In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, to consider motions on notice from Members.
a) Proposed by Councillor Clive Moesby
Motion on Chesterfield Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
b) Proposed by Councillor Clive Moesby
Motion to support women born in the 1950s who have unfairly borne the burden of increases to the State Pension Age.
c) Proposed by Councillor Steve Fritchley
Motion to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of Anti-Semitism
d) Proposed by Councillor James Watson
Motion for training sessions not to commence prior to 6:30pm
e) Proposed by Councillor Nick Clarke
Motion on the use of Fireworks
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, Councillors were able to submit Motions on Notice for consideration at meetings of Council.
a) The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Clive Moesby:
The Council are in receipt of a letter calling for a recognition of residents’ concerns in relation to international developments in relation to nuclear weapons.
Below is the letter for reference:
We write as citizens, concerned at international developments which have no national or local barriers: which impinge on, and threaten, us all.
- The withdrawal of the USA from the International Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1970
- The withdrawal of the USA from The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015
Each of these agreements had been achieved only after extensive and prolonged discussions, at International, Bi-lateral and local level. Each of these agreements resulted from world-wide pressure from peoples everywhere.
We believe that the time has come when the peoples most concerned by the consequences of these decisions must okay their part in reversing these developments.
We further note:
We are not alone. Major powers, including Germany, China and Russia have declared their intention to implement their part in those agreements, - though as a result of President Trump’s announcement, Russia too is withdrawing from the Non-proliferation Agreement.
Major Cities and States in the USA, including California and New York, have developed their own climate policies to meet those which President Trump has rejected.
Here in the UK, we have a history of local desire to play a part in these issues – expressed by the Derbyshire County Council’s ‘Nuclear-Free Zone’ initiative at the time of the Cruise Missile crisis.
These examples show that we cannot leave our futures in the hands of the leaders who may be unworthy of such confidences. They show that popular pressure is needed to alert out populace of the dangers, and to get that awareness reflected in government decision making.
We are in a dangerous place, where the electorate and the peoples of the whole world are disfranchised from decisions which govern the quality or even the possibility of life on earth. We can work to lessen these dangers.
We appeal to Chesterfield Borough Council, North-East Derbyshire District Council, Bolsover District Council, and the Derbyshire County Council, to use their powers to act on these issues.
If you will join us, we may be able to make the world a less dangerous place.
For further information, please contact us.
Lyn Pardo (Secretary) email@example.com
Joe Clark (Chair Person) firstname.lastname@example.org
In response I move that the Council note its previous representations to HM Government requesting Bolsover to be declared a nuclear free zone in 1982 and reaffirms its position on this matter.
Councillor Steve Fritchley duly seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.
Moved by Councillor Clive Moesby and seconded by Councillor Steve Fritchley
RESOLVED that previous Council representations to HM Government be noted and that position is reaffirmed.
(Chief Executive Officer)
b) The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Tricia Clough:
This Council demonstrates support for all women born in the 1950s who have unfairly borne the burden of increases to the State Pension Age (SPA) by the Pensions Act of 1995 and 2011 by:-
i) Calling upon the Government to make fair traditional State Pensions arrangements for all women born in the 1950s, who have unfairly borne the burden if the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA) with lack of appropriate notification.
ii) Identifying a named person as a champion for those women affected by state pension changes
iii) Notifying any interested parties as to council events where they may participate in educating and advising women about state pension changes.”
3.8 million Women had significant pension changes imposed on them by the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 with little or no personal notification of the changes. 6,100 of these women affected live in the Bolsover District. Some women received as little as two years’ notice of the increases to their state pension age. Many had no notification at all.
Within the Bolsover District there are many women living in hardship purely because of the decade they were born in and the fact that successive governments gave inadequate notice of changes to their state pension age, not once but twice. Some women had already left the Labour Market, caring for elderly relatives or grandchildren – the sandwich generation. Others had been made redundant. Almost all were expecting their pension at 60. Instead they have had up to six years extra added which in real monetary terms means a loss of £48,000.
Of those who continue to work, many struggle mentally and physically. Some suffer discrimination in the workplace and feel guilty that the younger generation would be better equipped to carry out their roles. Others struggle to find employment and the proposition that there would be apprenticeships for women of this generation has proved nonsensical. Many women were ineligible for Job Seekers’ allowance so had to watch their hard-earned savings dwindle away. At least one women in this district left work to care for her terminally-ill husband. After his death she attempted a Job Seekers’ scheme. It was physically too demanding so she had to sell the family home quickly in order to survive.
