made by Members of the Conservative group. He noted that the Council was taking a lead on climate change, but a lot more could be done and writing to the MP was one of them. He stated that Government involvement was needed to change standards for housing to get things done locally. He also suggested that the County Council needed to encourage cycling and the use of public transport.
Councillor Coles stated there was nothing critical in the motion about the good work the Council had achieved in the last few years and was surprised by the negative attitudes of some of the Members.
Councillor Al-Yousuf commended the spirit of the motion and advised that there was nothing he disagreed with. Referring to the urgency from Councillor Leffman, he stated that she wanted no more and no less than for the Council to write to the MP. As it appeared that this had already been done by Councillor Mead and there was a reply he felt that further discussions were fruitless and the meeting should move on.
Councillor Chapple agreed that a letter had been sent, but questioned if the content of that was reflective of that which was requested.
Councillor Coul stated that all of these things were being looked at and acted on by Government already. She felt this was being used as a political tool by Councillors. She reminded Members that the MP was clear on his views and writing to him again was a waste of time. It would be better for the Leader of the Council to make representations to other organisations that could bear fruit.
Councillor Haine, in response to Councillor Dingwall claiming home improvements would be expensive, stated that this should not be the case as land was made cheaper as a result of these improvements.
Councillor Acock stated he did not see the point of the motion. He suggested that the Council could be writing and pre-empting the outcome as the Bill may or may not return for a second reading. He felt the motion should be withdrawn as the letter had already sent and the MP had replied.
Councillor Parkinson stated that the Council should be pushing for this and doing everything possible.
Councillor Leffman, in summing up, stated she was very disappointed with the attitude of Members. She very much welcomed the work of the Council and it was going in the right direction. A lot had been done but more was still needed, which would require the Government to step up and mandate the things the Council wanted to see in new developments. Legislation for net zero development needed to be in place to allow the Council to do that. The MP response did not mean he was right and did not stop the Council from writing again to reiterate their point, stating they do not agree. She concluded by advising that other Districts and the County Council had endorsed this and she would not withdraw the motion.
The motion was then put to the vote and defeated.
Defeated