To receive any questions submitted from Members of the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 30 and 30A.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Jones to the Leader
“At the Cabinet meeting on Nov 17th 2020, it was announced that Cllr Stephenson would be taking on the role of Climate Change Champion:
a) Can the terms of reference of the role be shared with councillors and made public through appending to the minutes of this meeting?
b) With reference to the Climate Action Motion passed by Full Council in October 2019, can you confirm that Cllr Stephenson is therefore the cabinet member taking responsibility for the delivery of Zero Carbon Activity?
c) What are the levels of carbon emissions from Council activities and how has this been calculated?”
In response to Councillor Jones, the Leader replied:
“The Terms of Reference were being drafted and would be circulated with the Minutes. He would like these to be informed by the discussions and debate with Councillors and the Community over the coming months. The final Terms of Reference would come to Full Council to be approved as well as the appointment of the Climate Change Champion for 2021/22.”
“The Leader confirmed that since the recent changes to portfolios, Councillor Stephenson would be the cabinet Member for the delivery of the Action Plan on Climate Change.”
“Councillor Stephenson would be addressing the planned programme of works to implement the Council’s planned approach and would be obtaining the latest up to date carbon emission baseline figures. Currently they were estimated and published by BASE to assess the impact within the Council and County wide. A link to this will be appended to the reply.”
There were no supplementary questions.
Question from Councillor Jones to the Leader
The Climate Action Motion committed to ensuring that the Executive and Scrutiny functions review council activities taking account of production and consumption emissions, and produce an action plan within 12 months, together with budget actions and a measured baseline.
a) What precisely has Cabinet done in the last year to fulfil this requirement?
b) On how many occasions has each scrutiny panel reviewed Council activities taking account of production and consumption emissions and as a result produced an action plan?
c) Where on the forward plan is there an action plan to reduce carbon emissions?
The Leader responded that:
Alongside the Council’s Climate Action Motion, it was agreed the Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Committee would convene a Biodiversity Task and Finish Group. This Task and Finish Group took priority and had now concluded its discussions and published its findings in October last year.
The Covid-19 pandemic had impacted timescales for developing a comprehensive carbon reduction plan informed by a measured baseline. However, the pandemic had also provided opportunities for the Council to take positive steps in reducing its contribution to carbon emissions. Taking prompt action to enable staff to work from home and continue to do so since March 2020 had led to a considerable reduction in both business and commuter mileage, and associated emissions. In addition, the Council had taken the difficult decision to maintain a virtual offer for a number of services that were previously accommodation-based such as Brightways, Jules House and culture and libraries. This had resulted in a reduction in energy usage and again associated carbon emissions.
The Council had also continued to pursue funding opportunities to promote sustainability and carbon reduction and successfully secured grant funding to promote ‘Active Travel’ and cycling and walking routes. Through a consortium bid in conjunction with Peterborough Council and led by Portsmouth Council, the Council had been successful in securing Green Homes Grant funding. This should enable some home owners in Rutland to secure a financial contribution to home energy efficiency improvements.
Cabinet members and officers had also been engaging with other local authorities and partners, such as the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership, to learn from good practice and inform our future approach to climate change.
The Scrutiny panels were not something I would influence but I would hope that the Scrutiny Commission would engage with Cllr Stephenson to inform the action plan, and, as before, Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny have already considered the findings of the Biodiversity Task and Finish Group in October 2020.
I would argue that the Action Plan was already part of the forward plan as it was part of our decision making process, but I also understand that we should formalise this work, and Cllr Stephenson will expand on this later
Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question regarding the Biodiversity Task and Finish Group and how a great piece of work had been completed. However, there were no timelines given or names of officers carrying out the work to ensure that the Action would be in place by the end of the Council year. The Leader agreed that this would be added to the plan going forward.