We know that very little information was available for 1950’s women when the 1995 Act was passed. A few small articles in financial papers and the occasional news item. As a full time worker with a husband, teenage daughter, four foster children, numerous pigs, piglets, chickens and pets, my reading matter was ‘Bob the Builder’ and I was tucked up in bed well before the ‘9 O’ Clock News’. Letters did not go out until 2010 and then only for a small cohort. Following the 2011 Act more letters were sent but not to all affected. Women MPs from both sides of the house have stated they received no letter. Judges and lawyers were unaware as divorce settlements were agreed on the pension age being 60. Even the DWP’s own website proclaimed the same until 1950s women pointed out the error.
These women have worked hard and contributed positively to society. They paid their taxes and national insurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure when reaching 60. It is not the pension age itself that is in dispute – it is widely accepted that women and men should retire at the same time (although one could argue that this generation who sought equality rarely received it in monetary terms). The issue here is that the rise in the women’s state pension age has been too rapid. It has happened without sufficient notice being given to the women affected, leaving them with no time to make alternative arrangements.
We are now in a situation where one woman, through no fault of her own is having to walk five miles each way to access a computer to complete job applications. No bus pass until you reach State Pension age now. Another walks a similar distance on a Saturday to purchase the 10p reduced loaves to keep her going. Across the country there are women living in vans being unable to pay rent. And, of course, there are those who never received a penny of their pension. My friend Sue, a nurse for forty years contracted motor neurone disease. She campaigned for her pension tapping on her keyboard right until her final days.
But it is not only the women that are affected. It goes across the generations. Listen to these words from Heather: - “My mum was a WASPI woman. She died in January at the age of 62.
In the years before she died she had to fight for ESA and PIP as though she was a scrounger and didn’t deserve the air she breathed. It took a huge toll on her mental health. She lived in real poverty and when she was dying in a hospice bed the main thing she was worried about was who was going to pay for it (thanks St Cuthbert’s Hospice and out NHS).
I’ll never forget the battles she had to fight.” On 3rd October 2019, one group of 1950s women were unsuccessful in their High Court Judicial Review. (Case no: CO/3174/2018) In their conclusion, the judges wrote ‘We are saddened by the stories we read in the evidence lodged by the Claimants. But our role as judges in this case it limited. There is no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in this legislation were not pen to Government. We are satisfied that they were. In any event they were approved by Parliament. The wider issues raised by the Claimants, about whether these choices were right or wrong or good or bad, are not for us; they are for the members of the public and their elected representatives’
So in summary, I ask Council, as elected representatives, to support the Motion for all 1950s women grotesquely disadvantaged by the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts.
Councillor Anne Clarke duly seconded the motion, and conveyed her belief that Iain Duncan Smith (when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) and others in Central Government had refused to engage with women about their state pension ages. She added that because many women in the UK born in the 1950s were sometimes having to fund their own children and parents at the same time, the pension changes were an unfair burden on them. She reported that many women in the UK born in the 1950s had died waiting for their state pension because of the changes, and homelessness amongst the over 60s had increased in that time by 39%.
Councillor Anne Clarke felt that the submitted motion was a great opportunity for the Council to follow the examples of Unison and CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women) by supporting all of the women affected by the state pension changes.
Councillor Peter Roberts reported that Central Government’s estimated figure to completely reverse the state pension age changes made in 1995 and 2011 was £215 billion, which he felt would be a significant amount for them to spend. He expressed his belief that the motion should include more mention of men’s state pension changes, because its focus on women could amount to inequality.
Councillor Janet Tait made reference to the campaign against the changes by WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality), and added that women born in the 1950s were at a significant disadvantage because they were not given any notice of the changes by Central Government.
Councillor Tricia Clough expressed her belief that women’s state pensions were well below men’s state pensions, and the actions of Central Government in recent years to change pension ages had added six additional years to the age that some women could claim, whilst men of the same age only had one additional year. She explained that this was why the motion was aimed at women in particular.
Moved by Councillor Tricia Clough and seconded by Councillor Anne Clarke
i) To call upon the Government to make fair traditional State Pensions arrangements for all women born in the 1950s, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA) with lack of appropriate notification.
ii) To identify a named person as a champion for those women affected by state pension changes
iii) To notify any interested parties as to council events where they may participate in educating and advising women about state pension changes.
