Loading
The full Council debated a Notice of Motion, a formal proposal from councillors, on whether Cardiff should introduce a congestion charge, a fee for driving into a defined area. After a closure motion ended debate, the Council agreed a Labour Group amendment and then approved the motion as amended. The amended motion says the Council has not seen evidence of a damaging economic impact and asks the Cabinet to consider environmental, public health, economic and social justice issues in any future charging proposal.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Howells, Berman and Mia Rees
The following declaration of interest was received in accordance with the Members Code of Conduct. Councillor Item Nature of Interest Councillor Joe Carter Item 3 – Motion Prejudicial – employers are involved in a number of Clean Air campaigns.
The Council was asked to consider the following Notice of Motion which had been submitted in accordance with Council Meeting Procedure Rule 4 (b) on 11 March 2022. Proposed: Councillor Joel Williams Seconded: Councillor Lyn Hudson Councillors: Cowan, Robson and Kelloway. The Lord Mayor noted that a Notice of Motion proposed by Councillor Williams and seconded by Councillor Hudson had been received for consideration. One Amendment had been received from the Labour Group. The Lord Mayor invited Councillor Williams to propose the motion as follows: “This Council notes the damaging impact of a congestion charge on Cardiff's economy, including its residents, businesses and tourist industry. This Council calls on the Cabinet to rule out a congestion charge” The Motion was formally seconded by Councillor Hudson. An amendment to the motion had been received from the Labour Group. The Lord Mayor called upon Councillor Wild to move the amendment as follows: Delete the whole motion and replace with the following; the amended motion therefore reads: Council notes: • That this Cabinet has no proposals for a congestion charge, and as the pre-election period starts tomorrow it has no time to bring forward any proposals on matters needing public consultation • The Council’s 2020 Transport White Paper commits to look at a number of avenues to fund £1-2bn worth of transport improvements, such as a city-wide Metro and £1 bus fares. On funding options It states that: “This could take many different forms but one example could entail a scheme whereby all vehicles driving into Cardiff would pay a low fee (e.g. £2/day) for crossing into a charging area. Exemptions for emergency vehicles, motorcycles, registered blue badge holders people with disabilities could form part of any scheme. Our preferred option would include an exemption for Cardiff residents from any charge.” • That the Council has declared a climate emergency • That Public Health England and Public Health Wales now consider poor air quality to be a public health crisis that effects the health of every citizen or Cardiff, especially children and older people. · That the council has agreed two motions brought forward by the conservative group on air quality that have urged the cabinet to take urgent action • That the UK Government face an estimated £35bn budget deficit from the loss of fuel duty and vehicle excise duty that will come from the move to electric vehicles • That the UK Government Transport Select Committee report has called for a national Road User Charge to replace the estimated £35bn • That the Council has not been presented with any evidence of any positive or negative economic impact following the introduction of a congestion charge and that London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Bristol and Bath have all introduced charging mechanisms in recent years or have proposed to do so • That the Cabinet is duty bound to ensure the Council fulfils its legal obligations including consulting the views of the public and businesses on any proposed scheme, undertaking Equalities Impact Assessments, and considering the well-being of future generations Therefore, this Council notes that it has not been presented with evidence about any damaging impact of a congestion charge on Cardiff's economy, including its residents, businesses and tourist industry. This Council calls on the Cabinet to ensure that any future proposals (brought forward by itself or UK Government) for a charging mechanism should