Question Councillor Jones to Councillor Stephenson
a) “ensure that Cabinet and an Officer of the Senior Management Team embed this work [zero carbon activity] in all areas and
b) take responsibility for reducing, as rapidly as possible, the carbon emissions resulting from the Council’s activities, ensuring that any recommendations are fully costed and affordable”
Councillor Stephenson responded that:
In relation to the programme of work in relation to her role as Climate Change Champion that without a coherent plan that included a comprehensive understanding of why addressing climate change was crucial to ensure a future proof planet as we head through the Anthropocene age. The interdependencies to other key issues such as biodiversity and an overarching understanding of this at a global level was fundamental: we were in the Anthropocene age; how we have lived was no longer sustainable – the planet cannot cope with how humans use the planet; to address this would not simply be a case of addressing climate change rather reviewing and altering the core values by which we had hitherto lived our lives. To consider this, therefore as a standalone programme of work would be ill advised; to affect fundamental and lasting change this would need a whole organisation approach. With this is mind the ‘Future Rutland Conversation’ work would need to be the overarching backbone – what we aspire to deliver and most crucially the way in which we deliver it has to be underpinned by a fundamental shift in our values, as individuals and as a collective community. Here I am driving at ‘growth’ as an overarching principle that has underpinned millennia of human existence.
In terms of specific work for an effective approach to climate change: I propose that there are 5 key areas that must be included: scoping (establishing our boundaries – what are we responsible for and where partnership working would be required to achieve a common goal); a carbon baseline assessment: detailed and specific analysis of where we were currently at; the identification on deliverable decarbonisation projects; a comprehensive and cohesive finance plan and finally monitoring and evaluating sufficiently to enable any plans to be flexible, working documents that can develop as needed to deliver our duty to reduce the impact of human activity on climate change. Within all this we need to be clear of the interdependencies between the various services and underlying policies. This would be a very complex piece of work and one that would need everyone’s support.
Involving the public of Rutland drives to the crux of the climate change issue: this was not a challenge for anyone person, organisation or business, county or indeed country. To be successful everyone must play their part, not least with an acknowledgement of where we were at as a species on a planet and an overarching understanding of how the choices we made could have a positive and an accumulative impact. In the Spring RCC would be hosting a Climate Change Summit –this would be streamed to enable as many people as possible to attend. One of the outputs of this would be the establishment of Climate Action Groups within our community – this would be crucial with supporting individuals to address their carbon footprints.
There was much good practice to be tapped into not least the report due in the spring from the newly formed UK Citizens’ Climate Assembly. The pandemic pausing of the overarching Climate Action Partnership (involving stakeholders from across the county) needs to be re – started and will provide an essential input into the programme for the Climate Summit. It was also crucial that this engagement was not confined to our adult population, work with the Rutland Youth Council and our schools likewise crucial. On that note I would wish to bring members’ attention to the work on food waste that RYC is currently undertaking which had a helpful synergy with work that the Waste Management Board was currently doing reviewing and developing a new waste management strategy. I believe this is important to deliver on.
The ‘Future Rutland Conversation’ work would ensure that Cabinet and officers of the Senior Management Team embed this into all areas. A starting point was our reports: climate impact needs to be identified in all reports as we do equality and diversity. To be clear, this was not a one person job – as your questions have demonstrated how we all work together as elected members is crucial: the agendas that scrutiny panels set, the questions asked at full council, members engagement with cabinet papers and full utilisation of the portfolio holders’ informal ‘open door’ policy to question and interrogate policy with a collective desire to make how we live mutually beneficial, not just as one distinct species but rather as one, albeit powerful, element of a planetary ecosystem.
The responsibility lies with all of us for reducing, as rapidly as possible, the carbon emissions resulting from the Council’s activities: this was not a one-person job. I refer to my initial response above in terms of specific plans – I am sure Councillor Jones would appreciate that the overarching plan needed to be developed first.
In relation to the last question regarding reviewing the targets Councillor Stephenson responded that as members were aware a motion had been tabled to discuss later. I am not pre – determined to this debate; it was an important one to have and I come to it with a desire to listen, learn and consequently reach a decision which will be made with a disregard to the political labels we have chosen for ourselves. The issue of living through this age and successfully was a matter that is bigger than modern political labels; it was a global concern and one which would require cooperation and a determination to reach conclusions and actions that were the right thing to do. Therefore, my answer to this question is based on my knowledge and that of our officers to date, I reserve the right to change my mind as result of listening to members during the debate. This I believe is in the spirit of what we wish to achieve: an environment of cooperation to deliver what is best for the overall well – being and health of our community.
