So we are on item 6.1, the review of appointments to committees boards and joint boards for 24/25. We have a motion by the administration moved by Councillor Day, seconded by Councillor Ma, as verbally amended, adding the 55% for the convener of the GRBV on the remuneration and the Councillor Kumar as the SNP group leader. And that accepts all amendments except for the last two points from the SNP amendment. And against that, we have the SNP amendment moved by Councillor Kumar, seconded by Councillor Campbell. And that also agrees all of their amendments except regarding the licensing board, Vice Convener, and the role of the licensing subconvener. So motion by the administration amendment by the SNP. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? Thank you and the votes for the motion please. Thank you. That is 32 votes for the motion, 28 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Okay, thanks very much indeed. That takes us on to item 7.1 appointment of Chief Executive, Councillor Day. Thank you all, Provost, and I have to move the report. Just thank Councillor Watt, Councillor Lang, Councillor Campbell, Councillor White for the lengthy process of the Recruitment Committee to appoint new Chief Exetives. Members will be aware that that has been awarded to Paul Lawrence, the current Exetive Director of the place. As you know, now it's a decision by the Recruitment Committee which I welcome and I want to thank the many people who applied for the job. And particularly thank Noreen for the work she's done as a head of HR to bring everything together so it's really well done and welcome. And it's great for us to see an experienced leader in Mr. Lawrence and the vast that he meets with the leaders as soon as he is in this position to make sure we can set this in for the future capital city. Paul comes with a wealth of experience from the local government since the 1990s over 34 years and across the country. And of course as an Edinburgh resident, he also sees some of the daily challenges that we all hear from our constituents. So I'm absolutely pleased that we have also recruited an internal candidate, Lord Promise, and I hope you see more of that at them as we go forward. So I'm happy to move the report and commend Paul Lawrence as the Chief Exetive. Thank you. And the seconder. That would be me, Lord Promise. And yes, just to recommend the decision of the Recruitment Committee to yourself and our fellow Councillors and that it was a very, very collegiate experience. Everybody was working together to try to do the absolute best that we could for the city and get the right person for the role. Somebody who knows Edinburgh inside out knows this council, has championed a quality and diversity issues and has a deep commitment to the city. And so I thank everybody who worked to get us to this point and would commend the report to a Councillor. Thank you. There is no contrary position, so is that agreed? Agreed. Excellent. Thank you. That takes us on to item 7.2, decision-making framework 2004. I think it's Councillor Watt to pause. Thank you, Lord Promise. This is a very technical document with recommendation about committees and standing orders. So I will not really labour the point. There's a few amendments and I think there's a Connecticut at this stage that obviously we're pressing our own. We would support the Lib Dem. We would accept the Greens. I think it's very close to our own. And it would almost roll up rather than as an agenda, but take it as an agenda if that works. Unfortunately, we can't accept the entire essay in P1, but we'll work with them on the concerns they have about consultation and issues around TROs. And can't agree with the first paragraph of the Conservative Amendment, but the second paragraph for clarity, that when the deputations withdraw, they're not withdrawing their deputation, they're just physically removing them. So just for clarity, I think that's helpful. So that just basically almost skipped the summit up bit, but hopefully that's clear of what we're intending. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councillor Mott, seconder, Councillor D'Alglish. Seconded formally, Lord Promise. Thanks very much. The agenda by the SNP group, Councillor Aspen. Thanks, Lord Promise. I am aware that probably to our small band of hardy viewers at home. It looks a bit naval-gazing, Councillors making decisions about making decisions, but it's important. I think even those of us first elected in 2022 know very well that TROs kind of rouse strong passions in our constituents. So it is important that we go about scrutinising and making decisions in relation to those in the best possible way. So tempting, though, is, and I can see that Tory colleagues have opted to do this, but we're not looking to rerun the voted tech. We acknowledge the vote that was taken at tech, but we also recognise the slimmness of that vote, just a margin of six votes to five. And the validity of concerns about how this change may impact on decision-making around TROs and our ability on tech to scrutinise and debate schemes involving TROs. Because, of course, it's not just about Councillors actually being taken to standards, although clearly that did happen not that long ago. It's about the inhibiting effect that this new process can have on debate. So each of us as Councillors looking to safeguard ourselves against that eventuality and that restricting what we feel able to see about traffic schemes coming in front of us. So, as I say, respect the decision at tech, but feel very strongly that this has to be reviewed again after a year. I'm profoundly disappointed to hear what Councillor Watt said there. You know, it's not putting in any kind of great point at all to look at the consequences of this decision. And I hope she'll reconsider, but I move the S&P addendum. Thanks Councillor Aspen. Councillor Dobbins second. Formerly, thank you. Thanks, Councillor Dobbins. The Lib Dem amendment, Councillor Lai. Yep, thank you very much, Lord Provost. So, Councillor Astin is right. This is a very processy paper this. But it is important because traffic orders can be very technical, very complex, but they can be involved in delivering big, big changes in terms of the way in which people around the city get about. And Councillor McInnes and I will remember the issues that we had in the last term that resulted in the change and the moving of agreeing TROs to licensing. But in trying, which I supported actually, but in reality, in solving that problem, we have created other problems. And the best example that I used in Transport Committee, Lord Provost was our own experimental traffic orders, where the Transport Committee can make a decision to say, we want to try and do something to see if it achieves a transport outcome. But because of the system that we've put in place, the Transport Committee then never has an opportunity to evaluate the outcome of that experiment and decide whether it was a success or not. And that just doesn't seem right. And so, what I hope we've got before us is our happy compromise that adopts the kind of model that we see in terms of planning MDM sub and regulatory and licensing, and allows the Transport Committee to still ensure that it's doing its job properly, not just in terms of starting a process off, but in terms of reviewing and evaluating the outcome of that process as well. And that's why we're very enthusiastic about making the change. It's probably worth saying, given the fact that our amendment does exactly the same as what the Labor Group does, I think for simplicity, Lord Provost, I think we'll just withdraw our amendment. Thanks, Councillor Lange. So, that amendment is withdrawn. Thank you. It takes us on to the addendum by the Green Group, Councillor Parker. Yeah, thank you. So, like a tech and alongside others, we're in favour of option two with respect to the traffic orders, so I won't talk about that again. The only additional point that we make in our addendum is about requesting a review of the changes relating to the scheme of delegation and procedural standing orders, and that's really just as a form of checks and balances really to see how those changes play out over the next year. There is one verbal adjustment that we need to make on the advice of officers, and that is just to say that that update should come to GRBV and not to finance and resources. Thank you. That adjustment has been noted. Thanks very much. And second, Councillor MURPHY. Thank you, just formally. Thanks very much, indeed. That is on to the Conservative Group amendment, Councillor MOVE. Thank you, Lord Provost. I mean, it's precisely because of the closeness of the voter, the Transport Committee, on the matter of where TROs are determined, that we decided to press our amendment. Now, I stand by our position that the appropriate place to determine this is probably not a subcommittee of the Transport Committee. And the reason I say that is that unlike all other committees where we're determining the other quasi-judicial committees, we determine applications that come in from outside. So what we're asking, what is being going to be agreed, I think today, in the Chamber, short of a miracle, is that the Council initiates a process, and then it goes through all the legal documentation, and then it scrutinises how it has managed that process, because that is the purpose of that TRO subcommittee. The TRO subcommittee is saying, and when you look at a TRO and you're determining a TRO, you're not actually taking an independent view on whether this is a good thing or not to do. You're saying, this was the decision of the Transport Committee to do this project. Does it align with all the national policies? Have we followed all the processes correctly? What are the objections to this? Have we responded to them appropriately and covered them off? And it's actually a process check. So I think a lot of Councillors, when they're doing this, don't really understand this. And I am not surprised they don't understand it, because when they came to the licensing subcommittee, I said, we need to be trained exactly what this beast is, because anyone who sits on the quasi-judicial committees of planning or licensing sub will know that you've got quite a lot of external policy that you're looking at. So I was like, what is this? And it took quite a long time to get the training from officers to come forward, and I don't think that training has been given. So if you do make this decision, please insist that the training is made, that the training is given to the subcommittee. Secondly, I still think it's the wrong decision, because I think it exposes the Council to increase risk. And my other two amendments is you're going to have to amend 12.10 of the standing orders to include the TRO subcommittee in there as a quasi-judicial committee, which I didn't write for you, because I don't agree that you should be doing it. But I will give you that heads up that you should be doing it. So I soon move the Conservative amendment. Thanks, Councilor Mout, and seconder, is it Councillor Russ? Councillor White. I'll do it, Councillor Lourg Provost. Lourg Provost happened to second this. There's a point principle here as Councillor Mout has explained to the Chamber about separating those elements of the decision-making process that are quasi-judicial looking at individual elements and checking on the process. That is best done, we believe, in a separate place at the licensing subcommittee. We bring this not just because that vote was narrow at the Transport Committee, but also because actually it's not really appropriate that the Transport Committee is deciding something about the Transport Committee without consulting all of the rest of us as the Council. And so I think it's important that we make that decision here today as the whole Council thinking about all the different aspects of it. Those aspects mean that if you go with option two, you're effectively saying the people who determine the policy are also determining whether their process around it for looking at objections is correct. I've sat previously on Transport Committee, I'm going back on Transport Committee, I can tell you that in the last session we had a real problem around this. I think Councillor Arthur mentioned that there were standards commission complaints about that. I would rather avoid that and it's easy to avoid that, Lourg Provost, if we pick option one as we're suggesting here today on that TRO process, not the policy decision. Still be made by Transport Committee, but the TRO process is double checked by the licensing subcommittee. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. Councillor White, have any contributions? I see no contributions. Could I invite Councillor Wart to sum up? Councillor Wart, can I ask you to invite you to sum up? Yes, thank you, Lourg Provost. So listen to the discussion across the Chamber, the points that were made, and from my perspective, of course, Councillor Ashton or any of his colleagues does have the opportunity out with the six-month rule to bring something back. And you could, therefore, just join with us. However, as I indicated, we were very, very keen at work with them across this, resolve any issues on an ongoing basis. And so be happy, willn't accept that as an addendum with, if they would support the other parts that the group has put forward. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks. In that case, I think I've had an indication of the SMP group that if that is accepted as an addendum, that you're not pursuing one separately. Yeah, the Liberal Democrat one has been withdrawn, so that the Green Group one has been incorporated as well, if I understand correctly. And then, so that leaves a division that deserves to still wish to pursue. Yes, so there will be a division, so we can ring the bell. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] We are at item some point two, this is the decision-making framework for 2024. We have a motion by the administration moved by Councillor Watson to where Councillor Dalglish, which also accepts the Green, then mass verbally adjusted. The second paragraph of the Conservative Amendment, and it accepts the SMP as an addendum. And against that, we have the Conservative Amendment moved by Councillor Maoitz, seconded by Councillor White. So motion by the administration, Conservative Amendment. Can I take the votes, please, for the amendment? And for the motion, please. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. That's 52 votes for the motion and nine for the amendment. The motion is carried. Thanks very much indeed. That takes us on to item 7.3, the outcome of the statutory consultation proposing the closure of Cameron House nursery. There are no amendments in but Councillor Githith's. You wish to pause. [INAUDIBLE] Thank you. And to second. [INAUDIBLE] Thanks, Councillor Poggson. There are no amendments. Is that agreed? Thanks very much indeed. That takes us on to item 7.4, the Edinburgh integration joint board. Real living wage uplift referral from the F&R committee. Councillor what? Thank you, Lord Provost. Last Tuesday's Finance and Resources Committee members considered a report recommended implementation of a £12 minimum hourly wage and commission agile social care settings. While this policy was fully funded at national level, the specific distribution base is agreed by Cozla leaders resulted in a significant shortfall in funding to support implementation in Edinburgh. Given this as part of the Council's approved budget motion, it was agreed that any additional health related consequences or other Scottish government funding subsequently received would be passed on it and filled to the EIGB. I'm pleased to advise that the Council's share of these additional resources has now been confirmed at the level anticipated and that passed through of this sum will therefore allow this increased rate to be paid on a fully funded basis from April 2024, recognising the vital role that these care staff play in the city. We have, I think, the decision, F&R was very clear. We do have an addendum from the S&P, the other amendment that we're willing to take as an addendum to because it's a request for further information rather than any change to the referral from Finance and Resources. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor WAT. I'm seconder, Councillor Poggson. Thanks, Lord Provost. Members will be aware that one of the greatest challenges faced by the social care sector, whether that be Council private sector or third sector, is recruitment and retention of staff. How many times have we heard it said that a worker can earn more in a supermarket than they can in a care or so, why would they take the latter? Our care workers are quite literally the front line. The look after our most vulnerable are elderly, are disabled. As the society, we rely entirely on them, being there day after day and delivering fantastic services. We want to cherish our workforce as much as we can. We want them to know that they are entirely valued. We want to do the right thing by them. We would love to be paying them a far higher salary, and it would be very easy to argue that case. But given that the Scottish Government has made a commitment to pay the real living wage to the social care workforce from April 1st, of course, the Edinburgh IJB wishes to support that commitment and respect our workforce. As has been noted many times in this chamber across a range of issues, the problem here is the funding allocation formula that is applied to the disbursement of these funds that disadvantages Edinburgh time after time. I hope that all sides within this chamber will support us in making the case for fair funding for our city as I did just last week when I was in a regular meeting with the minister. But given that that is where we are, the proposed additional transfer of funding between the Council and IJB will enable this uplift to be paid to our care workforce backdate it to April 1st, and I'm sure there can be little doubt that this will be the right thing to do. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Bogson. The amendment and if you clarify whether you're prepared to accept it as an addendum, Councillor Nicholson. Thanks very much for the report, and absolutely I'm supportive of the transfer of funds to uplift to our contracted and private sector providers. We would be prepared to have this accepted as an addendum. So the reason it came about was reading the audit report that came to GRBB on Tuesday about the situation when between period six and period eight, the forecast budget deficit of the IJB unexpectedly increased by £4 million. I was reminded that in Fabry's IJB when the finance paper, including this, came to committee, I asked about the demographic and population growth versus growth which originated from the improvement plan and/or the Edinburgh Assistance Program. During this conversation, which is on the Fabry webcast for those of you who are interested, the chief finance officer of the IJB referred to the increase in the capacity of the private sector because of the home office visa scheme coupled with the need for improvement and how that had led us to a situation where there was an underestimation and a budget gap. In many ways, it's really great that we've seen this improvement in the performance of our partnership to such an extent that we've become one of the better performing IJBs in terms of waiting times. But while there have been good outcomes across the city, I hope you'll understand why I brought this as an addendum today. I thought it was important to take the opportunity to explore more of what the seemingly rapid expansion of the private sector has meant in terms of both the Scottish Government and the Council having to subsidise private business who pay their workers the lowest wages to uplift these wages. Given the decisions we're asked to make during the budget, which included cutting millions of the voluntary sector who provide individuals requiring the acute services often who prevent individuals requiring the acute services often delivered by the private sector, I think it's really important that we understand how the figure of how many packages of care are tendered out to the private sector and how much that has increased by in the past year ahead of the national minimum wage uplift. In asking for more analysis of the recent growth in private sector capacity and delivery, I hope we can gain an understanding of it and how the market has recently changed, how the estimated figure of $27.3 million for the full year implementation cost of increasing contract rates in commissioned adult care settings for Edinburgh was calculated, given the additional capacity in the private sector and the fact this year we had an unexpected and near deficit. So this is really a simple ask for some assurance about the accuracy of the prediction and understanding of whether there's a contingency if there's an underestimation or if the board will decide how the funds will be used should the sum have been overestimated. Thank you. Thanks very much Councillor Nicholson. And second Councillor Dobbins. Just formally thank you. Thanks very much Councillor Dobbins. Any contributions Councillor Mumford. Thank you very much. I just wanted to speak briefly to highlight this paper as others have done because it's a referral from F&R and it's not sexy like some motions are. People watching might not realise what it's actually all about and thank you to Councillor what for highlighting actually what's going on underneath this paper. We were facing as a Councillor situation where we wouldn't be able to offer this £12 minimum wage to carers in Edinburgh, the most expensive city to live in in this country. So this paper confirms that we can now pay this and that is thanks to the agreement in here pushed by the Greens accepted by the administration that additional money from the Scottish Government post budget would be directed by this council towards the IJB which we all know is facing huge deficits. And we know that we've got a crisis in care that's been talked about by Councillor Poggson and this is just one way in which we're trying to pay people fairly for the vital work we do. Of course as a Councillor I'm pleased we have a presumption towards insourcing of care and not relying on commission care services and I'm really grateful that the questions raised by the S&P have been brought today and that they're being accepted as an addendum. And of course there's still huge issues with how we value care work both paid and perhaps more importantly the unpaid work done largely by women in this city which prop up the economy and everything else that happens in this city. But we also think it's important to take a beat and celebrate when we've done something good and with this paper the Council's done something good. Thanks. Thanks, Councillor Mumford. There are no further contributions so summing up but I think we have agreement. But Councillor, what do I say? I'll be a quick word provost. It's just to emphasize that this is a council report that we come into a council committee and then that report will be passed on to the IJB but it'll be up to the IJB. Chair and committee whether they accept that referral. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. What? There is no division as I understand it so is that agreed? Thank you very much. That then takes us to item 7.5 in the Inber International Conference Centre Conference Bureau funding. There was a written deputation received on this and in terms of standing order 30.1 I will rule that there has been a material change in circumstance. So that we can discuss the amendments. Therefore could I invite Councillor what to propose? Thank you, Lord Provost. So I think we're all quite disappointed when the EICC said that they didn't feel that they could continue this within the terms that were offered and agreed by the blast finance and resources committee. We have input from EICC who are a very important contributor to the city's economy and that they would like the Convention Bureau to continue. So we've listened to that and I'm sure they will understand that we need to do these things within the Council's budget process and normal ways of funding things. Obviously, we're keen to hear back from them. I think particularly there was this stress that we'd have to be a longer term proposal because the sector wasn't able to deal with the uncertainty. And I just don't think that that's correct. This is an incredibly strong sector within Edinburgh. They're used to facing all sorts of challenges and adverse things in uncertainty and make considerable investment in our city without any guarantees. And I think that if they believe in the work of a Convention Bureau that they will in the near future invest in it, therefore do think that it's worthwhile that we add to the service, this service, which the Council already provides. The Council's already involved in supporting conventions in Edinburgh. And I think that we would like to augment that within perhaps even less than the summer money that was put forward to the EICC, which unfortunately they rejected. That may actually be a good thing. It may be a good thing that they focus on the core challenges in front of them, which is running the Conference Centre itself and bringing on the new hotel, given that the Council have stood gallantors to what is a huge and could be a risky project. I think that shows that the massive commitment that we've put into supporting the EICC, and again, we're very disappointed that they didn't want to continue with this under what seemed to be a very reasonable proposal given the constraints, absolute constraints on Council funds and budgets, and that we need to stick with our sensible, transparent, acceptable model of funding the things that we do. With that, you know, I move our amendment. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. What Councillor Daddish? Thank you, Lo Proist. And seconded in this, I think it would be fair to say that a relatively small but important part of our economic success of the city is within business tourism, whether it be local or global guests coming to Edinburgh's a key international city, that we can offer anything a visitor may need in order to conduct. The business that they have here, and it is legitimate to see that the Convention Bureau has played an important part in that success and makes it impactful but often unnoticed contribution to Edinburgh's economy. I suppose for us the question is who funds a Convention Bureau, how it's funded and what is the best structure for the Convention Bureau to work in. And I think that the Labor Amendment goes a long way in seeking clarity and a future plan for a sustainable and self-sufficient bureau. Lord Provost in Housing of Services, in a large majority of cases, is a successful strategy to take, and it's a policy that the Labor Group takes seriously. And as mentioned in our amendment, the Council's in Housing of the Film and Destination Service is a great example of how this can work well. That's why I welcome the opportunity presented in this amendment to look at the potential options to bring the Convention Bureau and the House Street F&R Committee to make sure we have a valuable service secured financially or otherwise long into the future. With that, I'm taking this amendment. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Dargreish. That takes us to the amendment by the Conservative Group and Councillor Bruce. Thank you, Lord Provost. In bringing this Conservative amendment to the Council, we've looked at this in more detail and believe the right way forward is to make £250,000 available regardless of external funding raised. There are many reasons why it's important to have this level of funding, and I'll explain why. One, business travellers are less cost sensitive on their expenditure. Research has shown that they will spend up to four times more during their trip compared to your normal tourist. Two, the economic contribution is enormous, supporting not just the hospitality business, but also hotel bookings and restaurants which in turn support crucial jobs in the city. Three, it doesn't just support the summer months of our city, it supports it all year round, again keeping our citizens and jobs 365 days a year. Four, delegates may take time out from their business to pick up large-scale leisure sport and culture events like the Edinburgh Festival, tattoo, historic buildings, music concerts, football, rugby, rock climbing, or even indeed the UK's largest inland surf resort soon to be completed in my ward. Five, people that come here in business may think, actually this would be a great place to bring family and friends and subsequently come back here for a second visit, thus bringing even more money into the city. Six, urban areas are regenerated because of investments on business tourism facilities, creating more construction jobs, new hotels, restaurants and transportation. Seven, having major events at the ICC again puts Edinburgh on the shop window around the world for more business and other forms of tourism. To sum up, we hope by giving £250,000 this year and reducing it in years two and three, it can become self-funding, but it needs that initial investment to kickstart the Convention Bureau. We need to compete with some of the best cities in the world. We need to be out there in all corners of this planet promoting and driving business tourism towards our capital city, not just waiting on the end of a telephone line or email inbox, hoping someone will inquire. You need drive, you need ambition, you need to get out there face-to-face and the only way to do that is to recruit people with the right set of skills to do this job. Give the tools to the ICC it needs to get the job done. I move my amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Provost. It was very disappointing to see this on the Council Papers and also on the Papers for F&R when it came forward. There's been a long history about direct marketing and the Convention Bureau. Whilst I'm not a director of the ICC and never have been, I was a director of marketing Edinburgh in the session before. It was disbanded by the previous administration, which we've used to bring it in-house. This what's playing out is really the subsequent outcome of what I think was a very poor decision there. The EIC stepped in to take over the Convention Bureau because anyone who had been involved with marketing Edinburgh and the state of my inbox at the moment will tell you that a lot of the industry out there thinks we need a Convention Bureau and have been writing full simply to say that will we please support the proposals that were brought forward and that we have set forward in our amendment because this doesn't happen by itself. We were supposed to have something in place. We've been remiss in saying what is the transfer arrangement from the EICC to continue on from what was a holding pattern. We now need to put those transfer arrangements in place. I suspect it's another one for when the tourism levy comes in that this will be something that would be an investment in the city. But until that time and those discussions can be had, we do need a transfer arrangement. This seems to me to be proposed by the EICC and is detailed in this paper, a very sensible way of ensuring that we have a Convention Bureau that we can continue to compete with other cities not just around the world but also in the UK. And if you look at Edinburgh by Numbers, you will see, and I'm sure you've all spotted this, that actually Manchester is champing at the bit and Manchester gets a lot of press for having a dynamic recently re-elected mayor. But having taken and driving and taking a city that we wouldn't have said was a direct competitor I think ten to years ago is very much now a direct competitor to us. And we have to be in the game, and this keeps us in the game, so I very much hate this. See, the spirits are with us today, so I hope you will support the Conservative Amendment. Thanks, Councillor MURPHY. Any contributions to the debate? Councillor MACKINIS. Thank you very much. I'm sure that was a spirit of all the previous Councillor shouting at us to meet the right decision. I find it quite difficult to speak to this, because clearly when we had this very detailed conversation at F&R, we did not vote to put any further public funding into this endeavour, as described in the report. But I do accept the fact that that decision was made at Tech, and as a result, I think the Labour Amendment that's come forward just now is I think an appropriate one in the face of both that discussion and EIC's subsequent refusal of the offer that came out of F&R. I think it's worthwhile revisiting some of the points, however, that came up at F&R, which is that CEC have already been contributing in the 18 months of that guardianship where EICC took up the mantle of the Convention Bureau in the shape of a full-time member of staff and in terms of business management services. So let's not assume that we've not been involved already. We have, and we have been part of that achievement in terms of what they've brought forward. However, let's not forget the basics of this report. This was brought to us outside of a budget process, which would require us, if we'd gone with the original proposal, to commit to a million pounds worth of public money going into this in order to build a team of 10 staff, eventually. To be fair, I should mention the fact that EICC had come back with a slightly smaller version of that. But we were being asked to put in a million pounds worth of commitment across the next few years outside of a budget proposal. And with an expectation that we would build a service of a size here in Edinburgh that would be virtually the same size as the one that services London. Now, I think we all have to agree, despite my pride in the capital city of Scotland, there's a slight difference in both the scale, the population and indeed the conference opportunities that can be found in London versus what we have here in Edinburgh. So I have some significant issues with the scale of the vision that's being brought forward by EICC. We were also being asked to put in a capital injection as well in order to facilitate the offices of physical offices that this would contain. So, what does this amendment do? Well, first of all, it does raise some of those issues. And I think it is a reasonable amendment in the face of that refusal by EICC to take the interim measures that were proposed and agreed at F&R. We are not a bottomless pit of public money, and we have to be very careful about where we spend it. We have already seen some very good work done around film, which was brought back to film location work, which was brought back into the council at the time that Martin Edinburgh was wound up. We've seen that be really successful. I see no reason why we can't learn some lessons from that. We can take it forward for the wider issue around business tourism or convention bureau work in order to maximize the benefit to the city without maximizing the public sector input. One final point is that in the reported notes that the only expectation that might come from an increased effort around membership funding models, i.e. the trade that will benefit from this, actually, stumping up some of the cash, was £167,000. That was the estimate from EICC. We were being asked to put in £300,000 per annum. There's a bit of an imbalance there, and I think it's something that we