Statement to cabinet supporting energy efficiency proposals

Statement to cabinet on agenda items;

5 Report title: Warmer Homes Project – External Wall insulation to High-Rise and Low-Rise Flats in Bristol

 

6 Procurement of Domestic Heating Installation; and New Bathroom

Installation Contracts for Council owned homes.

 

Bristol Green Party councillors would like to welcome the proposal to spend £70m on insulating the 45 multi-story and low-rise blocks of flats – which includes 1,715 individual flats. We further welcome the proposal to procure domestic heat insulation.

 

The first proposal has the capacity to cut the fuel bills to the residents of these blocks and therefore cut levels of fuel poverty. It will also cut Bristol’s carbon emissions. It is therefore a win-win project.

 

The second project also has the capacity to deliver similar benefits – and, in general – we welcome it too.

 

We do wish to make a number of comments however:

 

1.    We note that the Economy 7 heating system will be replaced with gas central heating in something like 200 properties per year. While we accept that these will be a more efficient heating system, we are aware that an electricity-based system is usually easier to source from renewable energy generation. Gas central heating, however efficient, offers greater challenges in ensuring a renewable energy supply. We therefore ask that, where possible, measures are taken to ensure the future use of  renewable sources that are sustainable and environmentally friendly.

2.    We ask that any heating systems installed are future-proofed so that they are compatible with any potential district heating systems and/or – as far as possible – compatible with renewable energy sources

3.    We ask - given this is a 30 year programme, and that by the end of this timeframe, (unless the Tories abolish our climate change targets), we will be close to the point whereby we should have cut our carbon emissions by 80% -– will this programme be making a sufficient contribution to our emissions reduction targets?

4.    In view of the Tory government attacks on social housing, we also ask if these proposals are affected by changes to the potential rental income the council may receive into its housing revenue account

 

We ask the mayor to take this into account, when making his decision.

 

 

Speech on Place scrutiny intergrated transport enquiry day

Thankyou

I have to say my memory of the integrated transport inquiry day was that we received a massive amount of information over a relatively short period of time, and then did not have adequate time to discuss the detail.

I suppose it sums up one of the problems of scrutiny. ‘Integrated’ transport is a huge issue. You won’t just do it in one day. The problem therefore is to either devote a lot of your limited time on such an issue or to focus down on a subset of it.

The second point I’d like to make about the day was the thought that I’d seen quite a bit of it before. This is partly true – in 2009 I was a member of a sustainable transport select committee which met a number of times over the course of the year and came up with a set of recommendations.

These included the need for a transport authority – a combined authority is still being discussed, of course. It included the need for smart cards, something still being asked for.

It mentioned the need for improved travel information to allow people to make informed choices.
It talked of ‘Improve cross boundary working in the Greater Bristol Travel area.’ Also suggestions made in the latest report.

SO I’m not actually sure whether or not to be pleased or alarmed to see so many things repeated in a report 6 years after its predecessor. On the one hand, there is a consistency in recognising the need. On the other, progress does seem to be painfully slow.

Having said that, there are parts of the report which are clearly valuable. For example, the report calls for :

‘ a universal approach to traffic management and network development be developed between West of England (WoE) authorities, to increase co-ordination and ensure that there is strategic overview at the planning stage and when developing operational infrastructure. ‘

I’m sure everyone would like to see a consistency of approach. - although my current view of the West of England partnership is that they already have this as long as it benefits the Tory shires.

I was certainly interested to see the item about ‘increasing segregated bus routes’. I would certainly support this on the grounds that it uses existing road space, rather than taking out green space.

I also note that the day and the report included a discussion on bus quality contracts. I disagree with the item in the report stating that ‘that approach is unlikely to work in Bristol alone as the boundaries are too tight to design an effective network’. I remember quite specifically asking the expert speaker about this issue - and he saw no reason why you could not have agreements which crossed boundaries. I believe there is merit to further consideration of bus quality contracts or seeking to gain similar powers.