Other councils are referenced in this question. For clarity South Kesteven has not committed to being carbon zero by 2030, rather they have set a target of a 60% reduction with an ambition of ‘becoming carbon zero as soon as viable before 2050’. Melton, having set a 60% reduction by 2030 in their outlined Climate Change plan dating from 2008, had changed this stance to carbon zero by 2030 as from 2019, but did not have a more recent plan than the 2008 one. The councils that remain in this question had got clear plans of delivery and crucially plans for annual monitoring and evaluating progress.
There were various methodologies for reducing carbon emission: one such is carbon off set. I am uncomfortable with this. If we were to agree that the fundamental challenge was not to produce the carbon emissions in the first place, then off set simply creates rebound or ‘greenwashing’ whereby we might feel successful at a local level but fail to consider the global impact and actually make little or no difference to the global aim of reducing temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.
In order to achieve a future proof blueprint for how we live required time, planning and investment. To set targets that were unachievable I do not think useful; any targets that were set must not be vague and populist, rather evidence based with a supported methodology for delivery. Therefore, until we had our baseline work completed, I think it ill advised to set a target at this precise point. I like the South Kesteven wording: becoming carbon zero as soon as is viable’.
In terms of declaring an emergency, I am never a fan of doing something just because everyone else has or in this case 74%. I am mindful of avoiding going down a linguistic rabbit hole but the use of language was important. Last year, as the pandemic took hold, a state of emergency was declared: the use of emergency powers instigated and still happening – is this how we understand the implication of declaring a state of climate emergency? Clearly in practice, as far as I can see, this declaration by councils had resulted in plans (%), and (%) getting their baseline assessments done as of January 2020. The words had not necessarily resulted in meaningful action or to quote Luke Osborne (ECA advisor) ‘There is a lot of rhetoric out there but very few action plans’. A piece, published this January, regarding the impact of Cyclone Idai on Mozambique is referred to by the writer as a climate crisis not a climate emergency. 1,000 people died, 146,000 people lost their homes and 2,355 people were still living in a temporary camp some 11 months after the cyclone struck. Addressing climate change, I believe, therefore is a matter of urgency and should be described as such. So my questions are these, and I hope that members will share their views through the course of debate under item 15 ‘What is the value added of declaring an emergency? What impact will the use of this word have? Is there a more useful term to capture our shared goal of carbon neutrality?’
Councillor Jones asked a supplementary question in response. She felt that there was always reasons for not doing something but this was not that time. Being part of the 74-78% of Councils trying to achieve net zero by 2030 was a great collective resource. The word ambition had been said a lot and that was a key word. She asked Councillor Stephenson whether she felt that the Council could draw upon the others to help with its plans. Councillor Stephenson responded that they did have very good plans but as far as she could see but the meat upon the bones were lacking. She was not keen in having a collective march as might not be the right direction to help with the Council’s own one it wants to achieve.
Question from Councillor Dale to Councillor Hemsley
Would the leader agree, that the option he chose last June, to take all his allocation of seats on scrutiny and committees has resulted in some of his members sitting on 3 ,4 ,5 panels while members of other groups are on none, a fair indication of an open transparent and all-inclusive council which he stated he wanted two years ago?
Councillor Hemsley responded that:
Thank you Cllr Dale for your question, I would think that this question could be asked of all group leaders, as I understand that we have all taken our full allocation of seats.
With regards the comment on Open and Transparent I had asked that all Chairs ensure that as our constitution allows for contributions from Councillors who were not members of the Committee. This allowed any elected member to raise their view on a topic and any elected member could attend any of these meetings. There were also numerous all member briefings to ensure that we were enabling all councillors the opportunity to be involved, it was however up to each elected member to choose their priorities and attend these if they wish.
Councillor Dales asked a supplementary question asking if the Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG) could look into allocating a further two seats to Scrutiny Panels. This was because he had found that since having not sat on a Panel for the last 6months he was feeling that it was not very inclusive. He would like it to be brought back as a proposal. The Leader responded that he did not think this was something for the CRWG but Annual Council where the seat proportionality was debated.
Question to Councillor G Brown from Councillor Coleman
Councillor Coleman advised the Chairman that he would raise his questions under Item 10.