fully consider all implications including environmental, public health, economic and social justice issue. Furthermore, this Council reminds its members that councillors should at all times consider what is best for the citizens of Cardiff and not our own individual political chances of retaining our seat on the Council. The amendment was formally seconded by Councillor Huw Thomas. The Lord Mayor invited debate on the motion and amendment. Councillor Goodway moved a Closure Motion; namely a vote be taken on whether the question be put. The Closure Motion was seconded by Councillor Mackie. The Lord mayor called for a vote on the Closure Motion as moved and seconded by Cllrs Goodway and Mackie respectively. Vote Results: For: 46 Cllrs Ahmed, Dilwar Ali, Bowen-Thomson, Boyle, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke-Davies, Cunnah, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Goddard, Goodway, Gordon, Henshaw, Hinchey, Hopkins, Jacobsen, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Lay, Lent, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Molik, Naughton, Patel, Parry, Sandrey, Sangani, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Taylor, Huw Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild, Wong and Wood Against: 23 Cllrs Cowan, Driscoll, Ford, Gibson, Gavin Hill-John, Philippa Hill-John, Lyn Hudson, Shaun Jenkins, Jones-Pritchard, Kelloway, Lancaster, McEvoy, Melbourne, Morgan, Owen, Parkhill, Keith Parry, Phillips, Dianne Rees, Robson, Graham Thomas, Walker and Williams Apologies: 3 Cllrs Berman, Howells and Mia Rees Absent: 1 Councillor Ashgar Ali Prejudicial Interest: 1 Cllr Joe Carter The Vote on the Closure Motion was CARRIED. The Lord Mayor invited Councillor Williams to respond to the issues raised during the debate. Councillor Williams responded to the issues raised and confirmed the Amendment was not accepted. The Lord Mayor called for a Vote on the Amendment as moved by Councillor Wild and seconded by Councillor Huw Thomas Vote Results: For: 39 Councillors Ahmed, Dilwar Ali, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke-Davies, Cunnah, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Goddard, Goodway, Gordon, Henshaw, Hinchey, Jacobsen, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Lay, Lent, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Jackie Parry, Patel, Sangani, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Huw Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Wong. Against: 23 Cllrs Cowan, Driscoll, Ford, Gibson, Gavin Hill-John, Philippa Hill-John, Hudson, Jenkins, Jones-Pritchard, Kelloway, Lancaster, McEvoy, Melbourne, Morgan, Owen, Parkhill, Keith Parry, Phillips, Dianne Rees, Robson, Graham Thomas, Walker and Williams. Abstain: 7 Cllrs Boyle, Hopkins, Molik, Naughton, Sandrey, Taylor and Wood Apologies: 3 Cllrs Berman, Howells and Mia Rees Absent: 1 Councillor Asghar Ali Prejudicial Interest: 1 Cllr Joe Carter The Vote on the Amendment was CARRIED. The Lord Mayor called on Councillor Wild to speak before a vote on the Substantive Motion as amended by the Labour Group was taken. The Lord Mayor called for a vote on the Substantive Motion as amended by the Labour Group. Vote Results: For: 39 Councillors Ahmed, Dilwar Ali, Bowen-Thomson, Bradbury, Bridgeman, Burke-Davies, Cunnah, De’Ath, Derbyshire, Ebrahim, Elsmore, Goddard, Goodway, Gordon, Henshaw, Hinchey, Jacobsen, Keith Jones, Owen Jones, Joyce, Lay, Lent, Lister, Mackie, McGarry, Merry, Michael, Jackie Parry, Patel, Sangani, Sattar, Simmons, Singh, Stubbs, Huw Thomas, Thorne, Weaver, Wild and Wong. Against: 23 Cllrs Cowan, Driscoll, Ford, Gibson, Gavin Hill-John, Philippa Hill-John, Hudson, Jenkins, Jones-Pritchard, Kelloway, Lancaster, McEvoy, Melbourne, Morgan, Owen, Parkhill, Keith Parry, Phillips, Dianne Rees, Robson, Graham Thomas, Walker and Williams. Abstain: 7 Cllrs Boyle, Hopkins, Molik, Naughton, Sandrey, Taylor and Wood Apologies: 3 Cllrs Berman, Howells and Mia Rees Absent: 1 Councillor Ashgar Ali Prejudicial Interest: 1 Cllr Joe Carter The Vote on the Substantive Motion as amended was CARRIED
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Joe Carter: Prejudicial interest on Notice of Motion
Prejudicial interest. His employers are involved in a number of Clean Air campaigns.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.