There are many other aspects to integrating transport - cycling barely gets a mention - and yet we need to integrate cycling into both bus and rail services in a consistent and positive manner. We need to look at measures to increase the number of buses operating in the city. We need a Henbury loop. We need a station at Ashton Gate. We need to adopt the sort of measures contained in Sustrans excellent ‘Good transport guide’ produced for the Green capital project.

 

To sum up then, I see the inquiry day as making a contribution to the on-going need to address all aspects of improving sustainable transport in this city. I would, however, like to see much more rapid progress.

 

Camden Road bridge consultation

Strictly speaking, this is a response to the consultation from the new bridge (when it comes) to North St

We are extremely pleased that Camden Road bridge is being built. We are generally supportive of the proposals contained in this proposal and the likely increase in cycling and walking that it will bring.

 

However, we consider it vital that there is a controlled crossing over Coronation Road from the bridge to Camden Road itself.

 

We support the closure of Camden Road to traffic. There is an opportunity for this to be an entrance to Southville (or South Bristol even!).  We would like to see some sort of entry arch, some planters and perhaps a row of Sheffield cycle stands (with letters in the middle spelling out the word ‘Southville’).

 

The speed tables on Raleigh Road are likely to reduce speed on this road, which we regard as important, especially with the new school on Upton Road.  

My speech on the freeholdof the docks

Thankyou



The report before you today asks council to either accept the decision to sell the port freehold, or to refer it back to the mayor, with its views. I rise to ask the council to choose to 

‘To object to the decision and refer it back to the Mayor, together
with its views’

and for its view to be to ask George not to sell the port freehold.



First, I would like to make it clear that the Green Party is fully supportive of Avonmouth docks and wishes to succeed and for it to investment in its future for the benefit of the city, for local people, local jobs, and the local economy.

However, I oppose the sale of council land in principle, because council land is a community asset, and the council holds that land - in effect - in trust for the people of Bristol both now and for its future generations. The council’s job as trustees therefore is to manage that land, not to dispose of it.

Once land is sold, it is lost to the city for ever, and Bristol’s current and future citizens are thereby impoverished for ever – all for a short term financial addition to its treasury.

I am also concerned that the loss of freehold and therefore the handing over of all control to the company could result in the sale of the business, or see its exploitation for purposes far beyond those concerned with a successful port.



I am aware that the council has long since lost most of its control over the port authority.

 I am aware of the officer view of the relative value of the £10m compared with not selling.

However, I am not convinced that the sale price is sufficiently high to warrant the permanent loss of such a large area of land.

Having said that, I suspect that the mayor will approve the sale in which case, I ask him to take on board and put in safeguards for some of the concerns raised in public forum and elsewhere.

These include:



- we need to ensure good rail good passenger rail access for both staff and visitors to Avonmouth and Royal Portbury,


- we need to ensure the Henbury loop is retained for the use of passenger traffic
- we need to improve rail links from the docks to the rail network
- ensure that any sale of the freehold allows the full development of renewables on the land


To sum up, then, if the mayor is intent on going ahead with its sale, I urge him to ensure the relevant safeguards are built in. However, I do not think that the sale is actually justified at all. I ask him to reverse his decision and hold the land for future generations of Bristol residents.

Members remuneration (pay!) speech

My speech on members remuneration: rejects a 9% increase but make the point that we should base councillors expense on need. Points out that some people are excluded from being councillors because of the level of the allowance. Seemed to get jeered by some Labour councillors, goodness only knows why.



There are two basic reasons for supporting the recommendations of the member’s remuneration panel.


First off, it the panel is independent. As a rule, we as councillors should not seek to politically interfere with its suggestions. That is what it is for. As an aside, I wonder why we are even in the position where we end up taking a decision we clearly wish to avoid.


Second, the allowance for a councillor at the moment is sufficiently low at the moment that it – as a sole income – prevents a significant proportion of the population from being councillors at all. This is, therefore, an act of overt discrimination, an act of overt bias in favour of the wealthy. You can only be a councillor if you can afford the time, you don’t need the money, or you have another form of income. You can therefore argue that making a significant increase to the allowance of a councillor seeks to address this - particularly when you take into account the number of hours that many councillors work.