(Chief Executive Officer)
c) The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Steve Fritchley:
That the Council adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism which is as follows:-
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The Leader spoke on his motion further, believing that adopting this definition of antisemitism would be a fitting tribute to every person who lost their lives as part of World War II, and all other wars as well.
Councillor Duncan McGregor duly seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.
Moved by Councillor Steve Fritchley and seconded by Councillor Duncan McGregor
RESOLVED the working definition of Anti-Semitism be adopted.
d) The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor James Watson:
I move that from 1 December 2019 onwards, it is resolved that for any day where any member development and/or mandatory Councillor training sessions has scheduled to commence no earlier than 6:30pm on that day.
Councillor Allan Bailey duly seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor James Watson spoke on his motion further, explaining its relationship to another motion he submitted to Council on 17th July 2019, which proposed that from the municipal year 2020/21 onwards, some Council and Standing Committee meetings be scheduled to begin from 6.30 p.m. That motion was amended and carried to instead read “that Council consider [meetings after 6.30 p.m.] in advance of the next electoral cycle commencing in 2023.”
Councillor James Watson explained that his motion on 17th July 2019 was submitted with the purpose of recognising Members who were in full-time or part-time employment beyond their Council work. He added that in his opinion, the reason the Members of the Labour Group did not vote for that motion at the 17th July 2019 Council meeting was because they had independent incomes and property portfolios, so were not concerned about honouring work commitments.
The Chair informed Councillor James Watson that it was inappropriate to refer to the personal business of individual Members. Councillor James Watson acknowledged the Chair’s advice, but wished it to be recorded in the minutes that he had made reference to a Group rather than an individual.
Councillor James Watson explained his reasons for submitting the current motion. He believed that Member development sessions and Member training events should be scheduled later to allow as many Members to attend them as possible, and not giving them the opportunity would mean some Members weren’t given vital guidance and advice relating to the Code of Conduct.
On being put to the vote, the motion was not carried.
e) The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Nick Clarke:
I move that Bolsover District Council resolves:
To require all public firework displays within the District boundaries to be advertised in advance of the event, allowing residents to take precautions for their animals and vulnerable people.
To write to the Government urging them to legislate that the law be changed to only allow the sale of fireworks to operators of licensed displays.
To actively promote a public awareness campaign about the impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people - including the precautions that can be taken to mitigate risks.
To write to the UK Government urging them to introduce legislation to limit the maximum noise level of fireworks to 90db for those sold to the public for private displays.
To encourage local suppliers of fireworks to stock ‘quieter’ fireworks for public display.
To tighten up the restriction of sales of fireworks in the run up to Bonfire Night to under 18 year olds and to discourage proxy sales of fireworks for those under the age of 18.
Councillor Tom Kirkham duly seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Andrew Joesbury proposed an amendment to the motion to add a new paragraph to the end, reading: “To write to the Government for a blanket ban on all firework sales to private individuals.”
Councillor Andrew Joesbury spoke on his amendment, believing that there were multiple fire incidents all over the country on every Bonfire Night, and he felt the Government had done little to address it.
Councillor Dan Salt duly seconded the amendment.
Councillor Anne Clarke believed it was important to consider the effect fireworks could have on veterans who might have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She added that fireworks can also have a significant impact on pets.
Councillor Duncan McGregor advised that the second resolution within the original motion (“To write to the Government urging them to legislate that the law be changed to only allow the sale of fireworks to operators of licensed displays”) already covered Councillor Andrew Joesbury’s amendment. Councillor Andrew Joesbury, with the agreement of the seconder Councillor Dan Salt agreed to withdraw the amendment.
On being put to the vote, the original motion was carried.
i) all public firework displays within the District boundaries to be advertised in advance of the event, allowing residents to take precautions for their animals and vulnerable people.
ii) the Chief Executive Officer be requested to write to the Government urging them to legislate that the law be changed to only allow the sale of fireworks to operators of licensed displays.
iii) a public awareness campaign be actively promoted about the impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people – including the precautions that can be taken to mitigate risks.
iv) the Chief Executive be requested to write to the UK Government urging them to introduce legislation to limit the maximum noise level of fireworks to 90db for those sold to the public for private displays.
v) local suppliers of fireworks be encouraged to stock ‘quieter’ fireworks for public display.
vi) the Authority tighten up the restriction of sales of fireworks in the run up to Bonfire Night to under 18 year olds and to discourage proxy sales of fireworks for those under the age of 18.
(Chief Executive Officer)