The problem – of course – is the fact that councillors are in the privileged position of being able to award themselves a pay increase.  The panel can recommend, but we are the ones who vote. And here we are – at a time when local government is under attack like never before, and facing the prospect of further deep, and utterly unacceptable cuts. Hundreds of people at Bristol City Council have lost or will lose their livelihoods. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people in this City have suffered or will suffer as a result of loss of services or benefits.


At this time – can we seriously expect to both vote for a £100k increase in total expenditure on councillors and – at the same time – vote for a 9% increase in the basic councillor allowance?

The answer has to be no. And that doesn’t even begin to address the proposed increase for the mayor.


I do not have a strong view for or against most of the other proposals contained in the report. They are based on multiples of allowances as a way of defining the merit of a particular role.

If ‘I ruled the world’, I would take a different approach. One based on need. I would be asking myself if councillors with no outside source of income should be considered in a different way to those who have such an income. Greens want all people to earn at least a living wage as a fruit of their labours. This counts for agency cleaners and shop workers but it also includes councillors



Clearly, I do not rule the world. And in this world, had the total increase in allowance been similar to the pay rise that local government staff are receiving – with the levels of allowance being adjusted accordingly – I suspect this report would be adopted almost without discussion.


Assuming other party groups also reject this report, I suspect the solution to this lies in recommendation 14 which states:


RECOMMENDATION 14: That in the event that the Council does not accept the Panel’s recommended level of Basic Allowance, the values of special responsibility allowances be adjusted to the present or alternative Basic Allowance, using the same multipliers.

I suggest that the recommendations are adopted, but with a basic allowance set at or slightly higher than the current level, but as thing stand will vote against this report..

Why the Ashcroft opinion poll might just hand Bristol West to the Greens

Lord Ashcroft has published an opinion poll for Bristol West.

The relevant figures are second up from the bottom, so it predicts Labour to get 38% of the vote, Greens are second on 25%, LibDems third on 20% and Tories 4th on 14%.

Superficially, and perhaps in fact, this is great news for Labour. They are well ahead in this seat. And yet.....there are some messages which as a Green, I think it only right and proper to suggest:

1. The Tories are 4th

While stopping short of saying the 'Tories can't win here', well, it is pretty much inconceivable.

The single biggest reason the Labour Party have for people to vote for them is they ain't the Tories, and you have to vote Labour to stop the Tories.

In Bristol West, it clearly isn't true.

To those people who say they will vote Labour because it stops the Tories, well, the Tories are stopped. This is NOT a reason not to vote Green. If you are diehard Labour or think they have the best policies, by all means vote for them. If you would consider voting Green, but want to stop the Tories first and foremost, we urge you to think again.

2. The LibDems are third

The LibDems are behind the Greens and a long way behind Labour. I like Stephen Williams as a person, but his time is up.

The LibDem vote has collapsed in recent council elections. It has now collapsed in the general election.

If there is to be a challenge to Labour, it will come from the challenger - and that is the Green Party.

We call on those thinking of voting Liberal Democrat to think again. If you want to see a challenge to Labour in Bristol West, vote for the nearest challenger - and that is the Green Party.

3. Vote for the status quo or vote for something other than the status quo

I have met the Labour candidate a couple of times, and have no problem with her as a person. However, she will just become another Labour MP, one of hundreds, and part of the Labour establishment.

Darren Hall, the Green candidate - if he came the second Green MP - and achieved a fraction of what Caroline Lucas has achieved - he will be a brilliant asset to Bristol, to the Green Party, to the planet and to those wanting achieve a socially just society.

So I urge voters in Bristol West to move beyond thinking of the statistically  probable, but just this once, think of the possible ....

How we voted on Bristol's budget

This probably isn't very interesting, but if you analyse the votes at the last full council budget meeting, you'll see that

Labour and Conservative voted together for 17 of the 20 votes (ie 85% of the time)

(Greens and LDs voted with the Tories 11x out of 20)

I might mention this the next time I get a 'vote Green, get Tory' comment.....