would need to work on as a public sector spender and as a provider rather of this particular function. For that reason, we'll be supporting the Labor Amendment. Thanks, Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY. Thank you. As Councillor MURPHY. As Councillor MURPHY said, this has obviously been a big discussion at F&R and all groups have been doing a lot of work on this. At F&R Committee, we took the position that if this proposal had come at budget time and the report acknowledges that it's unfortunate that it couldn't come at budget time, we would not have allocated budget to it in our green budget. There are other priorities for the Council that we would have prioritised over this. So that's why we moved the position we did at F&R, and we're very grateful to Councillor Watt for all of the work that's been put in to find other ways to continue to fund the ECB, given the EICC's refusal to take the offer that was passed at F&R Committee. We support a lot of what is in this amendment, but we still have significant concerns. The figure of 150,000, which is in the report, is figure from the EICC, and that's what it would cost the EICC to run that. We don't know what it would cost Edinburgh to run an in-house version of it, and we're concerned in the current financial situation of the Council to be allocating up to, I sincerely believe that it may be less than that, but to allocate up to £150,000 from reserves seems very concerning to us. And again, that's something we would not do on any other issue without a clear report from Council officers telling us what this would be spent on. So we're uncomfortable with committing that money before we have that information. So we'd like to propose continuation of this item on the understanding that the decision of the EICC holds. We expect that it would come back. The EICB will be being reverted to the Council on the 30th of June. We would hope that could be discussed at the F&R meeting on the 25th of June to enable us to make an informed choice. As I say, support a lot of what's in that motion, but we are uncomfortable proposing £150,000 of the Council's money when we don't know where it's going to come from, and we don't know what the cost of this is. And we think we've gone with the principle of would we have allocated this at budget time, and we wouldn't have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Pight. Sorry, without a proposal to continuation, sorry. In that case, it needs a seconder. Councillor stand-a-forth. That's me. That's me, Lord. Provost Apologies to Councillor White. Yes, I'm happy to second continuation of this. As Councillor Mumford said, very grateful to Councillor WAP for her efforts to reach consensus on it, but we only got the EICC's decision. A few days ago, I think if you make decisions in haste, you repent at leisure, there are still questions to be answered about precisely where the money will come from in Council funding, and precisely how much money is likely to be needed for the years stop gap. So while I do appreciate the efforts in the amendment to ensure that in future it will be self-funding for the period that it is not, we should consider this a little further and a little deeper, and therefore continuation to my mind makes perfect sense. Thanks Councillor stand-a-forth and sorry I didn't see your hand earlier. Councillor Pight. Thank you, Lord Provost and sorry for jumping up there to your embarrassment. So, Lord Provost, as a Director of the EICC, I did originally intend to get involved in this debate, but having listened to some of the other things, I think it's important to put a few things on record. There's been a lot of talk about things being unbudgeted money being given to the EICC. Well, the genesis of that is that the EICC was asked to take on the Convention Bureau and did so with an expectation that that would come potentially to an end or that new arrangements would have to be made, and the Council was rather slow at coming back to solve what would happen next. I would have thought we should have had a budget proposal on this prior to the budget, and I think EICC would have been a lot more comfortable had that been the case. But regardless, we didn't. The other thing, Lord Provost, is there's a suggestion that this means somehow finding money from the budget that we hadn't proposed to take over to help with this. Well, the answer came from CEC Holdings, a board of Councillors cross-party, which agreed unanimously to take a proposal to write off loan stock to the EICC to pay for this, money that potentially could come to the Council in the medium term, but wasn't budgeted for either. So there's not budget on either side, it's not going in that way. And it's probably also worth reminding the Council, Lord Provost, because we heard, Oh, well, the Council already pays for someone to be involved in this. Well, yes, there is an employee, seconded. But that employee, as I understand it, came from Mark Tegg Edinburgh, so it's a continuation of the previous arrangement. Mark Tegg Edinburgh has supposedly taken in-house, but never really found a home within the Council, because it wasn't a priority. There wasn't enough funding, and there was no way of doing the job properly. And that key point at the end is what I fear about the Convention Bureau, Lord Provost. If we just say, Let's, without any thought, take it in-house, how are we going to manage that? How are we going to recruit people with the right skills? The EICC has some of those people. The Board have said they can't accept the proposal that came up at F&R, basically because there was another proposal that officers had negotiated with the EICC. I wanted to take forward, and that was rejected by the committee, where we've tried to reinstate it because it's based on a realistic approach around employing people. And while I have sympathy with Council Mumford suggesting that we continue this to make a decision at a later stage because we don't have all the information, I don't think that would help, because if we end up at the end of a month with something coming a few days later where the Council gets the situation handed over, what do you do about the employees? Where do you find them from? What do you do with people who are surrounded from EICC and TECB? I think they have to go back to their substantive roles and you lose that expertise. So there's only really one practical way forward, Lord Provost, as far as I can see, and that's to support the Conservative amendment that we're putting forward here, to accept what our officers were telling us, having negotiated carefully a way to take this forward, to bring match funding over the medium term, and to ensure that the EICB goes forward on a proper, sustainable and financially appropriate footing. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Wipe. Councillor Uni. Thank you, Lord Provost. I will be brief as I just wanted to thank the convener for Finance Resources for finding a position which satisfies our concerns, regarding both continuing to support a business bureau for our great city that is going to bring that investment, and bring people to our and bring conferences and conventions to the city, but also acknowledges that the situation is not ideal, that it's frustrating that we didn't have options before the budget was set earlier this year. That would have been the ideal time for these proposals to come, I think. We're happy to support the administration's amendment. Councillor Lassley, Maureen Cameron. Thank you, Lord Provost, and we'd like to start by welcoming, actually, the proposal of the Greens to continue to do further discussion. For the following reasons, first of all, the 150,000 per year, which the EICC has funded itself for two years, has been to do the caretaker role. That money has been spent running a convention bureau as is. It's not going into any, allowing the city to bid for events and support bids, not just from the EICC, but other important venues. It took marketing interest from five years to go from a 1.3 million subsidy and a 60, 40% split of council money and private money to a 40% council and 60% split in 2018. It took them five years to do that. The reason that the EICC, and it's not fair to say it rejected the decision. It found it very hard. It was going to be a unanimous decision, but it was really, really hard because the allio was asked by the shareholder to fulfil this obligation. No funding from the shareholder to help us do that other than what the council was already putting in through. It's taking over or taking in house of marketing Edinburgh. So the reason, primarily, that the funding for a one-year term, even if it had been 150,000 for three years, was up to the period of the TVL coming in. That is something that I believe the EICC board would have been happy to meet work together with all those partners that have supported the running of the Convention Bureau in this interim period. This city used to rank in the top 10. It was number nine some 20 years ago in the Ikaran Kings. It's slid down to 30 in the global place in terms of where people want to bring their business events. Business events is an unfortunate term because it doesn't explain the level of collaboration and knowledge transfer within our academic institutions, but these kind of events bring it to facilities, networking and thought leadership in the international and national business communities. They contribute to legacy projects and enhance the reputation of this city or city as a world-class destination. Lord Provost, what happens next and whatever happens next, should rightly see Edinburgh's Convention Bureau evolve into a formalised longer-term structure which could build on the successes that have been achieved under this temporary guardian period. It's important that that happens without disruption because a sudden decision, and let's be honest, the decision of F&R, there was no pre-knowledge of the EICC board of that proposal coming to F&R committee other than the day before F&R happened, I thought to convene an EICC board meeting as quickly as possible, which we did on Monday of this week, and regretfully, given what we are trying to do in terms of build that Convention Bureau into something more solid, something that can get more private sector input rightly, so the funding on a one-year deal doesn't mean a business sense to the EICC to do that regretfully, and I say that very regretfully. I think I'll have to bring you. I will. So, I don't know how the decision is going to go today, but I do think, given that there was only a week between the F&R committee and the EICC board, and we're here today to make a decision on something that does affect the business community, the academic community out there, but also affects us as a city. I think we should take a line from the policy for reflection today, and pause and reflect to see if there is a way forward that satisfies what the city needs in terms of a Convention Bureau, satisfies the will of Council, but also doesn't penalise its own 100% owned allio for the excellent job it's done together with its partners. Thank you, Lord Provis, for allowing me to say that. Thanks very much, Councillor Cameron. Can I now invite Councillor Wong to sum up? Thank you, Lord Provis. We're going to press ahead today because the EICC made it quite clear to us that they would not extend their guardianship while we looked into other possibilities. We need to be able to give Council officers a fund and framework to fit around. We need to make sure that the employees at the EICC who have been working on these things are able to step back to their substantive roles, or whether they may need to be accommodated within the Council funding, which is why it's absolutely essential that we know where we stand in the immediate term financially. I would very much ask the Greens to consider withdrawing the request for a continuation because there is an urgency around this, that we didn't ask for. It's arrived because of circumstances, but I think that we're going to press this because we need to get our team working on a solution and hopefully can step up the way that they did for the film and the destination market when we needed them to do that. Thank you, Lord Provis. Thanks very much. I think we need to ring the bell because there's going to be a division. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, we are at Item 7.5. It's the Edinburgh International Conference Centre Convention Bureau funding referral from the Financial Resources Committee. We have a motion by the Administration, moved by Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Doubish. A conservative amendment moved by Councillor Bruce, seconded by Councillor MARX, and a Green amendment moved by Councillor Monter. And I'm seconded by Councillor Sanneforth to continue the item to the 27th of June. As we have a continuation, we have a two-stage voting, so we will take the first vote for and against continuation. So just first vote is on for or against continuation. Can I take the votes please for continuing the item? And again, to continue the item please. Thank you. That's 11 votes for continuation, 49 against. So we go to the second stage of voting please. So we have the administration motion moved by Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Doubish, against the Conservative amendment moved by Councillor Bruce, seconded by Councillor MARX. So administration motion, conservative amendment. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? And for the motion please. Thank you. That's 41 votes for the motion, 8 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Okay, thank you very much. It's now just after 1 o'clock, so we will adjourn for lunch and return at 1.45. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, welcome back everyone. I think we should recommend and we are starting with item 7.6 passenger transport framework agreement. Is there a referral from the Finance Resources Committee and Councillor what? Thank you, Lord Provost. The last Finance Resources Committee, this was passed with amendments that have now been referred to full council. And I'll just get my notes. The scope of the new passenger transport framework will allow greater market engagement and should increase available capacity resulting in efficiency savings and the potential to minimize cost increases by both increasing the competition and managing demand for these services. The award will ensure school pupils with additional needs, vulnerable service users in health and social care and wider school transport go with an interrupted service. We do have an amendment from the conservatives that won't accept as an addendum because I don't think there's any technical issues around accepting it as an addendum rather than an amendment. So with that, I move thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks very much Councillor Wart and a seconder. Seconder formally. This is Councillor Dabish and to move the amendment, and if you could indicate if you're willing for it to be considered an addendum, Councillor Bruce. Thank you, Lord Provost. Yes, we're willing to have that accepted as an addendum. I'll just be brief, this amendment addendum, it sets out in a more positive way to make sure committee is not deluged with lower value contracts and to make sure a report is brought to finance and resources to set out changes required in contract management. To ensure no contract will be awarded under delegated authority other than in the standing orders. As Councillor Dogger and Councillor McKinnis both said at the recent finance and resources committee meeting last week, the Council knows that these contracts are due for a new and we all have concerns that time and time again we don't have the early visibility to properly scrutinise. We are being forced into making decisions at very short notice which is not the best way to go about things. We need to ensure we're making best use of public money, especially with contracts of this magnitude. I move my amendment. Thanks very much, Councillor Bruce. Councillor Wart second. Formerly second, Lord Provost. Thanks very much indeed. I don't see anyone, oh, Councillor McKinnis, a brief comment. Thank you very much and thank you for the amendment by the Conservative group. I think it does reflect what was discussed at F&R very effectively. I think there was a general concern being raised and this particular report really highlighted that about the lack of scrutiny that we were getting as elected members of seriously large contracts. I mean, this particular one, we're talking about £30 million worth of expenditure. Now, I think nobody in the committee wanted to see any delay being put in place for that framework because clearly these are services that are being delivered for some more of our vulnerable citizens and various parts of the city. So we didn't want to have any halt attached to that, but what it did do was to draw attention to the fact that we were as elected members were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of signing something like this off. Without having much greater time to scrutinise it, to develop it and to understand it and to make sure that we're making the right decision. So I think what the Conservative amendment does is to build on that conversation and I think it takes us in the right direction. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor McKinnis. I don't see any other desires to speak so kindly what it used to sum up while I eat my biscuit. I think we're five hours from all this. Thanks very much for making that so brief. So the addendum has been accepted by the movers, so there's no counter-proposals. So as I agreed, thanks very much indeed. It takes us on to item 8.1 festival, French society, Councillor Walker. Thank you, Lord Prophest. The administration motion follows a range of discussions, including some of which have made their way into the news recently, regarding funding at the Edinburgh Festival, French society. And I'd just like to make that distinction that this is about the French society and all the French itself. It appears that the French itself is in good health, as a brand Ferguson had it on the Scotsman this morning. That the number of shows is up 10% on a year ago. Nearly 1,600 more have been confirmed this week, guaranteeing that the light now will be bigger than ever. But the Festival French society has been in discussions with the Council leader and myself on a number of occasions to discuss their funding. Council officers have also been in touch with the French society to coordinate a meeting with them and with the other public sector funders. To have an open and structured discussion about the way forward for the French society. I am well aware of the financial pressures facing the French society. These concerns are echoed across the whole cultural sector, where rising costs and stands still funding are putting incredible strength on organisations trying to keep their doors open and leading to immense competition for limited funding posts. In February, the Culture and Communities Committee agreed to maintain funding at £75,000 to the French society to be used towards the cost of facilitating the streets event program, which they have done a fantastic job of. But this is in addition to the Council providing offices for the French society at a peppercorn rent. And since 2018, the Council has provided a total of 1.2 million pounds in grant funding to support the French society. We do recognise the gravity of their funding situation and we welcome continued discussion on how to ensure the sustainability and success of the French, which is hugely valuable to our city as a world leading cultural celebration. So for these reasons, I have brought the administration motion and I am supporting the composite as agreed with all the groups who brought amendments or thank you. Thanks, Councillor Walker. Can I have a seconder for Councillor Wab's original motion and then we'll move to the composite motion. Hi, I'm seconder formally, Councillor Walker. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cameron. That takes us to the composite motion which has been circulated in your emails and I think Councillor Thornely to pause. Thank you, LORD Provost. I'm glad to be moving this composite so that we can hopefully in that most culture and communities kind of way get to a collective position on a very important issue. I'd like to thank Councillor Walker for bringing the motion and colleagues in all parties for the constructive discussions we've had. The original motion rightly recognises the scale of the challenge faced across the cultural sector and the contribution the Council has made to date in support of the Festival French Society. The SNP amendment rightly reinforces that and highlights that a real terms cook can absolutely be the result of inflationary pressure. The Conservative amendment rightly stresses the role that the Scottish Government has and how they must step up and help provide a positional resource. This Council, the Scottish Government, the UK Government are all funders but some have much, much deeper pockets than others. But if colleagues will indulge me, I'd like to dwell a little on what led to the Lib Dem amendment. The multi-year funding programme has been described by some in the sector as a nightmare. Many of those applying are small organisations with very small staff teams who are already stretched to deliver existing projects. Those who could proceed to the second round of funding applications only learned as much at the end of February with a deadline only seven weeks later. A period in which a full-scale business plan was to be produced which for many smaller organisations was the first time they'd ever had to do that. That's a near impossible ask for many before you factor in the need to actually keep their day-to-day projects running. Many in the sector have raised concerns about how the process has meant they were working on reasonably long hours and they are now asking reasonable questions about Creative Scotland's processes, especially in light of its commitment to fair work. Deadlines missed, reports delayed, the strain on mental health and organisational capacity that has come from this process demands a lessons learned exercise. On the impact the application has processes had on the sector and on how they can do it better next time. We hope that colleagues will agree the message to Creative Scotland from this cultural centre and cultural city needs to be collectively in one voice that change is needed, and lessons have to be learned. I'll leave colleagues who might wish to say more in their own contributions on their own elements of this composite, but I move. Thanks, Councillor Thornely. I'm second. I think it's close to Mitchell. It is indeed, Lord Provost, and I'm delighted that we've managed to get a wonderful and very cultural communities way coming together as we so often do. And I did wonder if this might be my swan song in terms of the cultural communities brief. Alas, this ugly duckling may make a special guest appearance at committee next week. So, the French Society plays such a vital role in the facilitation of such a wonderful festival that we have every year throughout the year in terms of supporting artists, promoters, workers, helping to facilitate that visitor experience, both in terms of residents around the city coming in and indeed tourists as well. The sector generally, as has been reported, is going through such a tumultuous time. And this sort of composite motion helps to bring together a council position on that whereby I think it's important to acknowledge that, you know, Edinburgh's different layers of government in Edinburgh, in Scotland and in the United Kingdom, are all playing a role here. And I think it's worthwhile pointing out that the UK government did recently deliver 7 million, which has now been arranged to six for the French Society's permanent hub, as well as a million pounds in supporting artists. And I think it's worthwhile acknowledging that. And just in making sure that the council again, both the leader and the leader of the cultural communities, communicate to the Scottish government and indeed, Creative Scotland, that there needs to be much more joined up thinking in how we can support the French Society. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Mitchell. Our new contributions came so far. Thanks, Lord Provost, so that they simply will be happy to support the composite motion for the various reasons set about ably by my other colleagues on the committee. In terms of what we were seeking to bring to the Meminence, it's grateful to be adopted into the composite. I think that we as a city are lucky to have a bigger share than most of interest in multi-year funding at Creative Scotland. That's a good problem to have with many of the organisations being home in the capital city here. As Councillor Walker said, the French Society is not the same as the French. And so we do need to have that discussion in the whole if we're talking about sustainability. I will always ask for more funding for arts organisations, no matter where it's going to come from. So I think it's right to welcome the funding that the UK government has provided. Welcome to funding that the Creative Scotland has historically provided to the French. And also the Council's contribution as a three-tier parties. But also, if you keep up to date with your culture and communities papers, our strategic partners, which you will all have won in one of your awards, and our own multi-year funding platform has not only had a real terms cut, it's not actually stand still at all. But in terms of inflationary pressures, it would take about £1.1 million to bring it up to inflationary. Stand still, literally not improving or bigger, but stand still pressure. That's about £2,000 for your money there for supporting all of our strategic partners throughout the year. And so I think that, again, when we hear different partners reaching for TBL monies, which we're all hopefully going to be having a debate on in more real terms soon, I think it's worth noting that it's only £1.1 million to bring some of our most loved organisations that are not only meeting the citywide cultural strategy, but also fundamentally our business plan, empowering communities and putting culture in communities is something that I'll never apologise for. So hopefully we'll remember that we won £1.1 million when the visitor levy funds come online, because a lot of the organisations are basically struggling, I think, up to that point, and hopefully we can have a much more sustainable sector. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor McFarland. Any further contributions? That's not the case, so could I invite? Oh, sorry, sorry, Councillor Flannery. Do I see Councillor Lee's meeting or not? Yeah, thank you very much, Lord Provost. I just really wanted to echo that sentiment that actually the arts, whether it's groups or individuals, are the absolute life and soul and breadth of any city, and we need to recognise that quite fully, and not only from a Scottish-grown point of view, but also from an international point of view. It is to point out that our festival, our theatre festival particularly, is world-renowned, and it isn't just about sort of the standing, it's about the fact that artists low-mid and high, and by that I mean people just starting off, they want to come here. And the last point I'd want to make is that alongside of that, because as a long-time person in theatre myself, often you get a wee bit derided as a lovey, or you don't quite know what you're doing, or a wee bit fluffy, or you're very creative, which is usually a euphemism that you haven't actually got a brain cell between your ears, but let me say that actually for all the work that I have done and the people that I have met, you have got to be so on it, you have got to be so creative in your thinking, and also your problem-solving. And my last point is therefore to give a plug to Queen Margaret's University. I am a graduate of Queen Margaret's from last year. I go to my graduation this summer very proudly indeed, but I'm part of a band of new festival organisers, promoters, artistic administrators that is started here in Scotland, so let's not forget that. That's absolutely fabulous. So it's not just the people, it's the management as well. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councillor Pliny. Thank you. Councillor MINI speaking. Yeah, my colleagues have spoken so well on this, but I just wanted to remind everyone that the concept of a fringe was really a grassroots cultural movement, and it was created in this city. It is now global, and the rest of the world looks to us as the leader in there, so I think it very much behooves us to continue to support them. Thanks very much, Councillor Mies-Miesen. Now, can I invite Councillor Walker to sum up? I think you've indicated you're accepting the composite motion. Yes, look, Profists, I am accepting it, and I welcome to the contributions from my colleagues on the Culture and Communities Committee, and I think I would just say that we all share the same view that culture is in fact underfunded, but we all feel that we will cheerfully take money for culture from the UK government or the Scottish government, which ever government is happy to put the funding in. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. There are, in that case, no counter-proposals, so is that agreed? Agreed. Thanks very much indeed. But it takes us on to item 8.2, motion by Councillor Arthur, Scottish government scrapping of greenhouse gas emission targets. Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Lord Provost. I think when we met last month, none of us could have predicted that today, John Sweeney would be our first minister, and Kate Forbes would be his deputy. It's been quite an incredible few weeks, it's been chaotic at times, it's been a crisis, and it's been a bit of a calamity, but we shouldn't forget that one of the things that triggered that process was another crisis. It was the Scottish government's response to the climate crisis. So what did I hear the groan from our SNP colleagues there? And it's important to know that the scrapping of the 2030 target by the SNP Green Government at the time was the scrapping of a target which had legal status, it was based on justice and science, and it had been endorsed by an election. And that's a really serious thing when our party puts forward a proposition to the electorate and shrines it in law and expects us to do our best to meet that target. But that was scrapped. And of course, for a lot of us, it was an absolute surprise because what we've seen over a number of years, that neither funding nor policy within the Scottish government was a line into the target, and it missed its annual targets, and it had been subject to repeated criticism around that. So really, that 2030 ambition was really the last part of the facade to fail. And I think the real disappointment from me, because I think it almost felt inevitable that this was going to happen, it was a scrapping of the target with the disappointment lay for me, because what they could have done was they could have changed the date they were going to meet that 75% reduction, or perhaps reduce the target slightly to stock something really ambitious for us. But instead, it was scrapped. And let's not forget, it was scrapped in an election year, and forgive my cynicism for mentioning that. And indeed, if you look at the February 23, 24 budget from the Scottish government, what we've seen was that in my domain, Transport and Environment, we've seen that the active travel ambition wasn't met, funding for a college by Rio was cut, bus partnership money, something that's really important if we're going to hit that 20% vehicle reduction, right across Scotland, 30%, and Edinburgh vehicle climate reduction, hit was paused. And I know that the council leaders written to the Scottish government about that raising his concerns. But amongst all that, the Scottish government did find money to invest in roads, I think, an extra 200 million pounds. So quite an incredible budget, which really so many people, right across the transported sector, at the time of that budget, before those targets were scrapped, seen that as the point where, basically, the Scottish government was meeting that 20% traffic reduction by 2030 was not going to be met. And I don't think anybody could really argue against that. But nonetheless, as we're already here today, despite the challenges we face in this council, and despite the uncertainty which comes with the Scottish government's, you know, let's not be shy about it, move towards the right. But despite the uncertainty that comes with that, this council remains absolutely committed to its climate ambitions. And not because we've promised that to the electorate, not just because of that, because I really believe we have a moral obligation to do that. I really do. But I think it's correct that we reflect on what the Scottish government has done, and I think what it's going to do in the coming weeks and months, and that we bring that back to the policies to say an ability committee to understand how that's going to impact on things here in Edinburgh. So I'm happy to move this motion or province. Thanks very much, Councillor Arthur. And a seconder. Councillor Jenkins. Thank you, Lord Provost and thank you, Councillor Arthur, for tabling this motion. I actually think he was very generous to the S&P government in his opening points. So Edinburgh currently has very ambitious net zero targets. And I'm proud that tackling climate change is a priority in this council. So it is incredibly disappointing that our own government doesn't share our ambition, and now they don't even share our targets. And not for the first time, and I suspect not for the last time, the S&P have over-promised and just not delivered. No target set in law or otherwise will ever be believed again, whether it's climate change targets, hospital waiting times, educational attainment, drug deaths or child poverty, which now sits at 24% in Scotland, and unbelievably 19.5% in Edinburgh. They're letting this country down while at the same time leading up the garden path. And what about their ex-pals in the Green Party, a party that sadly traded their enthusiasm for the environment for a seat at the table with only their weakness being exposed and let down by the S&P when it really mattered. They aren't the first, and I certainly don't think they'll be the last. But let's not forget, let's not forget that the last act of the Greens in Government was to take an axe to this country's ambitious climate targets. So they certainly don't escape criticism from me for that. So in despite of the S&P in the Greens in the previous government, we do still have ambitious targets for net zero in Edinburgh. I therefore believe it's very important for us to impact access, this disastrous decision, and if necessary, I tend to mitigate the clear lack of ambition displayed by the Scottish Government when it comes to net zero. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Jenkinson. It takes us to the amendment by the S&P group, Councillor Bianchi. Thank you, Lord Provost. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this, and we won't be back in the constant motion we'll be proposing our amendment as it was. Well, let's back on now. The record of the S&P on climate change is when I am very, very proud of. And actually, there's a lot in all of the amendments that are in that carries a lot of weight. I actually think that the Conservatives put in talking about the UK's performance relative to the rest of the world is quite instructive. They don't always get the praise that they perhaps deserve. And believe me, coming from me, that is a hard thing to say. But it is the case that Scotland, various measures show the different numbers for the relative levels, but Scotland at 50-ish percent down in 20-ish times, amongst any in the world as having made progress on climate change. We have, and whatever we want to say about how far we're going about what our targets are, let us begin by acknowledging that Scotland is a world leader. The UK is also a world leader. In Scotland, we have recycling vastly up since 2007, housing vastly more energy efficient than 2007, renewable electricity massively rolled out from less than 20% to over 100% of our electricity demand. And that has no cotton benefits, because you can then start heating homes through electrical means, and it's decarbonised. You can go on electrified trains as 75% of Scotrail passengers do, and it's decarbonised. This is the progress that has been delivered. And yes, the Scottish Government, the SNP, have always set really ambitious targets. It's a political choice. You can set really easy targets, meet them every year. They don't stretch you to try harder. We've set hard targets, really hard targets. And we've had to bear the PR hits you get each year when sometimes you don't quite make them. But it stimulated that action, and I would defend that. And I would just say to anybody in the administration, given the target that they have that's entrusted to them for Edinburgh's performance, beware of attacking people that can't quite manage to reach ambitious targets. And I would also say to the Labour Party here that there is a choice, we were faced with a choice. The Climate Change Committee gave its advice, said, This is probably beyond you. And the Scottish Government reacted by proposing 19 additional actions by redoubling efforts and stepping up. That's a sharp contrast to what the Labour Party did. The Labour Party that is so desperate to chase the votes of telegraph readers, that dumped the one environmental policy at UK level that I can ascribe to it. The £28 billion commitment. £28 billion a year that would have been transformational, that would have allowed us to step up the next year. Because again, the Conservatives are right in their amendment when they say this needs collaboration from the UK government. The UK government is a major player in whether Scotland succeeds in reaching net zero. And that £28 billion, the £3 billion almost that would have come to Scotland, would have turbocharged, absolutely turbocharged our efforts. And it is shameful, and indeed it's shameless, that it's the Labour Party standing up to take a kick at the Scottish Government. And that is what we have here. We have a choice. We had the choice, and we are stepping up. The Labour Party is giving up. And I'm very, very sad to see that we haven't been able to come to consensus. But I'm very happy to defend our record. Thank you, Councillor BRIANCHER. And seconder, Councillor BRIANCHER. Thank you. So, after his very bold, expansive words earlier this morning on working together across the Chamber, it's a great shame that Council Arthur chose not to do that very thing with the SNP group in arriving at his lunchtime composite. Given the long factual list of achievements of the Scottish Government in respect of climate leading initiatives occurring by Councillor BRIANCHER, I can do no more than add, that it was an impressive list. And that Councillor Arthur's disappointment pales into insignificance at the levels of disappointment filled by myself, Scottish people, indeed, to everyone across the UK. Labour's decision to commit to their 28 billion investment in climate action, and Utahn, and scrap that commitment before even setting a target. My seconder amendment. Thanks very much. It takes to the addendum by the Lib Dem group, Councillor LANG. Thank you very much, Lord Provost. So, Councillor Arthur being generous to the SNP. Councillor BRIANCHER, praising the Tories, if Scottish politics had not been turned on its head in the last two weeks. It's happening here before us. And Lord Provost, the Climate Change Committee did not recommend getting rid of the 2030 target. Let's not forget that. The Climate Change Committee made a number of recommendations that did not recommend getting rid of the 2030 target. And Councillor BRIANCHER says that when the going got tough, the SNP stepped up, they didn't step up. They stood it down. They didn't replace the target with something else. They got rid of that target altogether. And it's easy to see why we're in this situation now, Lord Provost. Where Scotland won't meet this target. Because for all the backslapping we've had here from the last two contributions, just read the Committee's report. Just look at the range of commitments or policies or initiatives which are behind or not being met, insulating homes, driving up public transport, train fares going up, delays on EV charging rollouts, planting trees, heat pumps, and all of these things Scotland has not been doing the things that we knew we had to do in order to meet these targets. And the word disappointment, I think, is a word that's used to awful in politics. I think it's anger. I think we should be angry at the fact that because of failure, we're in this situation now. And I know that that anger is shared across many people in this chamber. I actually want to recognise the role which Councillor Booth played in this. Because I'm not sure it necessarily made him lots of friends. But from the very beginning he took our leadership role and spoke out against the decision that was taken. There's a proverb that says that when a butterfly flaps its wings and the Amazon, there's a hurricane in Japan. It now seems that if Councillor Booth takes the Twitter, he can single-handedly bring down a first minister. So for all my quips about being criticised by Councillor Booth on Twitter, I'm going to take it a lot more seriously going forward. Now, when it comes to our amendment, our amendment is actually a very, very simple one. Because I think there is concern. I think there is anger in many parts of this chamber at the fact that that climate change target was scrapped. We have a new first minister, not quite a holy wholesale new cabinet, but a new first minister, a new deputy first minister. And I think no is the opportunity for us as a council to show our commitment by also pressing this slightly re-jigged Scottish government to come back. Not with a scrap target, but a new target if necessary, because we cannot leave this to 2045. We need action far earlier than that. Thanks, Councillor. [Applause] Thank you, Lord Provost. Just yesterday, the Guardian published the results of a survey of 380 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. 80% of respondents believe that we will see at least a 2.5 degree rise in global temperatures before the end of this century. Only 6% of experts thought that the internationally agreed limit of 1.5 degree rise was achievable, 6%. Does that mean that we should scrap the 1.5 degree target? Of course it doesn't. Why? Because it is the right target. It's the right target to try at least avoid some of the most dangerous tipping points that will cause the biggest impact on global weather patterns that will cause natural destruction and widespread impact on humans across the globe, but especially to those people who are already living in precarious circumstances. We've got to be ambitious. We've got to move faster. Successive governments, not just in this country, but also in this country, have failed to meet their obligations. Liberal Democrats want to see both Scottish and UK governments, both current and future, set ambitious targets and, more importantly, when they set them, stick to them and not ditch them when things get difficult, because we simply haven't got time. And this is why we think it's important that we understand as soon as possible any impacts of the scrapping of the target by the Scottish government on this council's own plans. And this is why we request that a briefing note is provided to councillors before the summer. That way, we can all consider our next steps during the inevitable next summer heat wave. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Downey. It takes us on to the addendum by the Green Group, Councillor Parker. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Arthur, also for bringing the motion. So I think it has genuinely been heartening that there's been lots of positive comments about our intentions and commitment to tackling the climate emergency in the council as part of this debate. And I think the subject of our amendment really is a plea to all members of this council to not make the same mistake of governments, those current, recent and historic, because the thrust of our amendment is to make the point that whilst we have made some progress on climate in this council, and while most of us in this room do have a genuine commitment to climate and nature, we need to match this with a genuine commitment at a financial level. Some of this, of course, is about the need for more money in local government, but it's not only about that. It's also about how we choose to spend the money we do have. Analysis of the council budget by the Institute for Climate Economics tells us that 40% of spending in this place is neutral or destructive to our climate ambitions. That's 40% of a £1 billion budget which is sitting there doing no good, it is a waste of opportunity. And our capital budget strategy also lists net zero as an unfunded priority. Do these facts describe an organisation which is genuinely committed to delivering the transformative change required as part of a just transition. I'm not sure that they do. There are steps being taken in the council to look at this, with the Agreement at Policy and Sustainability Committee to resource the financial strategy, to align our spending with the council's priorities within the business plan around climate and nature, and I hope council officers are listening to the clear instruction and mood of council today, because I think this is a ringing endorsement that we expect that strategy to be radical in its scope. And of course I hope that all councillors in November will rally behind it when it comes to committee for approval. The motion is also right though that we can't do this all alone and we'll need to work with governments on the challenges that arise. Our redundant makes this point more explicit by noting that there is a specific need for new powers to local authorities to help us meet the net zero challenge. And there's an excellent paper that this council funded already, partnership with the ECCI called net zero local authority powers. And if people in this room haven't already read that paper and haven't already been lobbying behind the scenes around it, then they really need to make sure they do so and take that to governments at UK, whoever I'm looking at here I'm not sure we'll find out later this year, all in Scotland as well. And of course in recent years audit Scotland has also produced some provocative reports which sets out the radical change of direction we need to see within the governance of local authorities in Scotland to support the necessary and more radical action for climate and nature, which we should also get behind. There are other parts for our addendum which I'll highlight as I sum up. We had a reference to the need to resource action around nature as well as climate in line with the council's declaration of a nature emergency and in recognition of the fact that net zero alone will not address the full some issues which will arise as a result of the change in climate, both for nature and in terms of a just transition. And finally on a purely practical point, we also asked that the report that council are seeking is folded into other climate reporting at PNS and to specifically include information on how the council will address the question of the public body's climate change duties reporting given the new carbon budget approach which the Scottish government is now pushing as well as the role of the newly established climate intelligence services part of this. Thanks very much, Councillor Parker. And the seconder, Councillor Booth. Thanks very much indeed, Lord Provost and thank you to Council Arthur for bringing the motion today. I think it's really important that we remember what the climate change committee said in its report just a couple of months ago. It said, for example, on page 10 of their report, the Scottish government should build on its high ambition and implement policies that enable the 75% emissions reduction target to be achieved at the earliest date possible. They did also single out a number of specific policy areas where they thought the Scottish government was doing a good job. I'll just quote again, There are some early signs of good progress including bold proposals in the heat in buildings consultation that once agreed must be delivered promptly and effectively to ensure Scotland can get as close as possible to meet its targets. And we warmly welcome the commitment of the council leader which was made today to write to the new first minister to urge him not to delay in bringing those measures forward. Since buildings account for the largest source of emissions in Edinburgh is vital that we absolutely get that right. But while targets are important, the action that delivers on those targets is the crucial element. And I think there is concern that there has been too much focus on the targets and not enough focus on the action to deliver them. Targets cannot be a substitute for action and while some people have been congratulating Scotland on setting world leading targets, they have been less willing to support the policy measures that are needed to deliver on those targets. And I have to say I'm looking all the way around the chamber when I say that. I'm grateful to Councillor Arthur for working on a compromise which I think we seem to have agreed between himself and us and the Lib Dems. I would also say that just as some people are critical of the Scottish Government for not using the powers that they already have, the same principle also applies to the council. So for example, are we really looking at all of the powers that we already have to cut emissions? I mean, just using one example, the workplace parking levy, I think we really need to address that. I have a slight concern that the amendments from the S&P and Conservative groups are too focused on past successes in terms of climate. It is right that we acknowledge past successes in particular, for example, on decarbonisation of electricity. But we must not, either at national or at local level, rest on our laurels. There is so much hard work to do that simply saying, Weren't we wonderful in the past? simply does not cut it. The original Lib Dems motion asking us to simply reinstate the 2030 target which the Climate Change Committee said was not credible. I don't think that's helpful and I'm grateful that they've adjusted the wording to say that we need a bold and ambitious target. We do have a duty in Scotland, despite the fact that we have been quite good at getting our emissions down. I'm coming to a conclusion, Lord Provost. We do have a duty because we industrialise much earlier than most other parts of the world. Our historical emissions give us a moral duty to be driving this forward and that has to focus on action. Without Lord Provost, I move the Green Amendment and just to confirm that we are happy with the compromise circulated by Councillor Arthur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Booth. Thank you. And that takes us to the amendment by the Conservative Group, Councillor Piet. Thank you, Lord Provost. I don't think I can accept the composite amendment because Councillor Arthur didn't produce it to me until a few minutes ago and indeed didn't discuss it with me and hasn't really taken on board anything that I've promoted to be part of what we might agree. Lord Provost, I want to do two things though in speaking just now. Firstly, I want to tell you a bit about the good news because there is good news as we've partly heard from Councillor Pietaggia earlier, stealing some of my thunder. And I want to also then talk about realism because it's only by being realistic that we as Edinburgh, that Scotland, that the UK can take matters forward in this regard. The UK is 52% below peak emissions. Peak emissions for us happened in 1970. We're about 50% below 1990 emissions, which is what most people measure on, given the IPCC targets go back to then. We produce less than 1% of global emissions, either territorial or consumption. You can look it up. I've given you a data set to look at in the amendment. And even if we just go back to 2010 when the Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition took power in the UK, since then, Friedling Steinett, I'll say the UK has reduced 38% of its territorial emissions. The closest G20 country to that, Italy with 23%. Meanwhile, Indonesia is up 63% and India 69%. Other countries are still pushing their emissions up, countries with much bigger economies, far higher populations than ourselves. So 0.2% that I make, that as less than 1%, we cannot do this just by doing something here in the UK. We need international cooperation, and it's only by doing that that we will really make a difference. The second thing Lord Provost is this, we have to be realistic. I've heard lots of things said just now about 70% reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 in Scotland. Well, our own mini Stern for this council, let me remind us all, when we got it, when we set a 2030 target for net zero, it told us that we might make a 69% reduction by 2037 if we pushed as hard as we possibly could and used all available current technology. So it wasn't possible to do 70% by 2030. It's certainly not possible to do net zero by 2030. There isn't the technology available to do it. We also have to take people with us. So let's use what we've got, which is a movement in the right direction at a fairly large rate to in future set realistic targets. My anger, if it's not that, frustration with the Scottish government is that they set a completely unrealistic target. There wasn't a plan to get there. If you're going to set a target, you have to take account of not impoverishing people, not making them cold in the winter, and making sure that lifestyle compatible over time. Let's set realistic targets for the future. Let's work together on this, and let's get all our governments and this council working together, because that's what people want. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor White. And to 2nd, Councillor Mudd. Thank you, Lord Provost. I'll 2nd formally. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councillor Mudd. We're going to be up against the wire very shortly, but I have notes of contribution by Councillor McFarland. Thanks, Lord Provost. I'll try and be beefing. Thanks to Councillor Arthur for his kind comments. I'd like to think that my time on Transport Environment Committee, my voting record would meet Councillor Booth's appreciation in my time there. But I just wanted to kind of focus on what we do as Councillors in the power we have. We've got to have our eyes wide open. Some of the things that we're going to have to do to achieve any target is difficult, and we all have a responsibility in our communities to explain the reasons why people are going to have to go through. Quite hard change. We struggle to deliver a quiet route. I mean, but that's the level of the some of the things that are well within our power. They don't necessarily cost much money either. And we're struggling and going over, so it's been hours of committee time talking about something as simple as a tiny, tiny quiet route. So what I would just plea in my ask, and I hopefully won't be turning up at Transport Environment Committee with any PowerPoint presentations as a work counselor that much. But my plea is that talk of governments, talk of politics, is that everyone in every party needs to, A, not make things capital P political. If there's a kind of vote winner or a gain out of it, when it fits the right thing to do, our officers are clear in some of the reports that you say that this is the option that you need to pick, if that's what your priority is meeting these targets. So my plea is really just that we continue to have actual focus on these things, come together across the chamber, make difficult decisions, ask people to make difficult change, and get on with the things that we do actually have the power of such as workplace, park and levy, such as a congestion charge, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The list goes on, because there's quite a lot of work that we need to be getting on with right now, and that's what we can do and spend time debating. But if we're struggling to deliver a quiet route, I mean, I don't think any of us are in a position to lecture anybody, really, but I just wanted to have that contribution. Thank you. Thanks, Professor MacFarlane. Thanks Lamar. Thank you, Lord Provost. I wanted to, as briefly as possible, come in to talk about an example of energy efficiency that not only helps us in relation to our net zero. Carbon targets, but also puts money into the pockets of people who would otherwise be struggling to afford in the context of today's cost of living crisis to afford the very basics. And that, of course, is our Council House retrofitting program, and I'm very pleased with the progress that we're making in relation to that. And I know that amongst our tenants are people who are reporting that in the newly insulated and retrofitted homes, they're making savings of up to 70% on their fuel bills. But I have to say that the Scottish government set an incredibly ambitious target. It set a very high standard called the Energy Efficient Standard for Social Housing, which rejoices in the acronym of each two, and which obliges Councils to insulate and retrofit to that very high and laudable standard. But let's inject a bit of realism into that, because the average annual budget in order to carry out all of that work is 40 million for the whole of Scotland. And bearing in mind that our housing stock is currently hovering around 20,000, it doesn't take much of an expert in mathematics to work out that that goes nowhere near the kinds of budget that we need. So, in my book, if somebody's serious about serious and ambitious targets, then they really have to be met by the resources in order to enable us to reach those targets. The top targets, brilliant, ambitious targets, all in favour, give us the money. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor MARC. We've now moved to the summing up, Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Lord Provost, and thank you for everybody who contributed. Something I often say when I'm speaking to residents is that the UK government destroyed our economy here, and the Scottish government doesn't understand it. And I think that that's quite an important observation, but I do really do believe to get our economy back on track, we have to invest in a way that's just unsustainable. And I absolutely believe, I would say this, of course, that an excellent income and labour government will do that at UK level, and it's so... And it's slower as he shines soon around later, as well, in Scotland. But the reason I mention that is that what makes it difficult for us to set aside the funding that was mentioned to invest in tackling the climate emergency is what's happened to the UK economy and the economy in Scotland. And we have to be absolutely honest about that, but nonetheless, that income and labour government will have the most ambitious plan for climate change of any government we've ever had in the UK. And I hope we support that. But it's important to remember that policy, which was changed, it wasn't a ditch, it was changed, the numbers were reduced a bit. But it's just a policy, no voter had voted on it. And what we're talking about here is something which people voted on in election in Scotland had legal standing and was arbitrarily set aside at absolutely incredible decision, which does not compare to that labour policy change. And I want to touch on the working together thing, I'll just mention two points there. I'm afraid the more I read the Conservative Amendment law provost at this point about the 1% about the UK only being 1% of emissions. The more and more and more that just made me more and more angry, but that's not a great emotion, more and more frustrated because, yes, 1% of global emissions that were less than a thousandth of the planet. And that comes with a moral responsibility. And in saying that even wealthier people in this country have more of a responsibility to respond to the climate emergency than less wealthy. And I think that's something that we should bear in mind as part of that just transition. And in terms of the composite, you know, people in S&P perhaps not feeling involved in this kind of sort of dub-in, what I would say is the composite was actually written by Councillor Bianci. And the main change I made to it was to include the letter to the Scottish government asking for bold climate targets. That was the main change, and that was why the S&P didn't support it. So here we have people talking warm words about the climate emergency, but they're unwilling to accept writing a letter to the Scottish government saying you must do better. So, Lord Provost, I've tabled the composite. I think it takes on board all the key points and more from the Greens, and I'm really grateful for Councillor Bruce's contribution and Councillor Parker's, of course, as well. And I think also reaffirming that we really have to push the Scottish government to do more via the Lib Dems amendment via that letter. Yet another letter that Councillor D has going to have to write on our behalf. So with that, Councillor, sorry, Lord Provost, happy to move. Thanks very much indeed. Point of order. As I was named under whatever provision that is. I think I have been very, very mischaracterised there by Councillor Arie. I think it's a point of accuracy. Point of accuracy. If it could be short, we will not speak. I will merely say that, yes, I am glad that Councillor Arthur confirmed that I was involved in the writing. We attempted to reach a compromise. It's not an excuse for his speech. What is the inaccuracy? The inaccuracy was his statement of my reason for objecting. There were at least six differences from the last version that I sent to him to the one that he eventually put forward. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks very much indeed. Okay. Now, my understanding in that case is that there will be... There's an agreed position that the agenda by the Liberal Democrat group and the agenda by the Green Group are taken on board in the composite. The SNP group are still wanting to pursue your amendment and the Conservative group are still wishing to pursue your amendment. In that case, I think we have the three propositions. So, come here in the bell. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay. We are on item 8.2. It's a motion by Councillor Arthorn on Scottish Government scoping of greenhouse gas emission targets. We have the motion by Councillor for seconded by Councillor Jenkinson, which has now been amended so that there is a composite of the motion by Councillor after the Liberal Democrat amendment and the Green amendment. Hence that we have a SNP amendment 1 moved by Councillor Beyasci, seconded by Councillor Dauvin, and amendment 2 is the Conservative amendment moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Marrow. So, motion by Councillor Arthorn, SNP amendment 1, Conservative amendment 2. Can I take the votes please for the Conservative amendment? [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you and for the SNP amendment please. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you and for the motion by Councillor Arthorn. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. That is 35 votes for the motion, 17 for amendment 1, 8 for amendment 2, the motion is carried. Thanks very much, we now move on to item 8.3, motion by Councillor Walker on Edinburgh Filmhouse, Councillor Walker. [BLANKAUDIO] Yes, thank you, Lord Provost. We were delighted to hear that the UK government has committed 1.5 million pounds to Filmhouse Edinburgh from its community ownership leveling up fund. As I'm sure many others in the community were delighted to, this funding will be transformative for the free development and reopening of the Filmhouse. And talking to people from Filmhouse Edinburgh, they are hoping that it will be open by the end of the year. The City of Edinburgh Council is committed to having a home for cultural cinema in the heart of the city. And agreed in November to contribute 60,000 pounds to support the return of the Edinburgh Filmhouse building. I would also like to recognize the huge amount of work that has already gone into securing a future for 88 Lothie Road by Filmhouse Edinburgh. And of course, the dedicated crowdfunding campaign is a widespread support from the community. And without that support, I don't think Filmhouse Edinburgh would have gone back 1.5 million pounds from the UK government. I'm excited to see how this funding could unlock opportunities for further collaboration between the Council and Filmhouse Edinburgh, such as a small screening room that we might be able to use for educational purposes in the future. So in this motion, we're just asking that the Culture and Communities Committee is kept informed of plans and timelines. And we consider any revenue implications since 2025, 26 budget setting, and I will be accepting the amendment from Councillor Heeb as slightly adjusted. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Walker. And seconder, thanks. Thanks, Lord Provost. I would just like to echo everything. Councillor Walker said this is a tremendous example of public, private and individual coming together through the crowdfunding and obviously with support of a business well known to us and headquartered here that we've secured the future for the Filmhouse. And yeah, thanks. Thanks to everyone concerned that we have secured collectively a future for this much loved Edinburgh institution. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Cameron. That takes us on to the agenda by the Green Group, Councillor Heeb. Thank you very much, Lord Provost. I'll keep this pretty brief. The Filmhouse is and will be when it returns a really important part of Edinburgh's film heritage. And I think all colleagues will remember the shock that we all felt when the closure was announced year before last. And the substantive purpose of my agenda today is just to remind us of what happened last time and ensure it doesn't happen again. We did invest over a number of years, £100,000 into the Centre for Moving Image in the Filmhouse, and then it went bust. And so we can't let that happen again. So I do just want the report that comes forward to us just to address what kind of relationship we will have. It might be a close one, it might be a distant one, might be somewhere in between. But I do think we need to keep our eyes a little bit more on that in terms of what our relationship would be, how the money's been given to the Filmhouse, what we're getting back, if anything for that. And if we're going to have a board member or not, so just some due diligence, I'm asking us to do. I just want to put on record before I finish the approval of Professor Birmingham. Thanks, I think we should all express to save the film house pretty much from the day. The closure was announced, the staff and the film goers who used it so well were absolutely on it, they ran a campaign over months. They made clear to many of us through emails how important the film house was to our constituents. They raised, I've just checked, it was £296,000 as well as the money coming from the various governments. And that's a big drink of money, we'll think go a long way to bringing the film house back, but also bringing it back better. So it's more accessible to wheelchair users and is much more welcoming and kind of up to date place. And I very much look forward to the film house we hope you might just want to put on record how grateful we are to save the film house campaign and for the way they did in getting this fantastic result. Thanks very much. And seconder. I'll second that formally, Lord Provost. Thanks very much, Councillor Miller. I don't see any further contributions, can we move straight to summing up, Councillor Walker? I think you're accepting the addendum. You're waving your right to sum up. There is no counter proposal, so is that agreed? Agreed. Thanks very much indeed. We will have a break shortly, but we're going to, we're going to item 8.4, now motioned by Councillor D on a budget outcomes. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Rose. I put this motion in just as the Executive Director sent round the members brief, so we've added that in, so I think it's really helpful. This motion being put in front of Council today is just a set of the path between the budget being agreed back in February, and that to ensure that the appropriate reports come to relevant committees in the right timing, and that there's an adequate time for them to be scrutinised. I'm really grateful for the Executive Director of Corporate Services to issue the briefing note to members, and I'm happy to change the start of the last paragraph to be a business bill and update, rather than a report to a committee. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Aye. And a seconder. Councillor GRIFFITHS. Formerly Lord Provost. Thanks very much. Councillor GRIFFITHS. There's an addendum, there's an amendment by the S&P group. Councillor MACKINIS. Thank you very much, Lord Provost. In fact, our amendment is quite a slight one. There's not an enormous degree of difference, but I think anybody who's spoken to me about budget between the last process and now will know that I could bore for Scotland on the topic, because I think we all recognise the fact there were quite a lot of things that went wrong with the budget process. Notably, one of the changes that I want to meet to this, which is to talk about the report coming forward, and indeed any form of reporting that comes forward, that we should have information about the delivery and timeline of the budget with specific reference to the time allocated for political scrutiny and discussion. Now, I think that is the key thing that we took out of the last budget process. There was no sufficient time for discussion, assessment, making sure everything was correct, and we felt that we were rushed into that budget process. I think it will do nothing but help us move forward and to reinforce the intent behind the original motion. In addition to which, I think it's well worth noting that we need to ensure that all of the budget commitments are, in fact, fully funded at that point. We've seen several examples now of things coming forward to as a committee, which have not come through the budget process, and that is causing us some deep concern. So I think it's worthwhile reiterating that in this particular context. Other than that, I would say that we support the intent behind Councillor Day's motion and hope that those minor adjustments will be accepted. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor McInnes. Councillor CUMAR. Thanks, Councillor CUMAR. I don't see any contributions. Councillor, do we like to sum up and indicate whether you're willing to accept the amendment by the SMP group? Sorry, they're not able to accept the SMP amendment. I think the finance community or the director of the corporate services have set out a clear process in the budget this year, which we'll see a cross-party budget working group. I think proposals will come forward early in June with the director of finance and the executive director. And I think that we accept there has not been a proper budget process for many years in the Council, and I hope this does properly engage us. As I and many members have said, it properly engages the whole city, and particularly those people in the city who tend not to respond to budget constitutions, but where we probably need to allocate more resources than the people who are in poverty and the issues around climate change as well. So I'm grateful for the work that the finance community and the executive director and head finance have done to bring forward a robust budget proposal this year, and I hope that the cross-party working group will lead to that work. Thank you, Councillor DAY. You have not accepted the amendment by the SMP group. I take the SMP group. I want you to pursue your amendment. With a degree of disappointment, Lord Price, yes. In that case, could we ring the bell and we'll have a vote? Thank you, Councillor. [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] 33 votes for the motion, 28 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Thanks very much. We'll have a short break of 15 minutes now, returning at 3.15 for item 8.5, the motion on alleles. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, we're resume with item 8.5, the motion by Councillor Heap, a prohibition of council and allio use of strikes minimum service levels act, work notices, and just remind members that we hired a deputation on this matter earlier today. Thank you, Lord Provost, from the Leith Dockers strike in 1913 to recent teacher strikes for fair pay and the school strikes for climate, Edinburgh has a long and very proud history of people going on strike for a fair deal for themselves and for their communities. As we've heard this morning from the EIS representative workers, never go on strike lightly. They lose pay, of course, and they are always well aware of the impact of their destruction on people who use their services. But they do do it for good reasons of fair pay, fair conditions, and ensuring services are safe and fit for purposes, purpose for patients, for students, and other public service users. And those strikes do get results. In 1968, women sewing machine workers at Ford car factories went on strike equal pay, because they were only being paid 85% of the wages men doing the same job were paid. And that was absolutely instrumental in the introduction of the Equal Pay Act just two years later. And the council pays its own workers such as way stand clients and staff and teachers better than what otherwise have done without them taking industrial action or the prospect of that. So that's why it's vital we rule out today, ever using the Conning New Powers into the Minimum Service Levels Act, to force council staff back to work under the threat of the SAC. If granted these powers and if they are used by the council, we will destroy the largely very good relations the council has with its staff and their trade unions. And the UK government's own impact assessment outlines that risk as the SMP amendment does to and as we heard from EIS this morning. And if we take the absolutely disgraceful decision to force strikers facing a cost of a living process, not to strike for better pay and better pensions, then we will be plunging them further into poverty. And if we discourage our staff from striking for better and safer conditions, then both our staff and our service users will suffer. I say staff and service users, but of course our staff are also our service users, our constituents and our residents. Before I close, I want to address the use of powers by council owned companies and other arms-length organisations. Edinburgh trams as of last year is empowered to use these powers against its own staff. And while it has not done so, we very nearly did have a tram strike fairly recently. So this is a very much a live issue. And although at the moment we can't order Edinburgh trams or any other allio not to use work notices under legislation, my motion asks for a report so to see how we might be able to make that happen. We did manage to get Edinburgh leisure to pay the real wage. So hopefully we can get some similar movement on this issue as well. To close, Lord Provost Treggians are key to a fairer society. And had this legislation been enforced previously, workers would be less well paid, working worse conditions, working less safe conditions, and our residents would have access to poorer services. So for our staff, our constituents and residents, let's today reaffirm the importance of taking industrial action and support the motion today. Thank you. Thanks very much. Councillor HEAP. Seconder. Yes, Councillor MUMFORD. Councillor MUMFORD. I'd like to echo everything said by Councillor HEAP. And again, thank the unions for their deputations this morning. The only additional thing I'd add is that the UK government has not yet ruled out extending this act to education workers in Scottish schools, as well as English ones, something which would cause irreparable harm for schools, according to a Head Teachers Association. And while the Scottish government is being clear that they will strongly oppose any attempts at this, we should be in no doubt that we are witnessing a concerted attack on workers and unions from the UK government in an attempt to limit dissent, provide opportunities to fight and exploit our workforce. I'm proud that our Council values our relationship with trade unions, recognising that workers' rights lead to a better city to live and work in, something we're all committed to here. So with that, I second the motion. Thanks very much, Councillor MUMFORD. It takes us to the amendment by the administration proposed by yourself, Councillor Fichenda. Thank you, Lord Provost, and thank you, Councillor HEAP, for bringing in such an important motion. Our amendment is really just to clarify the breadth of this legislation which is going to impact workers in many sectors, and it's important to remember that the right to strike in the UK is already conditional. It's not an absolute right, because trade unions are forced to jump through a series of hoops to be able to call industrial action, and these tough conditions are designed to obstruct industrial organising and the fundamental right to take solidarity or second reaction remains illegal. From the attack on the right to actually be a member of a trade union at GCEHQ, workers' rights in the UK have been under attack for the past 40 years, and it is always important to remember that trade union and workers' rights in the United Kingdom are some of the most restricted in Europe. Service levels are just another attack. They're just the most recent attack. And ironically, many workers, especially in the public sector, especially in transport, in education, in the fire service, would actually welcome laws that said that there would be a minimum amount of workers to deliver the service that they're supposed to be, and actually it would be an aspiration. But of course, this act is not about improving services. It's about preventing workers from defending services, from defending their jobs and conditions, and fighting back collectively. Let's remember that this week in the UK Parliament, the CEO of P&O, a company which two years ago illegally and will unlawfully sacked more than 700 qualified seafarers admitted to staff being paid under £5 an hour. This was a chief executive who in 2023 earned a salary of 325,000 plus a bonus of 183,000. That's what happens when the profiteers are allowed to call the shots. And if the Tory government genuinely wanted to guarantee vital services and avoid strikes, they'd bring to an end the private sector profiteering and ensure workers are paid a wage and they would invest in public services. Thank you, Lord Provest. Thanks, Councillor CHENDER. And a seconder from the Administration. That would be me. Lord Provest, thank you. What a way to treat workers who put their own lives at risk during the pandemic. What a way to treat them. It's absolutely deplorable. This is not just a tack on workers, right? It's a tack on the whole society. These are workers who look after us in times the most neat at most emergency when you're flipping houses on fire. Who'd you look to? And they already have life and limb service provisions, as we heard from the deputation today. And we have found at all times that our relationship with workers is that they stick to these life and limb provisions and often go beyond them. It's an absolute outrage. It's an unworkable piece of legislation. There's talk of actually naming the people that have to turn out because I do want to get on a train or a bus or a tram that's driven by someone who's too unwell to go to their work. But they've been named in a document that forces them to turn out or put their job and their colleagues at risk. These are workers that we need to rely on. These are workers that stand up for us. These are workers that when they go on strike, they are often striking to maintain a level of pain conditions that will attract sufficient people to work for organizations that need trained, qualified, dedicated people to look after us. And it's absolutely appalling that this has ever seen the light of day. And I really, in second in this, I can barely contain how angry I am about the Putin Councils and other public sector workforces in such a position. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor Wap. The agenda by the SNP Group, Councillor Nicholson. Thank you. I absolutely agree with the anger of all the others who have spoken. And we're really grateful that Councillor Heap brought this. So thank you. Like other folk in the room, I'm a proud trade union member and I will always support the right strike. Indeed, the Scottish Government Ministers have described this legislation as unnecessary and wanted and ineffective. We whole heartedly supported the motion but just wanted to highlight that the UK Government's own analysis has pointed out that this legislation is likely to cause prolonged and more frequent disputes. Thanks. Thanks very much, Councillor Nicholson. Councillor Muchen. As the trade unionist who cares about the working conditions of my colleagues, I'm just going to say formally. Thanks very much, Councillor Muchen. That takes us to the amendment by the Conservative Group, Councillor Pight. Thank you, Lord Provost. We've put forward an amendment which considers us and thinks about this. We did ponder just saying no action to this today, but we decided to put some words on it to show that we have thought about it. At the end of the day, why are we here as Councillors? Why do we elect people here to Westminster, to Hollywood? We elect them to look after our public services. Those services are for the public to provide a service to them. And the whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure that even in times of strikes, there is a minimum service level available. It's not to ban strikes altogether. Indeed, I'm intrigued by the SNP amendment here, because effectively, Councillor Nicholson and McNeese Meakin are pointing out that even the UK government thinks it is possible it might make strikes go on a bit longer and be more prevalent. But the point being, there will be a minimum service provided to the public while those strikes are happening. That's all this is about. It's ensuring that there are trains to get on. Maybe fewer than normal, but there will be some. It's ensuring there is a hospital service open if you are in crisis and need it. And the likelihood, I think, of it being used by this Council, under any administration, is probably about nil to nil. So this is really just posturing and politicking to have yet another pop at the Conservative government. That's what the motions about. That's what it is. It's grandstanding. But let's put that aside. Let's think about why we're here. We're here to serve the public. Not always to just be constantly carping on on behalf of internal producer interests. We should be for the consumer interest. Those are the people who rely on our services, Lord Provost. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor White. And to the second, Councillor Matt. Thank you, Lord Provost. The Chamber will have noted earlier today that this is not a Conservative group that does not engage with the trade unions, recognise their important role or seek to work with them in delivering, in supporting the workers of the Council as noted by Mr Harold in his deputation. So I'm sorry to disappoint Dave. But as Councillor White has said, someone actually has to stand up for the consumer here. We're not in a consumer business. I don't like calling residents to whom we deliver vital services consumers because they are the people who send us here who we represent and who this Council provides vital services for. And I think that they interest and then they need to be represented in this Chamber today as part of this debate. And I speak as the daughter of someone who in the 70s untrained with the wrong equipment had to go and stand in for the firefighters and was responsible for the soldiers that did that in the Midlands to a great deal of pressure. We wanted to avoid that in the public. This is what this seeks to do. And so I submit second the Conservative amendment. Thanks so much, Councillor MURPH. Councillor LANG. Thanks very much, Lord Provost. I'll be brief. I listen very carefully to what the Conservatives have said. The argument appears to be that this legislation is needed to protect public services. In my experience, those in the public sector who strike more often than not, strike because they also care about public services. They care about a lack of investment. They care about a failure to recruit and retain staff. They care about staff tiredness, staff burnout. And actually I think the risk is that this legislation actually runs the risk of removing what has been often a very important mechanism that forces government, Scottish, UK, local, to sit up and take notice of those who understand public services better than any of us do, because all of them work at the front line. So yes, sometimes industrial action can be difficult and disruptive. And it can frustrate politicians like us who have got a responsibility to try and deliver public services, but that's the whole point of it. The whole point of industrial action actually is to make the politically powerful sit up and take notice. So I don't think it's a divide between those who care about public services and those who don't, because actually in my experience, and I think we saw this earlier on with the legislation, it's those who work on the front line, the often other ones that care most and understand the most about the pressures that exist in public services. And for that reason, the Lib Den group will be supporting enthusiastically, Councillor Heap's motion. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot. I've seen no other contributions. So Councillor Heap can ask you to sum up and indicate what you're prepared to accept and what you're not prepared to accept. Yeah, thank you. Very happy to accept the Labor and S&P amendments, not the Conservative one. I do apologise as well for emailing a verbal amendment to mine and not verbalising it, so I'll do it now. That's insert at end, new point 10, and request the decision noted in point 8. If taken today, is communicated to CEC staff and residents? That's fine as a verbal amendment. OK, so I take it that those whose amendments have been accepted are not wanting to pursue them separately, and I take it that the Conservatives are still wishing to pursue their amendments. So if we could ring the bell, we'll have a vote. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, that's 52 votes for the motion 8 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Thanks very much indeed, that takes us on to item 8.6 motion on anchor field building by Councillor D. Thank you very much and happy to move my motion this afternoon. I spoke mostly around this this morning, but I will reiterate that we have had the meeting residents. So we'll be fortnightly meetings with local members and officers to update on any progress we've got. But it has been absolutely, I know an absolutely horrendous time for the residents who have been having this around their homes, and glad to see that everybody is now back in their homes and working with the Council and their insurers to come to solution and apparent repair for the building. I think it's accepted that we've not always got it right, and officers have fed that back at the meeting. My motion agrees that we will continue to not only work with the residents, but to engage with the contractors. There were exorbitant costs for scaffolding, which the officers are looking into just now. I know there's another quote came in from residents just in the last 24 hours, which I've asked officers to look at as well, and we're keen to absolutely keep the costs necessary to a minimum, given the awareness and nature of this situation. As was last part of my motion, commits to reevaluate all the costs, and as I touched on earlier this morning, that will include not applying any of the traffic management costs that were incurred by the Council, and entirely looking at all the costs incurred by the Council and contractors to see where we can help, and of course, to agree that we will, I think, through either Councilor Maar or Council, what's committed to making any required changes to the missing share scheme should that need to be increased, and I think officers are supportive of that as well. There's a commitment from me and the officers to ensure that we support residents through this process until a permanent repair is complete. It has been an extremely difficult time for everybody concerned. I do want to put my thanks to the residents and to Jackie Timmons in the shared repair service, the continuing to do to come to solution in this situation, have to move the motion. Thanks very much, Councillor D and a seconder. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Lord Provost. I'm seconding this amendment as a word colleague for the avoidance of any doubt on my left, but I do so because I want to put on record to my commitment to support the affected residents in whichever way that I can, whether that's continuing to try and improve communications between owners and officers, whether that's getting certain charges reduced or waived, or whether that's making sure that residents are involved in the decisions that are made towards a permanent solution for their building. I'm more than happy to keep doing this. As Councillor Day said, this is a really distressing situation with potentially devastating financial and personal consequences for the owners of these properties. They are our constituents, and so the very least this Council can do is to communicate clearly and consistently with them, so that they can make financial decisions in the most informed way. And this to me isn't political. I get the attraction of a spiker discussion about who said what and when and based on what information I get it. But personally, I don't think that serves the residents particularly well, and so instead I'm focused on supporting these residents by working together with word colleagues, plural, and with officers for as long as it's needed, and I second this motion. Thanks very much, Councillor D so Jamie. There is an amendment by the S&P group moved by Councillor Dobbins. I get a lot of progress. First, if I can make a verbal amendment, as Councillor, either intimating his report earlier in his remarks, just now our proposed 0.4, the part of the first sentence relation to costs associated with road closure has, indeed since being agreed with residents, so I'd like to delete that, and our 0.4 will therefore start agreed that costs for scaffolding, etc. This has been a very difficult time for residents, and I think all word Councillors have been involved. I'm very pleased that residents and Council officers are now fully engaged. It's been a bumpy journey to get to this point, but it now seems to be working and effective. The key points in our amendment are that, firstly, given the fluidity of the situation and the need to respond to developments in quick time, that any need to bring further motions to full Council shall not be subject to the six-month rule. Secondly, that costs associated with make-safe works be charged back to residents at reasonable mutual agreed rates, subject to F&R scrutiny. I would add that getting to a mutually agreed position may require some discussion. In a mail I was, I received yesterday from residents, which was sent to the Council's shared repair team. A quote obtained by the residents were scaffolding, reflected a charge of five times less for putting it up than they've been advised by Council, and 20 times less for the weekly rental charges. So there's, I think, a lot of discussion to go. In our amendment we talk about a developed option. This is where the residents recognize that they do not have the skills or the competencies or organization to manage these repairs and they've requested that the shared repair service take the lead and the amendment is asking the officers consider this and report back. It's not to say that shared repairs must do it, but if there's an option that the residents can consider. There have been a number of structural service conducted and indeed understand the various insurance companies representing the residents are finally going to conduct collectively conduct yet another survey. The requested report in our amendment to F&R summarizing the results of the various services is critically important in order to determine the cause of the significance and rapid movement of the building that suits strong since the late 1800s. There have been comments made in the press, I understand, from Councillor Landon based on one of the survey reports. However, other reports also understand suggest other potential causes. We believe that transparency in getting to the cause is the only way to arrive at a fair resolution and I move our amendment. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Dobbins. And to second, Councillor Nawsmith Vay. Thank you very much, Mr Provost. I was listening carefully to Councillor Doney and it sounded very reasonable except nothing that she's proposing that we vote for today in the administration party's motion actually addresses the fundamental concern and gives Councillors the ability to have influence, proper influence and decision-making over the charges that residents will face. And that is a concern. We are proposing a solidified bit of governance in terms of Councillors, I think, doing their job in making sure that residents do not face exorbitant bills. That's a point we all agree on. But they same peer that only one standing up and saying that Councillors should be taking that decision explicitly. And Councillor Doney might say that she doesn't want any scrutiny and accountability of the administration which her party is part and that it doesn't really matter who said what when. Well, I have to say, having spoken to the residents, it does. When residents feel like they've been gassed lit, when residents feel they have been misled, when residents feel misleading comments that were made in the press about them, they're building, when information has been withheld from Councillors, as part of the discussion we had on this as recently as February, I'm afraid it does matter who said what and when. It matters because it's part of a democratic process of this Council. And I will just end, Lord Provost, by saying one of the key asks in this MP proposal is that we see in the data room, if necessary, the surveys that have been concluded. There have been surveys instructed potentially by a number of authoritative bodies, including the Council, Cranston and Haven, and potentially others as well that the Council may be in retention of. Those have not been shared with Councillors, and if the Labor position supported by the Lydam coalition colleagues, and I'm assuming supported by their Tory coalition colleagues, vote to deny Councillors access to that information, they are hamstringing our ability to represent the people who need representation most. When things go wrong, Councillors need to step up and work collaboratively with officers, but it's us that should be taking the decision to make sure that residents are protected, and that's exactly what the S&P position does. Thanks very much, Councillor NOLS-McVie. Councillor Booth. Thanks, Rauch. Indeed, Lord Provost, just very briefly to explain why Greens will be supporting the original motion. This has been an extremely difficult time for residents, but I think there is a slight risk that the amendment will jump to conclusions, and we feel that it's better to wait for the information that has been agreed to in the report in the original motion, particularly around the tram line and external areas. I acknowledge there's been considerable work with ward Councillors on that, and my colleague, Councillor NIL, has also been involved in those discussions, so we will be supporting the motion as originally tabled. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Booth. There are no further contributions, so the Councillor did acknowledge you to sum up and indicate whether you're prepared to accept the amendment. Thank you, Lord, and can I thank Councillor Dobbins. Approach to this, it seems that he wants to work with local members, as he's one of them, to come to a solution, unfortunately, that's not the same as his seconder. The comments made by Councillor Dicks are down here, just unfair, that was comments that were said at the meeting as well, and I hope Councillor May you might go and reflect on them, maybe that's why he's in the backbenches now. This is not about being political, though, but obviously it's absolutely opposite. It's about local members trying to work together with the residents and with Council officers to come to the best solution we can. I think, as you heard from Councillor Booth, we don't need a jump to conclusions, as it seems to be suggested by some. We want to meet with us openly and fairly. And in the discussion we had with residents, they asked for some things from us, which is what was exactly in progress, which is really looking at the cost of scaffolding, really looking at the traffic management costs, which I've touched on earlier, and also regular meetings, which I've all committed to. And only a few people asked to access potentially the shared repairs scheme that may need to be increased, and again, as I touched on officers, have been open to that being increased subject to the relevant committee's agreement. So luckily, as the local members, we are all committed to make this happen. The coalition would be clear already. There's no coalition in it. And we've heard, just some Councillor Booth, the Greens will be supporting a sensible approach to this. Not a political approach to this, Lord Provis. A sensible approach to get the right thing done for the residents down at anchor field on that basin have to move the report and unable to accept the S&P's political motion. Okay, thanks very much. And I take it, the S&P are still wanting to pursue your amendment. In that case, we will have a vote to bring the vote. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] We are on item 8.6. It's a motion by Councillor Day on anchor field building. We have the motion by Councillor Day moved by himself, seconded by Councillor Dijkstra Downey. And against that, we have S&P amendment moved by Councillor Dauvin, seconded by Councillor Noles McVay as verbally amended. So motion by Councillor Day against the S&P amendment. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you and the votes for the motion please. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you. That is 42 votes for the motion, 18 for the amendment. The motion is carried. Thank you very much. That moves us to item 8.7. Motion by Councillor Stineforth, Chinese manufactured CCTV cameras. Councillor Stineforth. Thank you, Lord Provost. As there are no amendments tabled for this and we are approaching four, I'll be brief. This is about cyber security, particularly with regard to the privacy of our citizens and the CCTV cameras that monitor our city. And it's about ethics that the Council should make every effort to ensure that equipment it uses was manufactured in an ethical way. That is why I have brought this motion today. Obviously the legislation around procurement is complex, but Ross Greer's office in Hollywood, who has been campaigning on this on a national level, is looking into what can be done around the procurement legislation on this issue. So hopefully advice will be coming from the Scottish government on that. With that, I propose this motion. Very much Councillor Stineforth and is there a seconder? Formerly. Thanks, Councillor Parker. There are no amendments. Is that agreed? Thank you very much indeed. Takes us on to 8.8. I think that during this we are likely to head into the four o'clock one minute quick fire round, but I think you may have time to propose it, Councillor Parker. I'll be quick. Yeah, thank you, a lot, Provost, and thank you also everyone for their engagement on this, including a number of officers who work with myself and F&R leads in the run up to today. I think the deputation we heard from you earlier was very clear about the problems many students are experiencing around Council tax discounts, not being correctly applied in cases where students are taking longer than is standard as part of their PhD study. And I think the deputation was also very clear about the real hardship and anxiety that this was causing those students. The policy for student Council tax exemption is in place and is based on national legislation, and I think it is the process around its application, which is now the problem. My understanding is that that problem partly lies at the hands of the universities and the interface between the data and information that they hold and what is shared with the Council, an issue which has rid its head previously. The thrust of the motion then is about asking officers to engage with students and universities to resolve the problem of exemptions, not being applied correctly, and this is something which has become especially apparent in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic. There is a composite motion which I've put together taking on board the amendments submitted, making it clear that the problem is process not policy. This has been circulated and for ease and to save some time it will be proposed by Councillor Watt and Councillor Uni in lieu of their respective amendments. Thank you very much, Councillor interjecting. That takes us to the amendment by the Lib Dem group, Councillor Uni. Are you supposing the composite instead? I'm going to be withdrawing our amendment and then seconding the composite, so I'm not sure how that actually works. So the Lib Dem amendment is being withdrawn, excuse me, I will reset my brain. The amendment by the administration was being proposed by Mandy Watt and it suspect is being replaced by the composite. Right, Councillor Watt. Quickly new that, thank Councillor Parker for bringing this, thank everybody for getting together in a composite, excellent deputation. I know that Council officers have been working on this already with the University. Once the policy is clear, it will be on our website and we will work with the universities. The Council will work with the universities, all of them, to make sure that people are aware of where they stand. Getting into debt for Council tax is awful for anybody on a low income and that includes some students. PhDs, that students are taking it really seriously and they are a big value to the city and to society. There can be real advances and real talent that comes out through PhDs and it will be good to support that. So thank Ben again, Councillor Parker again, thank you, Councillor Uni, who is going to second and without moving the composite, thank you. Thanks, Councillor Watt. Councillor Uni. Thank you, Lord Provost and thank you to Councillor Parker for bringing the original motion and also for his fantastic composite as well. I think it really addresses the concerns raised in all the different amendments. It is fundamentally concerning that people are getting into such difficult situations because of the application of the misapplication of Council tax potentially and we need to help our residents, especially those who are on lower incomes to make sure that we are applying every bit of help to our residents that we can in the cost of living crisis. Yes, second. Thanks so much, Councillor Uni. Councillor Mo, I understand that you had emailed saying you were intending to withdraw your amendment, but I just need some confirmation. I think there's been some rather loose use of the word policy today, so given that ours was based on process around it being a policy, I will withdraw it because my understanding is this is just processed rather than policy. Thanks very much for that clarification. I think I can now ask Councillor Parker if you wish to sum up, but I think there is no counterproposal. Yeah, that was fine. Let's just crack on. Okay, in that case, there is no counterproposal. Is that agreed? Thank you very much indeed. We now move on to 8.9 and we can invite Councillor Uni to propose just. Thank you, thank you, Lord Provost. I'll begin with an admission. I didn't have breakfast this morning, and I'm sure my grand would be aghast at this. Every morning, she looked after us, she made sure that my sister and I had breakfast before we headed out for the day. I know how lucky we were that this was our experience throughout my primary school years. Every piece of research on the subject highlights how important a good breakfast is for young people, for their health, educational attainment, child poverty and social well-being, all these things and more are improved as a result of getting the nutrition that you need in the morning. There are several breakfast clubs already operating throughout the city providing a fantastic service. However, in some places, demand outstrips places available. Additionally, it seems that there is a variety of pricing options with different clubs providing different numbers of free places. Staffing pressure seems to be a real prohibitive factor. I know that down many primary school in my own ward, they're struggling to maintain provision. I have absolutely no problem with different situations existing in different schools. Every learning environment is unique, and the educators there are best places to tailor their breakfast clubs to meet the needs of young people, but also the parents who are, I assume, always rushing in the morning to get their kids to school, get them to the breakfast club, but then also get to work. What I'm keen to ensure that comes back in the report that I request in the motion is availability of places, affordability of places, quality of provision, and getting that comparison with neighbouring local authorities as well. The report of request is designed to gather information, understand the hurdles and work out options to improve the provision of breakfast clubs. Finally, I'd like to see this improvement come through support being provided to schools to deliver them in the way that they deem best. I propose the motion. Thanks. I just wanted to, could you, just because we're approaching four o'clock, indicate which of the addendums and amendments you prepared to accept? Happy to accept the S&P addendum, but not the Conservative. Thanks very much. Did a seconder? I think this counts for young. Thank you very much, Lord Provis, standing in for this one. I'm very pleased to second this. As a parent myself, I went through many a year of being reliant on breakfast clubs when my children were younger. It helps in so many different ways, but working parents in a very practical way, but children in getting a good start to the day, especially with issues of affordability and equity do exist. We do need to understand the playing field, we need to know what's available, where it's available, and affordable and accessible is for people before we can then move on to see how we try and help address where the gaps are. So happy to second this. Thank you. Thanks very much, indeed, Councillor Young. The addendum by the S&P group were within sort of seconds of the four o'clock thing, so Councillor, if you could be brief. I will, Lord Provis, yeah, I'll just be very quick. So this is a really good motion from Councillor Uni, and very much welcome the bringing it forward. I worked, as colleagues will know, for a few years in North Edinburgh as a support assistant in local schools, and during the, I suppose, the depths of the failed austerity project that led by the Conservative government, and saw firsthand how devastating that project was on hunger in our communities, particularly those that are experiencing poverty, generational poverty at times. And so our addendum really seeks to kind of bring out, it's very simple, bring out some of the relationship with very clear relationship, which we all know, using the data that we have available between our poverty communities of multiple deprivation, the statistics that we have on that, so that we can flag those areas potentially where there are black spots. So, yeah, happy to propose our amendment, our addendum, sorry, and very grateful to colleagues in the Liberal Democrats for accepting it. Thanks very much. Councillor Hill's lot. Seconder, Councillor McFarland. Formerly, thank you. Thanks very much. Takes us to the amendment by the Conservative group, Councillor Mert. Thank you, Lord Provis. I'll be brief, whilst no one doubts the importance of good nutrition for children. There are various government specified requirements for children and for access to food, and what Councillor Uni's motion does is ask for an awful lot of information that I think would be very, very difficult for officers to gather. So what we've asked for is bearing in mind that this slots international legislation, which we will have to report back to the national government, can we start by getting that information back and then thinking, is there more information that we need, or is that sufficient for us to plot what we can do? Unfortunately, the Council doesn't have the resources to feed every single child, and many children are fed by their parents, but before going off to school, we need to target it where it's most needed, and hopefully this information that we've asked for will enable us to do that. I move our amendment. Thanks very much, Councillor Moute. Councillor Katie, we've now hit four o'clock, so you have one minute to second. Formerly. That's even better. Thank you very much. Because we've now hit four o'clock, I'm afraid there are no contributions after four o'clock. I'm afraid, so we will need to just move to the... Is there something else? I think, Councillor, you indicated that you were accepting... You were not accepting a Conservative group amendment, but you weren't accepting the addendum by the SNP group. That's correct. Sorry, Lord Provost, I understand that the Labor Group was going to propose a verbal minor changes to wording. Oh, right. If it's a proposal, yes, you have up to a minute. Thank you, Lord Provost. It's just an under point one to change food to healthy, an under point two reducing to mitigate. Is that acceptable to movers? Great. In that case, and I take it, the Conservatives are still wanting to pursue your amendment, so what we will do, I think, is ring the bell. Oh, apparently we need a seconder for Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS, thank you very much. I think we will now ring the bell and we will assume that the bell has been rung for all subsequent ones after it is finished. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are at item 8.9. It's motioned by Councillor Uni on breakfast club provision. We have the motion by Councillor Uni moved by himself, seconded by Councillor Young, and against that we have the Conservative amendment. Seconded by Councillor COWIDY. Motion by Councillor Uni, can I take the votes, please for the amendment. And the votes for the motion, please. Thank you. That is 52 votes for the motion and 8 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Thank you very much indeed. Item 8.10, I am ruling that that falls file of the six-month rule, so it may be able to be brought back later on. 8.11 is the motion by Councillor CUMAR on the UK government Rwanda bill, Councillor CUMAR, I'm afraid you have one minute. Thank you, the safety of Rwanda, it's an oxymoron itself. There's no safety for asylum seekers in Rwanda. This bill is so horrendous that new powers had to be created just to oppose human rights. Now, we don't have the powers to change this law, but we can ensure that no flights out of our city will depart for Rwanda under this inhumane scheme. But we also need reassurances from the Labour Party that they will repeal and repatriate anyone deported. I move. Thank you. And that was commendably concise. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor CUMAR. Thank you, LORD Provost. Toddry, pathetic, self-defeating piece of fascist nonsense. As a quote from Alison Thullis, who's our SMP affairs spokesperson at Westminster, she's also the constituency MP for, I understand, the constituency of the highest number of refugees in the UK. Where's Streeting, Labour Cabinet spokesperson, we are not looking to unpick the Rwanda policy. I think that explains why the Labour amendment actually takes the guts out of some of it, some of our proposal. Why not ask, in my airport, to refuse such reprehensible activity? Why should I shift it on to the Scottish government? And why is there a lack of willingness to meet our 5D expectation of writing to a circular starmer? What's to stop them unless Cami needs to scurry to Mr Sarwar, who in turn will need to scurry to Mr Starmer to check what needs to be said in the letter? Thanks very much, Councillor McInnes. That takes us to the amendment by the Administration, Councillor Day, in a minute. Thank you, LORD Provost. I have to move the Administration amendment. In the second paragraph, I'd like to add what it says, Councillor Follough requests the Council of the Rights to, to include Edinburgh Airport and the Scottish Government. I mean, I'm pleased that most parties in the Chamber are keen for a new Labour government, as I am. Couldn't come sooner. But my leader has been quite clear that Labour will repeal the Rwanda Act in government, should they be in government, when elections are called. Couldn't have been, couldn't be clearer. The timeline has not been given yet, because we need to get into government and see what messages there has left that in before we can then take forward. Progressive policies for the UK that will work together across all nations in the United Kingdom. My leader in London, Keir Stanner, has said that he wants to crack down on people's smuggling gangs. I'm afraid you're running out of time. I have to move, LORD Provost. Thanks very much, indeed. Seconder, Councillor Jenkinson. Okay, formally, LORD Provost. Thanks, Councillor Jenkinson. It takes us to the Liberal Democrat Amendment, Councillor Lang. Thank you, LORD Provost. So, I think on any measure, this act is a failure. It's a failure in morality in terms of how it impacts upon some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It's a failure practically. In fact, there is zero evidence. It is deterring small boat crossings. And it is a failure financially. Almost £300 million spent and not a single flight taken off. And, LORD Provost, if, as all the polls suggest, there is going to be a change of government this year. We believe that it is important that the incoming Prime Minister and the incoming Labour government not just commit to scrapping this act, but scrapping it as one of its very first acts in government in the first 90 days. Thanks very much, Councillor Lang. And second, Councillor Thornely. Thank you, LORD Provost. Councillor Lang is quite right. It is a failure in so many ways. I would add one final one. Morally, it's disgusting, and the Labour Party needs to decide where it sits. Seconded. Thank you very much, Councillor Thornely. Okay. LORD Provost, I'd like to move no action. Okay, thanks, Councillor White. When LORD Provost, very quickly, this is a matter for the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They have had extensive debate on this. We understand some of the issues being raised from other parts of the Chamber here. But I reckon those have been debated extensively at length in those two other places. That's where they should be debated. All of these parties, not much of that party, it's a Scottish-only party, but all of these parties have representatives there. They've taken part in that. And apart from anything else, the challenge I would put back to them is if you do not declare Rwanda a safe country and allow for processing of migrants in that country, and you saying that Rwanda isn't safe, then what challenge do you have to sort the problem of people being trafficked in small boats across the Chamber? Thanks very much, Councillor White. Seconder for no action. I look forward to the appointment of Councillor Kumar as leader. We worked together in education where she had proven herself to be tenacious, composed and focused. All good attributes. I heard she intends to embrace unity in this Chamber rather than the divisive rhetoric of her predecessors and others who have been in the mix for her position. I had hoped for a wind of change, and I've been very disappointed with the tone of the language of grotesque and disgusting is not the fitting of the Chamber. This is not the UN. Our job is to fix potholes, empty bins, and oversee the running of schools, not dabbling in foreign affairs or the home office. I welcome the opportunity to bait these issues, and that would be on the campaign trail for Edinburgh South with Councillor Kumar, not here, and I second no action. Thanks very much indeed. Okay, Councillor Kumar, to sum up, can you indicate what you're prepared to accept and what you're not prepared to accept? Thank you, Lord Provost. Very delighted to accept the Libdam Amendment and unable to accept the Labor. You will not accept? Not accept, thank you very much. Okay, I think that leads us to a vote about action and no action first, and then, depending on the outcome of that, potentially further vote. It does indeed, Lord Provost, yes, you're right. So we are on 8-8-8-11, motion by Councillor Kumar in the UK Government Rwanda bill. We have the motion by Councillor Kumar, elected by Councillor McKinnis, which also accepts the Liberal Democrat Amendment. We have the Administration Amendment, which was verbally amended, moved by Councillor Day, seconded by Councillor Jengerton. And we have the Conservative Amendment of no action, moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Cowdy. So we'll take a first vote on 4 and against no action. So can I please take the votes for no action? Can I take the votes please against no action? Thank you. The Provost, we'll have to end with to our motion. Okay, that is 8 votes for no action, 52 votes against no action. We then, Lord Provost, have no other vote to have. There's then no other proposition, so the motion is passed. That takes us to item 8-12 by Councillor Kumar, Edinburgh Community Learning and Development Partnership Plan. Councillor Kumar. Thank you, Lord Provost. The HM Inspector report highlighted really good things with the CLD plan, but it also highlighted failures in leadership and governance. And although there's a paper coming to the June Committee in Education, a composite motion has gone on out because we do want more time to review that and do it well. So I move. Thanks very much indeed. Could I have a seconder? 4-9, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor. His vote. I'm just catching up with my procedure here. Councillor Griffiths to propose an amendment by the administration. Thank you. Councillor Kumar, very kindly incorporated the words that we were going to put in an amendment and to go with the... That's withdrawn. Sure. My understanding is we've got an all-party composite. So I'm going to write some guidance on composite motions because they're always confusing to me as well. Because you can't have a composite motion against nothing, which means that Councillor KUMA had to move her motion. And that's seconded, put it on the paper. Then we need someone to move and second the composite so that that can get agreed. So Councillor Griffiths, would you like to move the composite? You have it up to a minute. I will informally move the composite. Thanks very much indeed. And a seconder of the composite. Councillor Uni, seconded formally. Thanks very much indeed. There are no other, I think, I hope. I think that's it. So there is no other proposition. So is the composite agreed. Great. Thanks very much. Right. Item 813 by Councillor Kumar. And by children's partnership. Councillor Kumar. Thank you, Lord Pervis. This motion is actually quite simple. We recognise importance and value of children's partnership and multi-agency work. What we do have concerns and concerns across the chambers is how that actually works, how important decisions are made and the democratic processes. We've had too many items come to the committee with that proper scrutiny that is being made somewhere else. And we need to strengthen that and I'm happy to move our position. Thanks very much Councillor Kumar and a seconder. Thanks Lord Pervis, that's me again yet. So just to echo what my colleague Councillor Kumar has said, this is about governance and accountability. We're elected to this chamber and sent to that committee to represent interests of young people and the families. And in order to do that and to do our best by them, we need to make sure the decision-making bodies are transparent and accountable. So I second. Thanks very much Councillor Haslam to move the agenda by the Liberal Democrat Group, Councillor Uni. Thank you, me again. Yeah, we think it's a really good motion. We just added that little point on, I hope it's acceptable. Just in the interest of transparency as well, we hope that will help. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you very much, Lord Pervis. I'm happy to come up and second this one. As Councillor Kumar has touched on and thank you for bringing this here, we have had some issues lately in education committee. We are lack of knowledge and understanding over areas of responsibility and delegation has caused us some challenges. So I really welcome that this is before us. We'll help to provide that kind of real definition. And again, in terms of our addendum, we're trying more and more to have things we have passed and are now in the public for transparency and for accessibility. And hopefully you'll find our addendum accessible, acceptable. I'm happy to second. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Young. Then the addendum by the Conservative Group, Councillor Cody. Thank you very supportive of Councillor Kumar's motion. Thank you very much for bringing it. Our addendums, the F2I were taken from motion from the EIGB in November and we thought there were some parallels. So we're hoping that that would add to the scrutiny and the final point was to add a briefing just to help with members' understanding. And I propose. Thanks very much. Councillor Cody. Okay. To second, Councillor Jones. Thanks very much, Councillor Jones. Now, could I ask Councillor CUMAR to indicate which you're prepared to accept? Accepting them all. Accepting them all. In that case, there is no counter-proposal as I agreed. Thank you very much indeed. That takes us then onto item 814 by Councillor Aston on Edinburgh bus station and there was a written deputation on this matter. Yeah, thanks, Lord Provost, obviously, as we saw in the deputation, I'm sure we all kind of instinctively know the bus station is a key piece of the city's strategic transport infrastructure. Kind of up there with Waverly and Haymarket in terms of importance and as the bus users' group said in their deputation, probably handles more passengers than Haymarket station does. So, obviously, the rumours we've seen in the press that sites way out in the outskirts like Ingleston could potentially be considered a very worrying effort to be taken seriously. You know, clearly, that far out from the city centre massively diminished the attractiveness of travelling to Edinburgh by intercity bus undermines the levels of integration we currently have next to the train station, the tram stop, our excellent local buses, and of course, the inevitable impact of that is that it makes car travel more attractive, which is exactly the opposite of the council's strategic priorities. And, you know, this isn't – we could be told potentially commercially sensitive information without the council having to tip its hand in terms of future negotiations, but we have to see what options are available, what contingencies they are. Thanks very much. That's the minute I'm afraid. Thank you. And, seconder. Formerly the province. Thanks very much, Councillor McFarland. There is an amendment by the administration, Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Lord Povis. The bus station itself is a gateway to Edinburgh, 5 million people per year. Go through it. A lot of them, it's their first interaction with Edinburgh. Isn't that right, Councillor Bandol? We have to remember that and we have to get it right, private joke. And I would also – I want to thank Councillor Arson for bringing this along because I think that we need to speak about buses here more often, I think. But this is really important for the city and I'm looking forward to looking at the options appraisal with other tech members, hopefully sooner rather than later. Thank you, Lord Povis. Thanks, Councillor Arthur. And a seconder for Councillor Arthur. Formerly. Thanks, Councillor for the agenda, and then an addendum by the Green Group, Councillor Bandol. Thank you. We're grateful to Councillor Arson for bringing this motion and agreement that has been reached by everyone, I believe. Our denim just quickly makes the point that the current owner is a pension fund for former coal industry workers, which should have the best interest of its members as a hard. And in this case, it is in the interest of its members to support a trust transition that ensures nobody is left behind as we decarbonise our economy. So, essentially, a located bus station that is encouraging low carbon travel is exactly what it should be investing in. Thank you. Thanks very much. And a seconder. Formerly, Lord Povis. Well, thanks very much indeed. Thank you. That takes us to an amendment by the Conservative Group, Councillor Cody. Thank you, Lord Povis. Our amendment is fairly simple. It's designed to both support the motion for a report on what is a significant issue for the city's public transport network and to keep the breadth of ideas. More open by trying to avoid focus on compulsory purchase issues, which we have not the funding, nor should we have the inclination to trample over the rights of private property owners. I agree that continuation of a centrally located bus station is of great importance. And I trust great consideration would be given to an alternative site where we have more control, such as Cassiterra's car park. With that, I thank Councillor Astin for raising the motion and propose our amendment. Thanks so much, Councillor Cody. And thank you very much. I agree with Councillor Astin's concerns. And I'm glad that he brought this today regarding the bus station, how important it is to residents and also Edinburgh bus users group. We support a report coming in three cycles, but we need to know what discussions have taken place so far with the owners of the bus station, including any discussions surrounding the purchase of the site, finding an alternative site in the city, and the impact to relocate the bus station to sites such as Engleston, which we think would be concerning to Mary to many. It would also be remiss of me not to raise our concerns around a compulsory purchase order, forcing the cohort to sell and using public money to make this purchase, which could prove legally difficult. We want to see what options are available to the Council to ensure that Edinburgh retains a bus station in the centre of the capital. Thanks so much, Councillor Woodrow. That takes us to the summing up. Councillor Astin, could you indicate what you're prepared to accept, what you're not prepared to accept? Yeah, absolutely happy to accept the Labor amendment and the Green Addendum. And I think I've got agreement from the Conservatives to accept their amendment as an addendum on the basis that the three cycles timeframe instead maps to what Councillor Arthur has set out in terms of June or August. I'm seeing lots of agreement from the Conservatives. In that case, if all of those are acceptable, there is no counter-proposal, so is that agreed? Thank you very much indeed. That takes us on to item 815 by Councillor Gartner, sister city's recognition. Councillor Gartner. Thank you, Lord Provost. And in bringing this motion, it's important to note that we really value the links and solid down to our sister cities. The link with Munich came about after the devastating war between our countries, and it's now 70 years old. I understand that there's broad agreement in the Chamber about celebrating the names of the sister cities and marking and street names. And we therefore accept parts of the amendments from both the Labor and Liberal Democrat groups. Where we differ is that we're requesting a report to the Planning Committee to consider renaming the part of the street where the Russian Federation is located to Kiev, Giv Street. This is about the true solidarity of the citizens of our sister city at this difficult time. Producing a report to a small ask compared to the suffering that's going on in that city. As a student in Glasgow in the 1980s, I was made aware of the importance of solidarity and the impact of actions that Councillors can take through the renaming of St. George's Place in Glasgow into Mandela Place, and how that gave solidarity and inspiration to the prisoners in Robin Island. I'm afraid your minute is up. Thank you, Lord Provost. Councillor Gail explain the civic government Scotland Act and how that interfaces. Wait a minute. Thanks very much. Seconding. I believe Section either 87 or 97 of the Civic Government Act 1982 allows us to rename Street's given 28 day publication in the local press. I hope that a report that is requested by our motion could go into much more detail than I can at this point in a second. No pressure. Thank you very much indeed. The amendment by the administration, Councillor DAGLISH. Thank you, Lord Provost. First of all, I want to thank Councillor Gartner for bringing forward this motion. I think it's right to show our support for our sister cities across the globe, but particularly the city of Kiev in the nation of Ukraine. Our amendment focuses on the question of the process regarding the naming policies and what is the clearest way of achieving. As well as acknowledging the fact that underrepresented groups, particularly women, is a focus of water streets named after. I appreciate Councillor Bailaji trying to give us some information about this act, but this act was only introduced about 45 minutes into this conversation. I think we need more time to discuss and debate that and understand its ramifications and implications and get officer comments. So I might not be able to accept that. I think the Labor amendment clearly states that all 10 sister cities should be added to the street name bank with Kiev being named as the first amongst those equals. And that we try and centre the focus of our attention, not necessarily on the Russian consulate in Mabel Street, but focus on the unique and positive flinks we have of our sister cities and residents in those cities that live in Edinburgh. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks so much, Councillor DAGLISH. And to second, Councillor Lazy-Marian Cameron. Thank you, Lord Provost, just very briefly. I agree with what Councillor DAGLISH has said, but also highlighting the fact that we do have many underrepresented groups, especially women, that we also have taken a decision previously to name streets after. Thanks very much indeed, Councillor Lazy-Marian Cameron. And then amendment by the Liberal Democrat group, Councillor Thornley. Thank you, Lord Provost. I'd like to congratulate Councillor Bailaji on his power of recall. While we completely understand the sentiment of Councillor Gardner's motion, we do have some concerns. We feel these concerns are pretty well captured within the Administration Amendment, so we'll withdraw. Thanks very much indeed. Okay, that is withdrawn. So can I now move back to Councillor Gardner and ask you just to clarify once again what you're prepared to accept and what you're not. Thanks. Yes, so Lord Provost, what we will accept and will add a point six in is to take from the Labor Amendment. The following, the Council's street naming procedures were last updated by Planning Committee on October 2019, when it was agreed that the priorities should be given where possible to women's names. And then we're taking from the Liberal Democrats to address underrepresented groups and promote diversity. And then that involves renaming our 6, 7 and 8 as 7, 8 and 9. And finally, on to 9, we're going to add, after our words, new streets, full stop, we're going to add the Liberal Democrats' sentence. This action should be considered as an opportunity to highlight cultural links between Edinburgh and its sister cities to strengthen and recognise cultural ties. Thank you, Lord Provost. Okay, thanks, Councillor Gardner. I hope everybody got that. But if not, can I just check with the administration whether you're still wishing to pursue your amendment separately? We will, thank you. You would like to, okay. And Liberal Democrats want to continue with your, okay. In that case, that's withdrawn. Okay. So that there's just there for one vote. Yes. Okay, thank you, Lord Provost. So we are on item 8.15 is motion by Councillor Gardner. And it's just the city's recognition street naming. We have the motion by Councillor Gardner, moved by himself, seconded by Councillor Biassie. And against that, we have the administration amendment, moved by Councillor Doubtley, seconded by Councillor Cameron. So motion by Councillor Gardner against administration amendment. Can I take the votes, please, for the amendment? Thank you, and the votes for the motion, please. Thank you, that is 28 votes for the motion. 32 for the amendment, the amendment is carried. Thank you very much. That takes us on to item 8.16 motion by Councillor Mumford on landlord registration fees. Councillor Mumford. Thank you, so Provost. This motion has been borne out of, and has caused, some confusion this month, with conflicting information coming from the Council and the Scottish Parliament about whether Councils do have the power to charge landlord's additional fees. So I'm very grateful for all the engagement with officers on this, and from the Liberal Democrat colleagues who will be proposing the composite amendment. And so I'll say now we're very happy with that. Because although our groups have different views on over how exactly we should take action on this issue, and which committee it should sit under, there's clear agreement between our positions. And that is that local authorities should have more say in and control of the fees associated with the private rented sector in our city. I'd also like to thank Libdom and SMP colleagues for pointing out that the fees have slightly increased from what's in the motion, a sign of how long these conversations with officers in the Parliament have been going on with going on for. So with that, I move this motion. Thanks. Thanks, Councillor Mumford. And seconder. Just formally. Thanks very much, Councillor Parker. And the amendment, is it Councillor Flannery? Okay, just checking that. So with drawing the motion, amendment, in favour of the composite. Somebody needs to propose the composite. That's me. Okay, well, please go ahead. Please go ahead and propose that composite. I'd like to propose the composite. Thank you very much. Is it a seconder? Sorry. Yes, thank you, Lord Provost. And thank you to members across Chamber for indulging us in this. I think local politics is strongest when we explore things fairly and if it means working together to look at things to make sure things are fair, then that's what we will do. Thank you. Seconder. Thanks very much. Now, I think, and I'm just going to double check with Councillor Mumford that you're happy to accept the composite amendment. Yes, which has been proposed. And therefore, there is no counterproposal. That's correct. And therefore, we're all agreed. Is that right? Fantastic. Good. That takes us then onto item 817, motion by Councillor Ray on the Jean F. Watson bust. Councillor Ray. Thank you, Lord Provost. And moving this motion, put some very honour to bring. I would like to thank, firstly, the cocktail triplets. The singular one. And then I would also like to thank Miss Jean Watson herself who's out, had contribution to her in this city. We wouldn't have the gallery that we have and the very expensive coffee shop appended to that. I've alluded very much forward to seeing Jean Watson's bust. She's splendid next to that coffee shop. And I would say that at this point, I'm afraid I can't accept the amendment. And I thank my colleague who will second this motion, Councillor Mumford, for sending the link to the resources that I request to the Liberal Democrats. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. So, I've got a hint there that the secondary would might be Councillor Mumford. Councillor Mumford. It is. Thank you very much. Just formally, though. Thanks very much, Councillor Mumford. The amendment by the Liberal Democrats, Councillor Thornley. Thank you, Lord Provost. And thanks to Councillor Ray for bringing this motion. I recall she's been looking into this for some time, and she's done a power of work behind the scenes in the spirit of the concerns expressed about the extent of our request and our amendment. We're happy to drop on U.4, so it just becomes a report to culture and communities. I move. Thank you. And, Councillor Rosalner. Formerly. Thank you very much. Can I – that's all of the proposals. Can I now go back to Councillor Rainsey in the light of the amended amendment? Are you prepared to accept that or not? No, it stands as this, I think. Thanks. Okay, Liberal Democrats, we wish to pursue the amendment as adjusted. The report needs to go to a committee, so yes, we will pursue. Okay, so we'll have a vote. Thank you. Okay, we are on 8/17. It is a motion by Councillor Ray on the G&F Watson Bost. We have a motion moved by Councillor Ray, seconded by Councillor Mumford. We have, against that, a Liberal Democrat amendment moved by Councillor Thornely, seconded by Councillor Osler, which is just the .3 element of the amendment only. So, motion by Councillor Ray, amendment Democrats. Can I take the votes, please, for the amendment? Thank you, and for the motion, please. Thank you. That is 36 votes for the motion, 24 for the amendment. The motion is carried. Thanks very much. That then ticks us to item or province. 8/18, which is motion by Councillor Cody banning the use of mobile phones during school day, and there was an excellent deputation heard earlier today on that. Thank you. Thank you, LORD Provost. I think the motion is fairly self-explanatory. It is about trying to combat the issue of distraction of mobile phones during the school day. I was fairly elated last night when I checked the amendments and saw that the Greens and the Lib Dems seemed to be single of the same page. I was very then deflated, disappointed this morning when I found a composite motion against my position. So, I am going to propose, I think we've got a strong position and I'm going to propose my motion. Thanks very much, Councillor Cody and second, Councillor Jones. Thank you, LORD Provost. The survey referred to in this motion has shown that teachers in Scotland have mixed views on banning phones in schools. But, however, the vast majority survey say that mobile phones disrupt classes. And that is the point here. We need to try to achieve a balance. The most important fact I think here in the survey is that while 72% of members indicated that the school had mobile fine policy, only 10% could refer to a policy that they considered extremely effective or very effective. And to me, that is the point. We need to get a policy which is used by all schools which is effective. Thanks very much, Councillor Jones. Now, there has been a composite which has been circulated. Do I understand from all of the other groups that were proposing amendments that you're withdrawing your amendments in favour of the composite? I'm seeing nods, so if you don't shout, that's happened. So could I invite the person who is proposing the composite to propose it? Thank you, LORD Provost. I'm trying to find a cut everything out. There are pros and cons regarding these digital devices in schools, but it's not a new issue. It's been around for quite a number of years. We know the UK government has released guidance on mobile phones in schools in England, and the Scottish government is about to bring guidance forward due to course. A number of our schools across the city have already implemented their own policies regarding mobile phone usage. Any policy we implement is best guided by our teachers, young persons and the wider community. Where guidance is welcome, it's also vital that we do not implement this without the consultation of our teachers and young people, and to ensure that no blanket ban is enforced which may disadvantage any young person for whom access to a mobile phone is essential. That's why I think this is a great opportunity, ask our schools what implemented bans or restrictions they already have in place, and also ask the young people's forum for their views on the matter and further identify with any gaps in existing policies. I'm afraid that's the minute. That's a perfect timing, thank you very much. Yeah, that's my self lord provost. I'll be very brief because Councilor Griffiths has pretty much said everything that expressed everything that I've used on it. When I saw the motion that came forward from the Conservatives, I thought the banging on drum, it's not going out about the UK government's position in their guidance. That's not an effective way to implement policy. If they're serious about the harms and the problems that mobile phone usage causes in schools, then bring forward policies that have a strategy towards minimising mobile phone usage that actually will be effective, which means working with the communities, working with the broader school communities, working with parent councils, working with people. In order to build effective policies that have buy-in from those communities, so we're happy to second this composite. Thanks so much indeed. Just a double clarification with Councillor KAide that you still wish to pursue your motion rather than the composite. Is that a yes? That's a yes, we've no idea which Scottish government are going to come back with their guidance. In that case, we moved to a vote. Thank you lord provost. We are on item 818, it's a motion by Councillor KAide on banning on using mobile phones during the school day. We have the motion moved by Councillor KAide, seconded by Councillor Jones. And against that we have a composite amendment moved by Councillor Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Hislaw. So motion by Councillor KAide against composite amendment. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? Yes. Thank you, and the votes for the motion please. Thank you. That's a vote for the motion 52 for the amendment. The amendment is carried. Thank you very much. I will now vikit the chair and invite the deputy lord provost to take over. Thank you very much. Thank you. Lord provost I hope you're not going to leave us. I've got stairs. Members of council is my very happy duty to propose the congratulatory motion for 40 years service as a Councillor to our 258th lord provost and lord lieutenant of the city of Edinburgh. When he was elected our lord provost, the lord provost said I look forward to being a proud civic lead for the world's best capital city and working to make sure Edinburgh remains a leading light on the global stage. One of his well washers said at the time also he will need every ounce of his patience and ability to make people work well over the next work well together over the next five years. I first got to know Robert in the mid 90s prior to being elected myself when Robert was elected to the then shadow authority. And since then I've got to know him extremely well. We were Bailey's together in the last term and of course I happily serve as his deputy lord provost during this term. I'm very grateful to Robert as being a former EICC board chair like myself for his continued support and wisdom in that role. And I think it's absolutely wonderful that we're all here today and that six days ago you would on the 3rd of May that absolutely marked your 40 years since your first election to the city of Edinburgh. Robert congratulations from me and I think that's because of all of the chamber that we appreciate what you do as our lord provost but what an inspiration to have served our city of Edinburgh so well so faithfully so diligently and the job that you're doing as lord provost particularly tune a bit years in and you've already had some significant events to deal with and to represent our city so finally so thank you very much for your service as a counselor and as our lord provost thank you. [Applause] The second counselor line thank you very briefly deputy provost coming from a party of liberal democrats who tend never to win elections. It's all the more extraordinary that we've got a member who has done that 10 times but by any measure serving as a counselor for 40 years is an extraordinary record of public service. And I think Dolby Paul all of us find more extraordinary than anything else is that you still do it with such energy and with such stamina. And whether it's been in opposition administration or as our lord provost it's been clear that your commitment to this city has been total. So congratulations on reaching the most extraordinary milestone although I know you're quite competitive so you've still got a few years yet to go before you break the all time record that has been set. But thank you for all that you've done and our congratulations Dolby. [Applause] Well I'm now completely embarrassed but thank you thank you all for your kind words and your applause. I'm sure it won't last we'll get into the next council meeting but thank you so much I really appreciate that. We now due to your efficiency in getting through these motions have a chance to have some questions and supplementary questions until five o'clock so the treats just never end. Here we go. So it's question 10.1 by council keep increase and take up of blue badges for answer by the leader of the council. Is there a supplementary? There's no supplementary. Question 10.2 by council you missed you sub blue badges. Oh it missed you sub blue badges for answer to the council. Is there sub-flage? Yes. Yes please Lord Provost. Thank you to the leader for their answer. The answer notes the officers are currently developing a business case to support ongoing blue badge enforcement. As the council caught 21 people misusing badges at the same time as thousands going unclaimed will the leader commit also to an additional business case to better support people applying for blue badges and other entitlements. Good evening. Thank you Lord Roskin. Thank you for this supplementary. I mean I think the increase that we've seen in the customer hub to ensure that people who are applying for a wide range of benefits has been reported to PNSF for a previous dip in that and some issues with employing colleagues to work there. The customer hub is increased that we're also working across the city with the many welfare benefits providers in the third sector as well. There have been droppings in schools and community hubs and local venues across the city to try and access both blue badge requests and much wider benefit support and advice. But I absolutely welcome to bring forward any other suggestions that the officers might take forward in terms of accessing allowing more people to access blue badge applications and wider benefits as well. I know the local teams across the city would be really keen to hear that so thank you for your supplementary. Thanks so much. Christian 10.3 by Councillor HEEP negotiations with large events organizers. Is there some symmetry? I mean usually well organised this time I got them in first. Thank you to the convener for their answer. The answer says that in relation to large music events the venue is hired by a promoter who is responsible for decisions relating to ticket provision and neither the venue nor the council have any influence. They might not have any direct power but I would argue they do have influence. And as our new Chief Executive put it at Culture and Community some time ago we can still ask nicely that the tickets are provided as a community benefit and as a gesture to the city. So can we please do that? Councillor Walker. Yes, first of all I want to thank you Councillor HEEP for championing free and reduced tickets in terms of the commercial venues. We did think you look just absolutely no chance like for the tails with the last two or are we going to be given free or reduced tickets? But we can take it further and I'm very good at asking nicely so give it a go. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. Question 10.4 by Councillor HEEP firework control zones. Thank you. I know there's Taylor Swift fans in our group so they'll be pleased about the last answer. In terms of 10.4 thank you for outlining the community request process. I understand from officers that residents wanting to propose a city wide zone can email the email address provided to make that request. That's really, really welcome and I thank officers for that, for facilitating that and for their work more generally on control zones. That being the case, can I ask why that opportunity is not referred to anywhere on the Council's webpage and AFCZs, anywhere in the Council's press release on Monday, nor on the application form. It's only in my email inbox at the moment. Councillor Walker. I think this is really good work going on within the Council in terms of investigating what we can do to control. Fireworks and the sale of fireworks. As to why that's not on the website. I don't know but I will investigate and see that it is on the website. Also, I think you'll be aware that this is an item that will be discussed at Cultural Communities Committee in a week's time. Thanks. Thank you very much indeed. It takes us to question 10.5 by Councillor Parker at Grass Cutting Trials. Is there a supplementary? Yeah, thank you. With regard to the answer to question six about promotion and engagement, come the convener confirm that those resources will be shared with elected members so that we can share the good news far and wide and as soon as possible. Councillor Walker. Very happy to confirm that. Thanks very much. That takes us to question 10.6 by Councillor McFarland, Morrison Street, Low Mission Zone. Thanks to the convener for his answer and the officers for the hard work on this. Can I just get reassurance that ghost signs as part of this work will be landstoff and the adjacent streets that the Western Community Council have raised. The signage is reviewed around the kind of around the actual street itself as part of that work to make it safer. But thanks for the answer. Councillor interjecting. Happy to pick that up. Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much, Councillor Arthur. Question 10.7 by Councillor Lange, pedestrian crossings. I do. A lot of progress. Thank you. So an answer to question one, the convener says that new pedestrian crossings could be prioritised if there are the last bullet quote, luckily identified issues, which feels like quite a broad term. Does it think it'd be useful to have our briefing note, round Councillors, so we can understand what kind of issues would justify a new pedestrian crossing separate from a PV2 assessment? Councillor Arthur. I think this is part of the move away from the PV2 assessments. What I'll commit to is over the next two or three committee cycles, maybe get something in the business building just to clarify that point. It's not a problem. Thanks, Councillor Arthur. Question by Councillor Lange, planning concerns granted within Queen's Ferry over the last eight years. I've got no supplementary for this or questions, 9, 10 or 11. Okay. You're making me rush past my list here. So that's question 10, 12 by Councillor Caldwell, CPZ phase one and two dialogue. Thank you for us. Thank you, Councillor for the answer. In regards to answer two that you gave, the phase one monitoring will lead to phase two to be examined by committee. How will phase one engagement and monitoring lead to improvements within phase one, Leaf, Abbihill, Gorgay, Chandon? Thank you. Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Councillor Arthur. I shall speak to officers and get an answer for you. Thank you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 13 by Councillor Beall, emergency yellow lines. Yeah, thanks. I'd just like an answer. Does the Council actually have a specific policy for how it implements these statutory instruments for emergency yellow lines? Because it seems a bit like a bit more sort of detail in that, please. Thanks. Councillor Arthur. I think, essentially, I mean, the Council uses the policies very, very rarely. So I think, essentially, what they're doing is following the legislation. If you do have concerns about it, you think there's a policy gap? Please get in touch and I can chase that. Thank you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 14 by Councillor Nolles-McVay, charges to anchor field residents. Councillor Nolles-McVay. I do thank you very much, Lord Provost. Can I ask in relation to answer number 4, how will Councillors ensure that bills do reflect market rates for scaffolding? What decision-making mechanism is open to Councillors to be part of the final decision on the bills that are issued? Councillor DING. As I touched on, I thank Councillor Nolles-McVay for his supplementary. As I spoke of earlier, the officers are working through all the costs and the recent information that was supplied to local members about the difference in scaffolding costs, for example, has been investigated. Officers, in the earlier response to the discussions, I did commit that we will bring forward the report to PNS. And if there's any of that information that can be provided in that report, we will, of course, supply that for scrutiny to all members. Thanks, Councillor DING. I get question 10, 15 by Councillor Nolles-McVay on anchor field. Thank you, Lord Provost. Can I ask in relation to answer 1, who is the lead owner that's mentioned in the answer? Because this is a building where every property within it is owned by someone different. Councillor DING. Thank you, Lord Provost, Councillor Nolles-McVay for his supplementary. I am aware that there was one member who, I think, from the group took a lead on this and had contacted the consultant. And that's where the information was fed back to, and the officers understood that they had been shared. I'm not sure that was shared with all the residents, but it was a request from one of the owners for the consultant's report. Thanks very much. Question 10, 16 by Councillor DOBIN, tram payments to residents of anchor field. Councillor DOBIN. No, something around you, thanks for 17. Thank you very much, Councillor DOBIN. It takes us to question 10, 18 by Councillor Nicholson, Carres Act funding. Thank you, yeah, quick supplementary, thanks for the answer. Could I have some information on each year from 2021, a breakdown of how much has been distributed to Carres through the Adult Carres Support Plan? I'm aware that you won't be able to give that to me now. Thanks. OK, Councillor POX. Yes, thank you, of course, Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. Happy to follow that to provide the information. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor POX. Question 10, 19 by Councillor CASSIDY. His luck, West Craig's transport links. Thanks, Yadu. Thanks, Councillor After, for the answer. I'm curious to know if you think that the fact that these residents and these new houses that were promised public transport links aren't going to have a bus service for potentially another year or more is going to increase personal car usage and congestion in West Edinburgh. Thanks, Councillor Ather. Yeah, obviously it's a really concerning situation, and I'll be honest, I wasn't aware until you used the question, so I'm really grateful for your reason to question. Thank you. Thank you very much. Question 10, 20 by Councillor Afton, traffic light and pedestrian crossing lightbulb. Thanks, Lord Provost, and I find the convener for his answer. My supplementary is in relation to the answer to the first part of my question. I am really struggling to understand how this answer could be provided. Obviously the plural of anecdote is not data, but will the convener agree to seek out the data behind this, to give us an understanding of, you know, why the data is not matching up to what people are seeing in the streets every day? Councillor Ather. I think the point I was trying to make is that I'm not aware of there's been any increasing problem, and I think that was suggested in your question. But genuinely, if you've got specific questions, I can put them to officers and get an answer if there's not a problem at all. Thank you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 21 by Councillor Parker. Yes, thank you. Can the convener confirm the reason why the advertising contract with Leonardo was terminated as detailed in Question 9? Councillor GRIFFITHS. I don't have that information, but I'll get that to you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 22 by Councillor Flannery, Saint visits for fees for Binhob Design, South Side area. Councillor Flannery. Hello, yes, I would like just a little bit more clarification. Please answer three. You gave me good information about 135 Binhob location, 67 of which were reported. But my question was about South Side Newington, particularly. So, could you please tell me the specific sites and site visits for there? Thank you. Councillor MURPHY. Apologies, I must have missed a tip of your question. I'll get that answer to you as soon as possible. Thank you. Question 10, 23 by Councillor Flannery, impact assessment. Again, could you confirm that impact assessments are done on all the surrounding roads where there are major road works? I don't think you address that directly. Councillor interjecting. I think obviously a closure like what we've seen at Cameron's tour was unplanned. I can only assume that an impact assessment is done on surrounding roads, but there comes a question of where you clearly draw the line. So, if you're able to put the question in a more specific form, I'm happy to take it back to Officer Znask and that's what happened. It's not a problem. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. Do you want to get a little comeback without an offer? No. OK. [LAUGHTER] Worth a try. Question 10, 24 by Councillor Flannery, parking permits. Yes, and again, it's confirmation I'm looking for here that we are issuing parking permits, knowing or knowingly knowing that actually there aren't the spaces for them. So, again, can you confirm that or not? Councillor interjecting. I think that's the case and I don't think it's new. I think all the time I've lived in the city, certainly for some years that has been the case. Of course, not all the spaces are getting used all the time, but if Councillors do have a concern about that and they want to bring down the number of permits in their zone, they're welcome to come along to committee with a motion asking for that. That's not a problem. Thanks very much. I understand Councillor Douglas is not present, so his questions will be dealt with under the five o'clock road, that's 10, 25 and 26. I'm going to push through to the end because it would be unfair to leave Councillor Booth out of the list. So, Councillor Jones, question 10, 27, number of places allocated for early years. Thank you for the answer and no supplementary. Thanks very much indeed. 10, 28 by Councillor Mitchell, coming up in review. I was expecting to get to me. Sorry. The question I have, which is ready, is how could I have clarity on how there could be more second stage complaints compared to first stage complaints? Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Councillor Mitchell. I'd love to see it. I've been taking off the culture and communities. I'm glad to see you're still in the binhole. Excellent. Yes. That's an interesting question. I will get an answer to that for you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Question 10, 29 by Councillor Booth short term length. Thank you very much indeed, Lord Provost. I thank the convener for her answer. The statistics appear to show that certificate of lawfulness applications account for more than 80% of certificate of lawfulness applications are still to be determined. Please can the convener clarify the reason for this? I thank my colleague for the question. I don't actually know the answer straight off because obviously it's quite complicated. I know that there is a complication in the level of detail that is required to actually understand a certificate of lawfulness and sometimes some of the applications don't have full information. So there is a request to go back to individuals to get more information. But what I will do is I will find out from colleagues to get an answer back and I will make sure that everyone has the answer because I'm sure it's of interest to everybody in this room. Thanks very much. Councillor Osler. And the final question, Councillor Booth. Thank you, Mr. Dean. Lord Provost, I thank the convener for his answer. In answer to previous questions, he committed to engage with ward Councillors on the school street at Stonewall Street. But that is absent from today's answer. So will the convener please clarify whether he will engage with both Leith and Leith Walk ward Councillors on this in the future since it sits on the boundary? Councillor Ather. Very happy to Councillor Booth and if you want to arrange a meeting, I can get an officer to come along and talk about what's happening and that's not a problem. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that concludes the business, so thank you all for your patience. Fantastic. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So we are on item 6.1, the review of appointments to committees boards and joint boards for 24/25. We have a motion by the administration moved by Councillor Day, seconded by Councillor Ma, as verbally amended, adding the 55% for the convener of the GRBV on the remuneration and the Councillor Kumar as the SNP group leader. And that accepts all amendments except for the last two points from the SNP amendment. And against that, we have the SNP amendment moved by Councillor Kumar, seconded by Councillor Campbell. And that also agrees all of their amendments except regarding the licensing board, Vice Convener, and the role of the licensing subconvener. So motion by the administration amendment by the SNP. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? Thank you and the votes for the motion please. Thank you. That is 32 votes for the motion, 28 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Okay, thanks very much indeed. That takes us on to item 7.1 appointment of Chief Executive, Councillor Day. Thank you all, Provost, and I have to move the report. Just thank Councillor Watt, Councillor Lang, Councillor Campbell, Councillor White for the lengthy process of the Recruitment Committee to appoint new Chief Exetives. Members will be aware that that has been awarded to Paul Lawrence, the current Exetive Director of the place. As you know, now it's a decision by the Recruitment Committee which I welcome and I want to thank the many people who applied for the job. And particularly thank Noreen for the work she's done as a head of HR to bring everything together so it's really well done and welcome. And it's great for us to see an experienced leader in Mr. Lawrence and the vast that he meets with the leaders as soon as he is in this position to make sure we can set this in for the future capital city. Paul comes with a wealth of experience from the local government since the 1990s over 34 years and across the country. And of course as an Edinburgh resident, he also sees some of the daily challenges that we all hear from our constituents. So I'm absolutely pleased that we have also recruited an internal candidate, Lord Promise, and I hope you see more of that at them as we go forward. So I'm happy to move the report and commend Paul Lawrence as the Chief Exetive. Thank you. And the seconder. That would be me, Lord Promise. And yes, just to recommend the decision of the Recruitment Committee to yourself and our fellow Councillors and that it was a very, very collegiate experience. Everybody was working together to try to do the absolute best that we could for the city and get the right person for the role. Somebody who knows Edinburgh inside out knows this council, has championed a quality and diversity issues and has a deep commitment to the city. And so I thank everybody who worked to get us to this point and would commend the report to a Councillor. Thank you. There is no contrary position, so is that agreed? Agreed. Excellent. Thank you. That takes us on to item 7.2, decision-making framework 2004. I think it's Councillor Watt to pause. Thank you, Lord Promise. This is a very technical document with recommendation about committees and standing orders. So I will not really labour the point. There's a few amendments and I think there's a Connecticut at this stage that obviously we're pressing our own. We would support the Lib Dem. We would accept the Greens. I think it's very close to our own. And it would almost roll up rather than as an agenda, but take it as an agenda if that works. Unfortunately, we can't accept the entire essay in P1, but we'll work with them on the concerns they have about consultation and issues around TROs. And can't agree with the first paragraph of the Conservative Amendment, but the second paragraph for clarity, that when the deputations withdraw, they're not withdrawing their deputation, they're just physically removing them. So just for clarity, I think that's helpful. So that just basically almost skipped the summit up bit, but hopefully that's clear of what we're intending. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councillor Mott, seconder, Councillor D'Alglish. Seconded formally, Lord Promise. Thanks very much. The agenda by the SNP group, Councillor Aspen. Thanks, Lord Promise. I am aware that probably to our small band of hardy viewers at home. It looks a bit naval-gazing, Councillors making decisions about making decisions, but it's important. I think even those of us first elected in 2022 know very well that TROs kind of rouse strong passions in our constituents. So it is important that we go about scrutinising and making decisions in relation to those in the best possible way. So tempting, though, is, and I can see that Tory colleagues have opted to do this, but we're not looking to rerun the voted tech. We acknowledge the vote that was taken at tech, but we also recognise the slimmness of that vote, just a margin of six votes to five. And the validity of concerns about how this change may impact on decision-making around TROs and our ability on tech to scrutinise and debate schemes involving TROs. Because, of course, it's not just about Councillors actually being taken to standards, although clearly that did happen not that long ago. It's about the inhibiting effect that this new process can have on debate. So each of us as Councillors looking to safeguard ourselves against that eventuality and that restricting what we feel able to see about traffic schemes coming in front of us. So, as I say, respect the decision at tech, but feel very strongly that this has to be reviewed again after a year. I'm profoundly disappointed to hear what Councillor Watt said there. You know, it's not putting in any kind of great point at all to look at the consequences of this decision. And I hope she'll reconsider, but I move the S&P addendum. Thanks Councillor Aspen. Councillor Dobbins second. Formerly, thank you. Thanks, Councillor Dobbins. The Lib Dem amendment, Councillor Lai. Yep, thank you very much, Lord Provost. So, Councillor Astin is right. This is a very processy paper this. But it is important because traffic orders can be very technical, very complex, but they can be involved in delivering big, big changes in terms of the way in which people around the city get about. And Councillor McInnes and I will remember the issues that we had in the last term that resulted in the change and the moving of agreeing TROs to licensing. But in trying, which I supported actually, but in reality, in solving that problem, we have created other problems. And the best example that I used in Transport Committee, Lord Provost was our own experimental traffic orders, where the Transport Committee can make a decision to say, we want to try and do something to see if it achieves a transport outcome. But because of the system that we've put in place, the Transport Committee then never has an opportunity to evaluate the outcome of that experiment and decide whether it was a success or not. And that just doesn't seem right. And so, what I hope we've got before us is our happy compromise that adopts the kind of model that we see in terms of planning MDM sub and regulatory and licensing, and allows the Transport Committee to still ensure that it's doing its job properly, not just in terms of starting a process off, but in terms of reviewing and evaluating the outcome of that process as well. And that's why we're very enthusiastic about making the change. It's probably worth saying, given the fact that our amendment does exactly the same as what the Labor Group does, I think for simplicity, Lord Provost, I think we'll just withdraw our amendment. Thanks, Councillor Lange. So, that amendment is withdrawn. Thank you. It takes us on to the addendum by the Green Group, Councillor Parker. Yeah, thank you. So, like a tech and alongside others, we're in favour of option two with respect to the traffic orders, so I won't talk about that again. The only additional point that we make in our addendum is about requesting a review of the changes relating to the scheme of delegation and procedural standing orders, and that's really just as a form of checks and balances really to see how those changes play out over the next year. There is one verbal adjustment that we need to make on the advice of officers, and that is just to say that that update should come to GRBV and not to finance and resources. Thank you. That adjustment has been noted. Thanks very much. And second, Councillor MURPHY. Thank you, just formally. Thanks very much, indeed. That is on to the Conservative Group amendment, Councillor MOVE. Thank you, Lord Provost. I mean, it's precisely because of the closeness of the voter, the Transport Committee, on the matter of where TROs are determined, that we decided to press our amendment. Now, I stand by our position that the appropriate place to determine this is probably not a subcommittee of the Transport Committee. And the reason I say that is that unlike all other committees where we're determining the other quasi-judicial committees, we determine applications that come in from outside. So what we're asking, what is being going to be agreed, I think today, in the Chamber, short of a miracle, is that the Council initiates a process, and then it goes through all the legal documentation, and then it scrutinises how it has managed that process, because that is the purpose of that TRO subcommittee. The TRO subcommittee is saying, and when you look at a TRO and you're determining a TRO, you're not actually taking an independent view on whether this is a good thing or not to do. You're saying, this was the decision of the Transport Committee to do this project. Does it align with all the national policies? Have we followed all the processes correctly? What are the objections to this? Have we responded to them appropriately and covered them off? And it's actually a process check. So I think a lot of Councillors, when they're doing this, don't really understand this. And I am not surprised they don't understand it, because when they came to the licensing subcommittee, I said, we need to be trained exactly what this beast is, because anyone who sits on the quasi-judicial committees of planning or licensing sub will know that you've got quite a lot of external policy that you're looking at. So I was like, what is this? And it took quite a long time to get the training from officers to come forward, and I don't think that training has been given. So if you do make this decision, please insist that the training is made, that the training is given to the subcommittee. Secondly, I still think it's the wrong decision, because I think it exposes the Council to increase risk. And my other two amendments is you're going to have to amend 12.10 of the standing orders to include the TRO subcommittee in there as a quasi-judicial committee, which I didn't write for you, because I don't agree that you should be doing it. But I will give you that heads up that you should be doing it. So I soon move the Conservative amendment. Thanks, Councilor Mout, and seconder, is it Councillor Russ? Councillor White. I'll do it, Councillor Lourg Provost. Lourg Provost happened to second this. There's a point principle here as Councillor Mout has explained to the Chamber about separating those elements of the decision-making process that are quasi-judicial looking at individual elements and checking on the process. That is best done, we believe, in a separate place at the licensing subcommittee. We bring this not just because that vote was narrow at the Transport Committee, but also because actually it's not really appropriate that the Transport Committee is deciding something about the Transport Committee without consulting all of the rest of us as the Council. And so I think it's important that we make that decision here today as the whole Council thinking about all the different aspects of it. Those aspects mean that if you go with option two, you're effectively saying the people who determine the policy are also determining whether their process around it for looking at objections is correct. I've sat previously on Transport Committee, I'm going back on Transport Committee, I can tell you that in the last session we had a real problem around this. I think Councillor Arthur mentioned that there were standards commission complaints about that. I would rather avoid that and it's easy to avoid that, Lourg Provost, if we pick option one as we're suggesting here today on that TRO process, not the policy decision. Still be made by Transport Committee, but the TRO process is double checked by the licensing subcommittee. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. Councillor White, have any contributions? I see no contributions. Could I invite Councillor Wart to sum up? Councillor Wart, can I ask you to invite you to sum up? Yes, thank you, Lourg Provost. So listen to the discussion across the Chamber, the points that were made, and from my perspective, of course, Councillor Ashton or any of his colleagues does have the opportunity out with the six-month rule to bring something back. And you could, therefore, just join with us. However, as I indicated, we were very, very keen at work with them across this, resolve any issues on an ongoing basis. And so be happy, willn't accept that as an addendum with, if they would support the other parts that the group has put forward. Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks. In that case, I think I've had an indication of the SMP group that if that is accepted as an addendum, that you're not pursuing one separately. Yeah, the Liberal Democrat one has been withdrawn, so that the Green Group one has been incorporated as well, if I understand correctly. And then, so that leaves a division that deserves to still wish to pursue. Yes, so there will be a division, so we can ring the bell. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] We are at item some point two, this is the decision-making framework for 2024. We have a motion by the administration moved by Councillor Watson to where Councillor Dalglish, which also accepts the Green, then mass verbally adjusted. The second paragraph of the Conservative Amendment, and it accepts the SMP as an addendum. And against that, we have the Conservative Amendment moved by Councillor Maoitz, seconded by Councillor White. So motion by the administration, Conservative Amendment. Can I take the votes, please, for the amendment? And for the motion, please. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. That's 52 votes for the motion and nine for the amendment. The motion is carried. Thanks very much indeed. That takes us on to item 7.3, the outcome of the statutory consultation proposing the closure of Cameron House nursery. There are no amendments in but Councillor Githith's. You wish to pause. [INAUDIBLE] Thank you. And to second. [INAUDIBLE] Thanks, Councillor Poggson. There are no amendments. Is that agreed? Thanks very much indeed. That takes us on to item 7.4, the Edinburgh integration joint board. Real living wage uplift referral from the F&R committee. Councillor what? Thank you, Lord Provost. Last Tuesday's Finance and Resources Committee members considered a report recommended implementation of a £12 minimum hourly wage and commission agile social care settings. While this policy was fully funded at national level, the specific distribution base is agreed by Cozla leaders resulted in a significant shortfall in funding to support implementation in Edinburgh. Given this as part of the Council's approved budget motion, it was agreed that any additional health related consequences or other Scottish government funding subsequently received would be passed on it and filled to the EIGB. I'm pleased to advise that the Council's share of these additional resources has now been confirmed at the level anticipated and that passed through of this sum will therefore allow this increased rate to be paid on a fully funded basis from April 2024, recognising the vital role that these care staff play in the city. We have, I think, the decision, F&R was very clear. We do have an addendum from the S&P, the other amendment that we're willing to take as an addendum to because it's a request for further information rather than any change to the referral from Finance and Resources. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor WAT. I'm seconder, Councillor Poggson. Thanks, Lord Provost. Members will be aware that one of the greatest challenges faced by the social care sector, whether that be Council private sector or third sector, is recruitment and retention of staff. How many times have we heard it said that a worker can earn more in a supermarket than they can in a care or so, why would they take the latter? Our care workers are quite literally the front line. The look after our most vulnerable are elderly, are disabled. As the society, we rely entirely on them, being there day after day and delivering fantastic services. We want to cherish our workforce as much as we can. We want them to know that they are entirely valued. We want to do the right thing by them. We would love to be paying them a far higher salary, and it would be very easy to argue that case. But given that the Scottish Government has made a commitment to pay the real living wage to the social care workforce from April 1st, of course, the Edinburgh IJB wishes to support that commitment and respect our workforce. As has been noted many times in this chamber across a range of issues, the problem here is the funding allocation formula that is applied to the disbursement of these funds that disadvantages Edinburgh time after time. I hope that all sides within this chamber will support us in making the case for fair funding for our city as I did just last week when I was in a regular meeting with the minister. But given that that is where we are, the proposed additional transfer of funding between the Council and IJB will enable this uplift to be paid to our care workforce backdate it to April 1st, and I'm sure there can be little doubt that this will be the right thing to do. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Bogson. The amendment and if you clarify whether you're prepared to accept it as an addendum, Councillor Nicholson. Thanks very much for the report, and absolutely I'm supportive of the transfer of funds to uplift to our contracted and private sector providers. We would be prepared to have this accepted as an addendum. So the reason it came about was reading the audit report that came to GRBB on Tuesday about the situation when between period six and period eight, the forecast budget deficit of the IJB unexpectedly increased by £4 million. I was reminded that in Fabry's IJB when the finance paper, including this, came to committee, I asked about the demographic and population growth versus growth which originated from the improvement plan and/or the Edinburgh Assistance Program. During this conversation, which is on the Fabry webcast for those of you who are interested, the chief finance officer of the IJB referred to the increase in the capacity of the private sector because of the home office visa scheme coupled with the need for improvement and how that had led us to a situation where there was an underestimation and a budget gap. In many ways, it's really great that we've seen this improvement in the performance of our partnership to such an extent that we've become one of the better performing IJBs in terms of waiting times. But while there have been good outcomes across the city, I hope you'll understand why I brought this as an addendum today. I thought it was important to take the opportunity to explore more of what the seemingly rapid expansion of the private sector has meant in terms of both the Scottish Government and the Council having to subsidise private business who pay their workers the lowest wages to uplift these wages. Given the decisions we're asked to make during the budget, which included cutting millions of the voluntary sector who provide individuals requiring the acute services often who prevent individuals requiring the acute services often delivered by the private sector, I think it's really important that we understand how the figure of how many packages of care are tendered out to the private sector and how much that has increased by in the past year ahead of the national minimum wage uplift. In asking for more analysis of the recent growth in private sector capacity and delivery, I hope we can gain an understanding of it and how the market has recently changed, how the estimated figure of $27.3 million for the full year implementation cost of increasing contract rates in commissioned adult care settings for Edinburgh was calculated, given the additional capacity in the private sector and the fact this year we had an unexpected and near deficit. So this is really a simple ask for some assurance about the accuracy of the prediction and understanding of whether there's a contingency if there's an underestimation or if the board will decide how the funds will be used should the sum have been overestimated. Thank you. Thanks very much Councillor Nicholson. And second Councillor Dobbins. Just formally thank you. Thanks very much Councillor Dobbins. Any contributions Councillor Mumford. Thank you very much. I just wanted to speak briefly to highlight this paper as others have done because it's a referral from F&R and it's not sexy like some motions are. People watching might not realise what it's actually all about and thank you to Councillor what for highlighting actually what's going on underneath this paper. We were facing as a Councillor situation where we wouldn't be able to offer this £12 minimum wage to carers in Edinburgh, the most expensive city to live in in this country. So this paper confirms that we can now pay this and that is thanks to the agreement in here pushed by the Greens accepted by the administration that additional money from the Scottish Government post budget would be directed by this council towards the IJB which we all know is facing huge deficits. And we know that we've got a crisis in care that's been talked about by Councillor Poggson and this is just one way in which we're trying to pay people fairly for the vital work we do. Of course as a Councillor I'm pleased we have a presumption towards insourcing of care and not relying on commission care services and I'm really grateful that the questions raised by the S&P have been brought today and that they're being accepted as an addendum. And of course there's still huge issues with how we value care work both paid and perhaps more importantly the unpaid work done largely by women in this city which prop up the economy and everything else that happens in this city. But we also think it's important to take a beat and celebrate when we've done something good and with this paper the Council's done something good. Thanks. Thanks, Councillor Mumford. There are no further contributions so summing up but I think we have agreement. But Councillor, what do I say? I'll be a quick word provost. It's just to emphasize that this is a council report that we come into a council committee and then that report will be passed on to the IJB but it'll be up to the IJB. Chair and committee whether they accept that referral. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. What? There is no division as I understand it so is that agreed? Thank you very much. That then takes us to item 7.5 in the Inber International Conference Centre Conference Bureau funding. There was a written deputation received on this and in terms of standing order 30.1 I will rule that there has been a material change in circumstance. So that we can discuss the amendments. Therefore could I invite Councillor what to propose? Thank you, Lord Provost. So I think we're all quite disappointed when the EICC said that they didn't feel that they could continue this within the terms that were offered and agreed by the blast finance and resources committee. We have input from EICC who are a very important contributor to the city's economy and that they would like the Convention Bureau to continue. So we've listened to that and I'm sure they will understand that we need to do these things within the Council's budget process and normal ways of funding things. Obviously, we're keen to hear back from them. I think particularly there was this stress that we'd have to be a longer term proposal because the sector wasn't able to deal with the uncertainty. And I just don't think that that's correct. This is an incredibly strong sector within Edinburgh. They're used to facing all sorts of challenges and adverse things in uncertainty and make considerable investment in our city without any guarantees. And I think that if they believe in the work of a Convention Bureau that they will in the near future invest in it, therefore do think that it's worthwhile that we add to the service, this service, which the Council already provides. The Council's already involved in supporting conventions in Edinburgh. And I think that we would like to augment that within perhaps even less than the summer money that was put forward to the EICC, which unfortunately they rejected. That may actually be a good thing. It may be a good thing that they focus on the core challenges in front of them, which is running the Conference Centre itself and bringing on the new hotel, given that the Council have stood gallantors to what is a huge and could be a risky project. I think that shows that the massive commitment that we've put into supporting the EICC, and again, we're very disappointed that they didn't want to continue with this under what seemed to be a very reasonable proposal given the constraints, absolute constraints on Council funds and budgets, and that we need to stick with our sensible, transparent, acceptable model of funding the things that we do. With that, you know, I move our amendment. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. What Councillor Daddish? Thank you, Lo Proist. And seconded in this, I think it would be fair to say that a relatively small but important part of our economic success of the city is within business tourism, whether it be local or global guests coming to Edinburgh's a key international city, that we can offer anything a visitor may need in order to conduct. The business that they have here, and it is legitimate to see that the Convention Bureau has played an important part in that success and makes it impactful but often unnoticed contribution to Edinburgh's economy. I suppose for us the question is who funds a Convention Bureau, how it's funded and what is the best structure for the Convention Bureau to work in. And I think that the Labor Amendment goes a long way in seeking clarity and a future plan for a sustainable and self-sufficient bureau. Lord Provost in Housing of Services, in a large majority of cases, is a successful strategy to take, and it's a policy that the Labor Group takes seriously. And as mentioned in our amendment, the Council's in Housing of the Film and Destination Service is a great example of how this can work well. That's why I welcome the opportunity presented in this amendment to look at the potential options to bring the Convention Bureau and the House Street F&R Committee to make sure we have a valuable service secured financially or otherwise long into the future. With that, I'm taking this amendment. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Dargreish. That takes us to the amendment by the Conservative Group and Councillor Bruce. Thank you, Lord Provost. In bringing this Conservative amendment to the Council, we've looked at this in more detail and believe the right way forward is to make £250,000 available regardless of external funding raised. There are many reasons why it's important to have this level of funding, and I'll explain why. One, business travellers are less cost sensitive on their expenditure. Research has shown that they will spend up to four times more during their trip compared to your normal tourist. Two, the economic contribution is enormous, supporting not just the hospitality business, but also hotel bookings and restaurants which in turn support crucial jobs in the city. Three, it doesn't just support the summer months of our city, it supports it all year round, again keeping our citizens and jobs 365 days a year. Four, delegates may take time out from their business to pick up large-scale leisure sport and culture events like the Edinburgh Festival, tattoo, historic buildings, music concerts, football, rugby, rock climbing, or even indeed the UK's largest inland surf resort soon to be completed in my ward. Five, people that come here in business may think, actually this would be a great place to bring family and friends and subsequently come back here for a second visit, thus bringing even more money into the city. Six, urban areas are regenerated because of investments on business tourism facilities, creating more construction jobs, new hotels, restaurants and transportation. Seven, having major events at the ICC again puts Edinburgh on the shop window around the world for more business and other forms of tourism. To sum up, we hope by giving £250,000 this year and reducing it in years two and three, it can become self-funding, but it needs that initial investment to kickstart the Convention Bureau. We need to compete with some of the best cities in the world. We need to be out there in all corners of this planet promoting and driving business tourism towards our capital city, not just waiting on the end of a telephone line or email inbox, hoping someone will inquire. You need drive, you need ambition, you need to get out there face-to-face and the only way to do that is to recruit people with the right set of skills to do this job. Give the tools to the ICC it needs to get the job done. I move my amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Provost. It was very disappointing to see this on the Council Papers and also on the Papers for F&R when it came forward. There's been a long history about direct marketing and the Convention Bureau. Whilst I'm not a director of the ICC and never have been, I was a director of marketing Edinburgh in the session before. It was disbanded by the previous administration, which we've used to bring it in-house. This what's playing out is really the subsequent outcome of what I think was a very poor decision there. The EIC stepped in to take over the Convention Bureau because anyone who had been involved with marketing Edinburgh and the state of my inbox at the moment will tell you that a lot of the industry out there thinks we need a Convention Bureau and have been writing full simply to say that will we please support the proposals that were brought forward and that we have set forward in our amendment because this doesn't happen by itself. We were supposed to have something in place. We've been remiss in saying what is the transfer arrangement from the EICC to continue on from what was a holding pattern. We now need to put those transfer arrangements in place. I suspect it's another one for when the tourism levy comes in that this will be something that would be an investment in the city. But until that time and those discussions can be had, we do need a transfer arrangement. This seems to me to be proposed by the EICC and is detailed in this paper, a very sensible way of ensuring that we have a Convention Bureau that we can continue to compete with other cities not just around the world but also in the UK. And if you look at Edinburgh by Numbers, you will see, and I'm sure you've all spotted this, that actually Manchester is champing at the bit and Manchester gets a lot of press for having a dynamic recently re-elected mayor. But having taken and driving and taking a city that we wouldn't have said was a direct competitor I think ten to years ago is very much now a direct competitor to us. And we have to be in the game, and this keeps us in the game, so I very much hate this. See, the spirits are with us today, so I hope you will support the Conservative Amendment. Thanks, Councillor MURPHY. Any contributions to the debate? Councillor MACKINIS. Thank you very much. I'm sure that was a spirit of all the previous Councillor shouting at us to meet the right decision. I find it quite difficult to speak to this, because clearly when we had this very detailed conversation at F&R, we did not vote to put any further public funding into this endeavour, as described in the report. But I do accept the fact that that decision was made at Tech, and as a result, I think the Labour Amendment that's come forward just now is I think an appropriate one in the face of both that discussion and EIC's subsequent refusal of the offer that came out of F&R. I think it's worthwhile revisiting some of the points, however, that came up at F&R, which is that CEC have already been contributing in the 18 months of that guardianship where EICC took up the mantle of the Convention Bureau in the shape of a full-time member of staff and in terms of business management services. So let's not assume that we've not been involved already. We have, and we have been part of that achievement in terms of what they've brought forward. However, let's not forget the basics of this report. This was brought to us outside of a budget process, which would require us, if we'd gone with the original proposal, to commit to a million pounds worth of public money going into this in order to build a team of 10 staff, eventually. To be fair, I should mention the fact that EICC had come back with a slightly smaller version of that. But we were being asked to put in a million pounds worth of commitment across the next few years outside of a budget proposal. And with an expectation that we would build a service of a size here in Edinburgh that would be virtually the same size as the one that services London. Now, I think we all have to agree, despite my pride in the capital city of Scotland, there's a slight difference in both the scale, the population and indeed the conference opportunities that can be found in London versus what we have here in Edinburgh. So I have some significant issues with the scale of the vision that's being brought forward by EICC. We were also being asked to put in a capital injection as well in order to facilitate the offices of physical offices that this would contain. So, what does this amendment do? Well, first of all, it does raise some of those issues. And I think it is a reasonable amendment in the face of that refusal by EICC to take the interim measures that were proposed and agreed at F&R. We are not a bottomless pit of public money, and we have to be very careful about where we spend it. We have already seen some very good work done around film, which was brought back to film location work, which was brought back into the council at the time that Martin Edinburgh was wound up. We've seen that be really successful. I see no reason why we can't learn some lessons from that. We can take it forward for the wider issue around business tourism or convention bureau work in order to maximize the benefit to the city without maximizing the public sector input. One final point is that in the reported notes that the only expectation that might come from an increased effort around membership funding models, i.e. the trade that will benefit from this, actually, stumping up some of the cash, was £167,000. That was the estimate from EICC. We were being asked to put in £300,000 per annum. There's a bit of an imbalance there, and I think it's something that we would need to work on as a public sector spender and as a provider rather of this particular function. For that reason, we'll be supporting the Labor Amendment. Thanks, Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY. Councillor MURPHY. Thank you. As Councillor MURPHY. As Councillor MURPHY said, this has obviously been a big discussion at F&R and all groups have been doing a lot of work on this. At F&R Committee, we took the position that if this proposal had come at budget time and the report acknowledges that it's unfortunate that it couldn't come at budget time, we would not have allocated budget to it in our green budget. There are other priorities for the Council that we would have prioritised over this. So that's why we moved the position we did at F&R, and we're very grateful to Councillor Watt for all of the work that's been put in to find other ways to continue to fund the ECB, given the EICC's refusal to take the offer that was passed at F&R Committee. We support a lot of what is in this amendment, but we still have significant concerns. The figure of 150,000, which is in the report, is figure from the EICC, and that's what it would cost the EICC to run that. We don't know what it would cost Edinburgh to run an in-house version of it, and we're concerned in the current financial situation of the Council to be allocating up to, I sincerely believe that it may be less than that, but to allocate up to £150,000 from reserves seems very concerning to us. And again, that's something we would not do on any other issue without a clear report from Council officers telling us what this would be spent on. So we're uncomfortable with committing that money before we have that information. So we'd like to propose continuation of this item on the understanding that the decision of the EICC holds. We expect that it would come back. The EICB will be being reverted to the Council on the 30th of June. We would hope that could be discussed at the F&R meeting on the 25th of June to enable us to make an informed choice. As I say, support a lot of what's in that motion, but we are uncomfortable proposing £150,000 of the Council's money when we don't know where it's going to come from, and we don't know what the cost of this is. And we think we've gone with the principle of would we have allocated this at budget time, and we wouldn't have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Pight. Sorry, without a proposal to continuation, sorry. In that case, it needs a seconder. Councillor stand-a-forth. That's me. That's me, Lord. Provost Apologies to Councillor White. Yes, I'm happy to second continuation of this. As Councillor Mumford said, very grateful to Councillor WAP for her efforts to reach consensus on it, but we only got the EICC's decision. A few days ago, I think if you make decisions in haste, you repent at leisure, there are still questions to be answered about precisely where the money will come from in Council funding, and precisely how much money is likely to be needed for the years stop gap. So while I do appreciate the efforts in the amendment to ensure that in future it will be self-funding for the period that it is not, we should consider this a little further and a little deeper, and therefore continuation to my mind makes perfect sense. Thanks Councillor stand-a-forth and sorry I didn't see your hand earlier. Councillor Pight. Thank you, Lord Provost and sorry for jumping up there to your embarrassment. So, Lord Provost, as a Director of the EICC, I did originally intend to get involved in this debate, but having listened to some of the other things, I think it's important to put a few things on record. There's been a lot of talk about things being unbudgeted money being given to the EICC. Well, the genesis of that is that the EICC was asked to take on the Convention Bureau and did so with an expectation that that would come potentially to an end or that new arrangements would have to be made, and the Council was rather slow at coming back to solve what would happen next. I would have thought we should have had a budget proposal on this prior to the budget, and I think EICC would have been a lot more comfortable had that been the case. But regardless, we didn't. The other thing, Lord Provost, is there's a suggestion that this means somehow finding money from the budget that we hadn't proposed to take over to help with this. Well, the answer came from CEC Holdings, a board of Councillors cross-party, which agreed unanimously to take a proposal to write off loan stock to the EICC to pay for this, money that potentially could come to the Council in the medium term, but wasn't budgeted for either. So there's not budget on either side, it's not going in that way. And it's probably also worth reminding the Council, Lord Provost, because we heard, Oh, well, the Council already pays for someone to be involved in this. Well, yes, there is an employee, seconded. But that employee, as I understand it, came from Mark Tegg Edinburgh, so it's a continuation of the previous arrangement. Mark Tegg Edinburgh has supposedly taken in-house, but never really found a home within the Council, because it wasn't a priority. There wasn't enough funding, and there was no way of doing the job properly. And that key point at the end is what I fear about the Convention Bureau, Lord Provost. If we just say, Let's, without any thought, take it in-house, how are we going to manage that? How are we going to recruit people with the right skills? The EICC has some of those people. The Board have said they can't accept the proposal that came up at F&R, basically because there was another proposal that officers had negotiated with the EICC. I wanted to take forward, and that was rejected by the committee, where we've tried to reinstate it because it's based on a realistic approach around employing people. And while I have sympathy with Council Mumford suggesting that we continue this to make a decision at a later stage because we don't have all the information, I don't think that would help, because if we end up at the end of a month with something coming a few days later where the Council gets the situation handed over, what do you do about the employees? Where do you find them from? What do you do with people who are surrounded from EICC and TECB? I think they have to go back to their substantive roles and you lose that expertise. So there's only really one practical way forward, Lord Provost, as far as I can see, and that's to support the Conservative amendment that we're putting forward here, to accept what our officers were telling us, having negotiated carefully a way to take this forward, to bring match funding over the medium term, and to ensure that the EICB goes forward on a proper, sustainable and financially appropriate footing. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Wipe. Councillor Uni. Thank you, Lord Provost. I will be brief as I just wanted to thank the convener for Finance Resources for finding a position which satisfies our concerns, regarding both continuing to support a business bureau for our great city that is going to bring that investment, and bring people to our and bring conferences and conventions to the city, but also acknowledges that the situation is not ideal, that it's frustrating that we didn't have options before the budget was set earlier this year. That would have been the ideal time for these proposals to come, I think. We're happy to support the administration's amendment. Councillor Lassley, Maureen Cameron. Thank you, Lord Provost, and we'd like to start by welcoming, actually, the proposal of the Greens to continue to do further discussion. For the following reasons, first of all, the 150,000 per year, which the EICC has funded itself for two years, has been to do the caretaker role. That money has been spent running a convention bureau as is. It's not going into any, allowing the city to bid for events and support bids, not just from the EICC, but other important venues. It took marketing interest from five years to go from a 1.3 million subsidy and a 60, 40% split of council money and private money to a 40% council and 60% split in 2018. It took them five years to do that. The reason that the EICC, and it's not fair to say it rejected the decision. It found it very hard. It was going to be a unanimous decision, but it was really, really hard because the allio was asked by the shareholder to fulfil this obligation. No funding from the shareholder to help us do that other than what the council was already putting in through. It's taking over or taking in house of marketing Edinburgh. So the reason, primarily, that the funding for a one-year term, even if it had been 150,000 for three years, was up to the period of the TVL coming in. That is something that I believe the EICC board would have been happy to meet work together with all those partners that have supported the running of the Convention Bureau in this interim period. This city used to rank in the top 10. It was number nine some 20 years ago in the Ikaran Kings. It's slid down to 30 in the global place in terms of where people want to bring their business events. Business events is an unfortunate term because it doesn't explain the level of collaboration and knowledge transfer within our academic institutions, but these kind of events bring it to facilities, networking and thought leadership in the international and national business communities. They contribute to legacy projects and enhance the reputation of this city or city as a world-class destination. Lord Provost, what happens next and whatever happens next, should rightly see Edinburgh's Convention Bureau evolve into a formalised longer-term structure which could build on the successes that have been achieved under this temporary guardian period. It's important that that happens without disruption because a sudden decision, and let's be honest, the decision of F&R, there was no pre-knowledge of the EICC board of that proposal coming to F&R committee other than the day before F&R happened, I thought to convene an EICC board meeting as quickly as possible, which we did on Monday of this week, and regretfully, given what we are trying to do in terms of build that Convention Bureau into something more solid, something that can get more private sector input rightly, so the funding on a one-year deal doesn't mean a business sense to the EICC to do that regretfully, and I say that very regretfully. I think I'll have to bring you. I will. So, I don't know how the decision is going to go today, but I do think, given that there was only a week between the F&R committee and the EICC board, and we're here today to make a decision on something that does affect the business community, the academic community out there, but also affects us as a city. I think we should take a line from the policy for reflection today, and pause and reflect to see if there is a way forward that satisfies what the city needs in terms of a Convention Bureau, satisfies the will of Council, but also doesn't penalise its own 100% owned allio for the excellent job it's done together with its partners. Thank you, Lord Provis, for allowing me to say that. Thanks very much, Councillor Cameron. Can I now invite Councillor Wong to sum up? Thank you, Lord Provis. We're going to press ahead today because the EICC made it quite clear to us that they would not extend their guardianship while we looked into other possibilities. We need to be able to give Council officers a fund and framework to fit around. We need to make sure that the employees at the EICC who have been working on these things are able to step back to their substantive roles, or whether they may need to be accommodated within the Council funding, which is why it's absolutely essential that we know where we stand in the immediate term financially. I would very much ask the Greens to consider withdrawing the request for a continuation because there is an urgency around this, that we didn't ask for. It's arrived because of circumstances, but I think that we're going to press this because we need to get our team working on a solution and hopefully can step up the way that they did for the film and the destination market when we needed them to do that. Thank you, Lord Provis. Thanks very much. I think we need to ring the bell because there's going to be a division. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, we are at Item 7.5. It's the Edinburgh International Conference Centre Convention Bureau funding referral from the Financial Resources Committee. We have a motion by the Administration, moved by Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Doubish. A conservative amendment moved by Councillor Bruce, seconded by Councillor MARX, and a Green amendment moved by Councillor Monter. And I'm seconded by Councillor Sanneforth to continue the item to the 27th of June. As we have a continuation, we have a two-stage voting, so we will take the first vote for and against continuation. So just first vote is on for or against continuation. Can I take the votes please for continuing the item? And again, to continue the item please. Thank you. That's 11 votes for continuation, 49 against. So we go to the second stage of voting please. So we have the administration motion moved by Councillor Watts, seconded by Councillor Doubish, against the Conservative amendment moved by Councillor Bruce, seconded by Councillor MARX. So administration motion, conservative amendment. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? And for the motion please. Thank you. That's 41 votes for the motion, 8 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Okay, thank you very much. It's now just after 1 o'clock, so we will adjourn for lunch and return at 1.45. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, welcome back everyone. I think we should recommend and we are starting with item 7.6 passenger transport framework agreement. Is there a referral from the Finance Resources Committee and Councillor what? Thank you, Lord Provost. The last Finance Resources Committee, this was passed with amendments that have now been referred to full council. And I'll just get my notes. The scope of the new passenger transport framework will allow greater market engagement and should increase available capacity resulting in efficiency savings and the potential to minimize cost increases by both increasing the competition and managing demand for these services. The award will ensure school pupils with additional needs, vulnerable service users in health and social care and wider school transport go with an interrupted service. We do have an amendment from the conservatives that won't accept as an addendum because I don't think there's any technical issues around accepting it as an addendum rather than an amendment. So with that, I move thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks very much Councillor Wart and a seconder. Seconder formally. This is Councillor Dabish and to move the amendment, and if you could indicate if you're willing for it to be considered an addendum, Councillor Bruce. Thank you, Lord Provost. Yes, we're willing to have that accepted as an addendum. I'll just be brief, this amendment addendum, it sets out in a more positive way to make sure committee is not deluged with lower value contracts and to make sure a report is brought to finance and resources to set out changes required in contract management. To ensure no contract will be awarded under delegated authority other than in the standing orders. As Councillor Dogger and Councillor McKinnis both said at the recent finance and resources committee meeting last week, the Council knows that these contracts are due for a new and we all have concerns that time and time again we don't have the early visibility to properly scrutinise. We are being forced into making decisions at very short notice which is not the best way to go about things. We need to ensure we're making best use of public money, especially with contracts of this magnitude. I move my amendment. Thanks very much, Councillor Bruce. Councillor Wart second. Formerly second, Lord Provost. Thanks very much indeed. I don't see anyone, oh, Councillor McKinnis, a brief comment. Thank you very much and thank you for the amendment by the Conservative group. I think it does reflect what was discussed at F&R very effectively. I think there was a general concern being raised and this particular report really highlighted that about the lack of scrutiny that we were getting as elected members of seriously large contracts. I mean, this particular one, we're talking about £30 million worth of expenditure. Now, I think nobody in the committee wanted to see any delay being put in place for that framework because clearly these are services that are being delivered for some more of our vulnerable citizens and various parts of the city. So we didn't want to have any halt attached to that, but what it did do was to draw attention to the fact that we were as elected members were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of signing something like this off. Without having much greater time to scrutinise it, to develop it and to understand it and to make sure that we're making the right decision. So I think what the Conservative amendment does is to build on that conversation and I think it takes us in the right direction. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor McKinnis. I don't see any other desires to speak so kindly what it used to sum up while I eat my biscuit. I think we're five hours from all this. Thanks very much for making that so brief. So the addendum has been accepted by the movers, so there's no counter-proposals. So as I agreed, thanks very much indeed. It takes us on to item 8.1 festival, French society, Councillor Walker. Thank you, Lord Prophest. The administration motion follows a range of discussions, including some of which have made their way into the news recently, regarding funding at the Edinburgh Festival, French society. And I'd just like to make that distinction that this is about the French society and all the French itself. It appears that the French itself is in good health, as a brand Ferguson had it on the Scotsman this morning. That the number of shows is up 10% on a year ago. Nearly 1,600 more have been confirmed this week, guaranteeing that the light now will be bigger than ever. But the Festival French society has been in discussions with the Council leader and myself on a number of occasions to discuss their funding. Council officers have also been in touch with the French society to coordinate a meeting with them and with the other public sector funders. To have an open and structured discussion about the way forward for the French society. I am well aware of the financial pressures facing the French society. These concerns are echoed across the whole cultural sector, where rising costs and stands still funding are putting incredible strength on organisations trying to keep their doors open and leading to immense competition for limited funding posts. In February, the Culture and Communities Committee agreed to maintain funding at £75,000 to the French society to be used towards the cost of facilitating the streets event program, which they have done a fantastic job of. But this is in addition to the Council providing offices for the French society at a peppercorn rent. And since 2018, the Council has provided a total of 1.2 million pounds in grant funding to support the French society. We do recognise the gravity of their funding situation and we welcome continued discussion on how to ensure the sustainability and success of the French, which is hugely valuable to our city as a world leading cultural celebration. So for these reasons, I have brought the administration motion and I am supporting the composite as agreed with all the groups who brought amendments or thank you. Thanks, Councillor Walker. Can I have a seconder for Councillor Wab's original motion and then we'll move to the composite motion. Hi, I'm seconder formally, Councillor Walker. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cameron. That takes us to the composite motion which has been circulated in your emails and I think Councillor Thornely to pause. Thank you, LORD Provost. I'm glad to be moving this composite so that we can hopefully in that most culture and communities kind of way get to a collective position on a very important issue. I'd like to thank Councillor Walker for bringing the motion and colleagues in all parties for the constructive discussions we've had. The original motion rightly recognises the scale of the challenge faced across the cultural sector and the contribution the Council has made to date in support of the Festival French Society. The SNP amendment rightly reinforces that and highlights that a real terms cook can absolutely be the result of inflationary pressure. The Conservative amendment rightly stresses the role that the Scottish Government has and how they must step up and help provide a positional resource. This Council, the Scottish Government, the UK Government are all funders but some have much, much deeper pockets than others. But if colleagues will indulge me, I'd like to dwell a little on what led to the Lib Dem amendment. The multi-year funding programme has been described by some in the sector as a nightmare. Many of those applying are small organisations with very small staff teams who are already stretched to deliver existing projects. Those who could proceed to the second round of funding applications only learned as much at the end of February with a deadline only seven weeks later. A period in which a full-scale business plan was to be produced which for many smaller organisations was the first time they'd ever had to do that. That's a near impossible ask for many before you factor in the need to actually keep their day-to-day projects running. Many in the sector have raised concerns about how the process has meant they were working on reasonably long hours and they are now asking reasonable questions about Creative Scotland's processes, especially in light of its commitment to fair work. Deadlines missed, reports delayed, the strain on mental health and organisational capacity that has come from this process demands a lessons learned exercise. On the impact the application has processes had on the sector and on how they can do it better next time. We hope that colleagues will agree the message to Creative Scotland from this cultural centre and cultural city needs to be collectively in one voice that change is needed, and lessons have to be learned. I'll leave colleagues who might wish to say more in their own contributions on their own elements of this composite, but I move. Thanks, Councillor Thornely. I'm second. I think it's close to Mitchell. It is indeed, Lord Provost, and I'm delighted that we've managed to get a wonderful and very cultural communities way coming together as we so often do. And I did wonder if this might be my swan song in terms of the cultural communities brief. Alas, this ugly duckling may make a special guest appearance at committee next week. So, the French Society plays such a vital role in the facilitation of such a wonderful festival that we have every year throughout the year in terms of supporting artists, promoters, workers, helping to facilitate that visitor experience, both in terms of residents around the city coming in and indeed tourists as well. The sector generally, as has been reported, is going through such a tumultuous time. And this sort of composite motion helps to bring together a council position on that whereby I think it's important to acknowledge that, you know, Edinburgh's different layers of government in Edinburgh, in Scotland and in the United Kingdom, are all playing a role here. And I think it's worthwhile pointing out that the UK government did recently deliver 7 million, which has now been arranged to six for the French Society's permanent hub, as well as a million pounds in supporting artists. And I think it's worthwhile acknowledging that. And just in making sure that the council again, both the leader and the leader of the cultural communities, communicate to the Scottish government and indeed, Creative Scotland, that there needs to be much more joined up thinking in how we can support the French Society. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Mitchell. Our new contributions came so far. Thanks, Lord Provost, so that they simply will be happy to support the composite motion for the various reasons set about ably by my other colleagues on the committee. In terms of what we were seeking to bring to the Meminence, it's grateful to be adopted into the composite. I think that we as a city are lucky to have a bigger share than most of interest in multi-year funding at Creative Scotland. That's a good problem to have with many of the organisations being home in the capital city here. As Councillor Walker said, the French Society is not the same as the French. And so we do need to have that discussion in the whole if we're talking about sustainability. I will always ask for more funding for arts organisations, no matter where it's going to come from. So I think it's right to welcome the funding that the UK government has provided. Welcome to funding that the Creative Scotland has historically provided to the French. And also the Council's contribution as a three-tier parties. But also, if you keep up to date with your culture and communities papers, our strategic partners, which you will all have won in one of your awards, and our own multi-year funding platform has not only had a real terms cut, it's not actually stand still at all. But in terms of inflationary pressures, it would take about £1.1 million to bring it up to inflationary. Stand still, literally not improving or bigger, but stand still pressure. That's about £2,000 for your money there for supporting all of our strategic partners throughout the year. And so I think that, again, when we hear different partners reaching for TBL monies, which we're all hopefully going to be having a debate on in more real terms soon, I think it's worth noting that it's only £1.1 million to bring some of our most loved organisations that are not only meeting the citywide cultural strategy, but also fundamentally our business plan, empowering communities and putting culture in communities is something that I'll never apologise for. So hopefully we'll remember that we won £1.1 million when the visitor levy funds come online, because a lot of the organisations are basically struggling, I think, up to that point, and hopefully we can have a much more sustainable sector. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor McFarland. Any further contributions? That's not the case, so could I invite? Oh, sorry, sorry, Councillor Flannery. Do I see Councillor Lee's meeting or not? Yeah, thank you very much, Lord Provost. I just really wanted to echo that sentiment that actually the arts, whether it's groups or individuals, are the absolute life and soul and breadth of any city, and we need to recognise that quite fully, and not only from a Scottish-grown point of view, but also from an international point of view. It is to point out that our festival, our theatre festival particularly, is world-renowned, and it isn't just about sort of the standing, it's about the fact that artists low-mid and high, and by that I mean people just starting off, they want to come here. And the last point I'd want to make is that alongside of that, because as a long-time person in theatre myself, often you get a wee bit derided as a lovey, or you don't quite know what you're doing, or a wee bit fluffy, or you're very creative, which is usually a euphemism that you haven't actually got a brain cell between your ears, but let me say that actually for all the work that I have done and the people that I have met, you have got to be so on it, you have got to be so creative in your thinking, and also your problem-solving. And my last point is therefore to give a plug to Queen Margaret's University. I am a graduate of Queen Margaret's from last year. I go to my graduation this summer very proudly indeed, but I'm part of a band of new festival organisers, promoters, artistic administrators that is started here in Scotland, so let's not forget that. That's absolutely fabulous. So it's not just the people, it's the management as well. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councillor Pliny. Thank you. Councillor MINI speaking. Yeah, my colleagues have spoken so well on this, but I just wanted to remind everyone that the concept of a fringe was really a grassroots cultural movement, and it was created in this city. It is now global, and the rest of the world looks to us as the leader in there, so I think it very much behooves us to continue to support them. Thanks very much, Councillor Mies-Miesen. Now, can I invite Councillor Walker to sum up? I think you've indicated you're accepting the composite motion. Yes, look, Profists, I am accepting it, and I welcome to the contributions from my colleagues on the Culture and Communities Committee, and I think I would just say that we all share the same view that culture is in fact underfunded, but we all feel that we will cheerfully take money for culture from the UK government or the Scottish government, which ever government is happy to put the funding in. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. There are, in that case, no counter-proposals, so is that agreed? Agreed. Thanks very much indeed. But it takes us on to item 8.2, motion by Councillor Arthur, Scottish government scrapping of greenhouse gas emission targets. Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Lord Provost. I think when we met last month, none of us could have predicted that today, John Sweeney would be our first minister, and Kate Forbes would be his deputy. It's been quite an incredible few weeks, it's been chaotic at times, it's been a crisis, and it's been a bit of a calamity, but we shouldn't forget that one of the things that triggered that process was another crisis. It was the Scottish government's response to the climate crisis. So what did I hear the groan from our SNP colleagues there? And it's important to know that the scrapping of the 2030 target by the SNP Green Government at the time was the scrapping of a target which had legal status, it was based on justice and science, and it had been endorsed by an election. And that's a really serious thing when our party puts forward a proposition to the electorate and shrines it in law and expects us to do our best to meet that target. But that was scrapped. And of course, for a lot of us, it was an absolute surprise because what we've seen over a number of years, that neither funding nor policy within the Scottish government was a line into the target, and it missed its annual targets, and it had been subject to repeated criticism around that. So really, that 2030 ambition was really the last part of the facade to fail. And I think the real disappointment from me, because I think it almost felt inevitable that this was going to happen, it was a scrapping of the target with the disappointment lay for me, because what they could have done was they could have changed the date they were going to meet that 75% reduction, or perhaps reduce the target slightly to stock something really ambitious for us. But instead, it was scrapped. And let's not forget, it was scrapped in an election year, and forgive my cynicism for mentioning that. And indeed, if you look at the February 23, 24 budget from the Scottish government, what we've seen was that in my domain, Transport and Environment, we've seen that the active travel ambition wasn't met, funding for a college by Rio was cut, bus partnership money, something that's really important if we're going to hit that 20% vehicle reduction, right across Scotland, 30%, and Edinburgh vehicle climate reduction, hit was paused. And I know that the council leaders written to the Scottish government about that raising his concerns. But amongst all that, the Scottish government did find money to invest in roads, I think, an extra 200 million pounds. So quite an incredible budget, which really so many people, right across the transported sector, at the time of that budget, before those targets were scrapped, seen that as the point where, basically, the Scottish government was meeting that 20% traffic reduction by 2030 was not going to be met. And I don't think anybody could really argue against that. But nonetheless, as we're already here today, despite the challenges we face in this council, and despite the uncertainty which comes with the Scottish government's, you know, let's not be shy about it, move towards the right. But despite the uncertainty that comes with that, this council remains absolutely committed to its climate ambitions. And not because we've promised that to the electorate, not just because of that, because I really believe we have a moral obligation to do that. I really do. But I think it's correct that we reflect on what the Scottish government has done, and I think what it's going to do in the coming weeks and months, and that we bring that back to the policies to say an ability committee to understand how that's going to impact on things here in Edinburgh. So I'm happy to move this motion or province. Thanks very much, Councillor Arthur. And a seconder. Councillor Jenkins. Thank you, Lord Provost and thank you, Councillor Arthur, for tabling this motion. I actually think he was very generous to the S&P government in his opening points. So Edinburgh currently has very ambitious net zero targets. And I'm proud that tackling climate change is a priority in this council. So it is incredibly disappointing that our own government doesn't share our ambition, and now they don't even share our targets. And not for the first time, and I suspect not for the last time, the S&P have over-promised and just not delivered. No target set in law or otherwise will ever be believed again, whether it's climate change targets, hospital waiting times, educational attainment, drug deaths or child poverty, which now sits at 24% in Scotland, and unbelievably 19.5% in Edinburgh. They're letting this country down while at the same time leading up the garden path. And what about their ex-pals in the Green Party, a party that sadly traded their enthusiasm for the environment for a seat at the table with only their weakness being exposed and let down by the S&P when it really mattered. They aren't the first, and I certainly don't think they'll be the last. But let's not forget, let's not forget that the last act of the Greens in Government was to take an axe to this country's ambitious climate targets. So they certainly don't escape criticism from me for that. So in despite of the S&P in the Greens in the previous government, we do still have ambitious targets for net zero in Edinburgh. I therefore believe it's very important for us to impact access, this disastrous decision, and if necessary, I tend to mitigate the clear lack of ambition displayed by the Scottish Government when it comes to net zero. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Jenkinson. It takes us to the amendment by the S&P group, Councillor Bianchi. Thank you, Lord Provost. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to achieve consensus on this, and we won't be back in the constant motion we'll be proposing our amendment as it was. Well, let's back on now. The record of the S&P on climate change is when I am very, very proud of. And actually, there's a lot in all of the amendments that are in that carries a lot of weight. I actually think that the Conservatives put in talking about the UK's performance relative to the rest of the world is quite instructive. They don't always get the praise that they perhaps deserve. And believe me, coming from me, that is a hard thing to say. But it is the case that Scotland, various measures show the different numbers for the relative levels, but Scotland at 50-ish percent down in 20-ish times, amongst any in the world as having made progress on climate change. We have, and whatever we want to say about how far we're going about what our targets are, let us begin by acknowledging that Scotland is a world leader. The UK is also a world leader. In Scotland, we have recycling vastly up since 2007, housing vastly more energy efficient than 2007, renewable electricity massively rolled out from less than 20% to over 100% of our electricity demand. And that has no cotton benefits, because you can then start heating homes through electrical means, and it's decarbonised. You can go on electrified trains as 75% of Scotrail passengers do, and it's decarbonised. This is the progress that has been delivered. And yes, the Scottish Government, the SNP, have always set really ambitious targets. It's a political choice. You can set really easy targets, meet them every year. They don't stretch you to try harder. We've set hard targets, really hard targets. And we've had to bear the PR hits you get each year when sometimes you don't quite make them. But it stimulated that action, and I would defend that. And I would just say to anybody in the administration, given the target that they have that's entrusted to them for Edinburgh's performance, beware of attacking people that can't quite manage to reach ambitious targets. And I would also say to the Labour Party here that there is a choice, we were faced with a choice. The Climate Change Committee gave its advice, said, This is probably beyond you. And the Scottish Government reacted by proposing 19 additional actions by redoubling efforts and stepping up. That's a sharp contrast to what the Labour Party did. The Labour Party that is so desperate to chase the votes of telegraph readers, that dumped the one environmental policy at UK level that I can ascribe to it. The £28 billion commitment. £28 billion a year that would have been transformational, that would have allowed us to step up the next year. Because again, the Conservatives are right in their amendment when they say this needs collaboration from the UK government. The UK government is a major player in whether Scotland succeeds in reaching net zero. And that £28 billion, the £3 billion almost that would have come to Scotland, would have turbocharged, absolutely turbocharged our efforts. And it is shameful, and indeed it's shameless, that it's the Labour Party standing up to take a kick at the Scottish Government. And that is what we have here. We have a choice. We had the choice, and we are stepping up. The Labour Party is giving up. And I'm very, very sad to see that we haven't been able to come to consensus. But I'm very happy to defend our record. Thank you, Councillor BRIANCHER. And seconder, Councillor BRIANCHER. Thank you. So, after his very bold, expansive words earlier this morning on working together across the Chamber, it's a great shame that Council Arthur chose not to do that very thing with the SNP group in arriving at his lunchtime composite. Given the long factual list of achievements of the Scottish Government in respect of climate leading initiatives occurring by Councillor BRIANCHER, I can do no more than add, that it was an impressive list. And that Councillor Arthur's disappointment pales into insignificance at the levels of disappointment filled by myself, Scottish people, indeed, to everyone across the UK. Labour's decision to commit to their 28 billion investment in climate action, and Utahn, and scrap that commitment before even setting a target. My seconder amendment. Thanks very much. It takes to the addendum by the Lib Dem group, Councillor LANG. Thank you very much, Lord Provost. So, Councillor Arthur being generous to the SNP. Councillor BRIANCHER, praising the Tories, if Scottish politics had not been turned on its head in the last two weeks. It's happening here before us. And Lord Provost, the Climate Change Committee did not recommend getting rid of the 2030 target. Let's not forget that. The Climate Change Committee made a number of recommendations that did not recommend getting rid of the 2030 target. And Councillor BRIANCHER says that when the going got tough, the SNP stepped up, they didn't step up. They stood it down. They didn't replace the target with something else. They got rid of that target altogether. And it's easy to see why we're in this situation now, Lord Provost. Where Scotland won't meet this target. Because for all the backslapping we've had here from the last two contributions, just read the Committee's report. Just look at the range of commitments or policies or initiatives which are behind or not being met, insulating homes, driving up public transport, train fares going up, delays on EV charging rollouts, planting trees, heat pumps, and all of these things Scotland has not been doing the things that we knew we had to do in order to meet these targets. And the word disappointment, I think, is a word that's used to awful in politics. I think it's anger. I think we should be angry at the fact that because of failure, we're in this situation now. And I know that that anger is shared across many people in this chamber. I actually want to recognise the role which Councillor Booth played in this. Because I'm not sure it necessarily made him lots of friends. But from the very beginning he took our leadership role and spoke out against the decision that was taken. There's a proverb that says that when a butterfly flaps its wings and the Amazon, there's a hurricane in Japan. It now seems that if Councillor Booth takes the Twitter, he can single-handedly bring down a first minister. So for all my quips about being criticised by Councillor Booth on Twitter, I'm going to take it a lot more seriously going forward. Now, when it comes to our amendment, our amendment is actually a very, very simple one. Because I think there is concern. I think there is anger in many parts of this chamber at the fact that that climate change target was scrapped. We have a new first minister, not quite a holy wholesale new cabinet, but a new first minister, a new deputy first minister. And I think no is the opportunity for us as a council to show our commitment by also pressing this slightly re-jigged Scottish government to come back. Not with a scrap target, but a new target if necessary, because we cannot leave this to 2045. We need action far earlier than that. Thanks, Councillor. [Applause] Thank you, Lord Provost. Just yesterday, the Guardian published the results of a survey of 380 members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. 80% of respondents believe that we will see at least a 2.5 degree rise in global temperatures before the end of this century. Only 6% of experts thought that the internationally agreed limit of 1.5 degree rise was achievable, 6%. Does that mean that we should scrap the 1.5 degree target? Of course it doesn't. Why? Because it is the right target. It's the right target to try at least avoid some of the most dangerous tipping points that will cause the biggest impact on global weather patterns that will cause natural destruction and widespread impact on humans across the globe, but especially to those people who are already living in precarious circumstances. We've got to be ambitious. We've got to move faster. Successive governments, not just in this country, but also in this country, have failed to meet their obligations. Liberal Democrats want to see both Scottish and UK governments, both current and future, set ambitious targets and, more importantly, when they set them, stick to them and not ditch them when things get difficult, because we simply haven't got time. And this is why we think it's important that we understand as soon as possible any impacts of the scrapping of the target by the Scottish government on this council's own plans. And this is why we request that a briefing note is provided to councillors before the summer. That way, we can all consider our next steps during the inevitable next summer heat wave. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Downey. It takes us on to the addendum by the Green Group, Councillor Parker. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Arthur, also for bringing the motion. So I think it has genuinely been heartening that there's been lots of positive comments about our intentions and commitment to tackling the climate emergency in the council as part of this debate. And I think the subject of our amendment really is a plea to all members of this council to not make the same mistake of governments, those current, recent and historic, because the thrust of our amendment is to make the point that whilst we have made some progress on climate in this council, and while most of us in this room do have a genuine commitment to climate and nature, we need to match this with a genuine commitment at a financial level. Some of this, of course, is about the need for more money in local government, but it's not only about that. It's also about how we choose to spend the money we do have. Analysis of the council budget by the Institute for Climate Economics tells us that 40% of spending in this place is neutral or destructive to our climate ambitions. That's 40% of a £1 billion budget which is sitting there doing no good, it is a waste of opportunity. And our capital budget strategy also lists net zero as an unfunded priority. Do these facts describe an organisation which is genuinely committed to delivering the transformative change required as part of a just transition. I'm not sure that they do. There are steps being taken in the council to look at this, with the Agreement at Policy and Sustainability Committee to resource the financial strategy, to align our spending with the council's priorities within the business plan around climate and nature, and I hope council officers are listening to the clear instruction and mood of council today, because I think this is a ringing endorsement that we expect that strategy to be radical in its scope. And of course I hope that all councillors in November will rally behind it when it comes to committee for approval. The motion is also right though that we can't do this all alone and we'll need to work with governments on the challenges that arise. Our redundant makes this point more explicit by noting that there is a specific need for new powers to local authorities to help us meet the net zero challenge. And there's an excellent paper that this council funded already, partnership with the ECCI called net zero local authority powers. And if people in this room haven't already read that paper and haven't already been lobbying behind the scenes around it, then they really need to make sure they do so and take that to governments at UK, whoever I'm looking at here I'm not sure we'll find out later this year, all in Scotland as well. And of course in recent years audit Scotland has also produced some provocative reports which sets out the radical change of direction we need to see within the governance of local authorities in Scotland to support the necessary and more radical action for climate and nature, which we should also get behind. There are other parts for our addendum which I'll highlight as I sum up. We had a reference to the need to resource action around nature as well as climate in line with the council's declaration of a nature emergency and in recognition of the fact that net zero alone will not address the full some issues which will arise as a result of the change in climate, both for nature and in terms of a just transition. And finally on a purely practical point, we also asked that the report that council are seeking is folded into other climate reporting at PNS and to specifically include information on how the council will address the question of the public body's climate change duties reporting given the new carbon budget approach which the Scottish government is now pushing as well as the role of the newly established climate intelligence services part of this. Thanks very much, Councillor Parker. And the seconder, Councillor Booth. Thanks very much indeed, Lord Provost and thank you to Council Arthur for bringing the motion today. I think it's really important that we remember what the climate change committee said in its report just a couple of months ago. It said, for example, on page 10 of their report, the Scottish government should build on its high ambition and implement policies that enable the 75% emissions reduction target to be achieved at the earliest date possible. They did also single out a number of specific policy areas where they thought the Scottish government was doing a good job. I'll just quote again, There are some early signs of good progress including bold proposals in the heat in buildings consultation that once agreed must be delivered promptly and effectively to ensure Scotland can get as close as possible to meet its targets. And we warmly welcome the commitment of the council leader which was made today to write to the new first minister to urge him not to delay in bringing those measures forward. Since buildings account for the largest source of emissions in Edinburgh is vital that we absolutely get that right. But while targets are important, the action that delivers on those targets is the crucial element. And I think there is concern that there has been too much focus on the targets and not enough focus on the action to deliver them. Targets cannot be a substitute for action and while some people have been congratulating Scotland on setting world leading targets, they have been less willing to support the policy measures that are needed to deliver on those targets. And I have to say I'm looking all the way around the chamber when I say that. I'm grateful to Councillor Arthur for working on a compromise which I think we seem to have agreed between himself and us and the Lib Dems. I would also say that just as some people are critical of the Scottish Government for not using the powers that they already have, the same principle also applies to the council. So for example, are we really looking at all of the powers that we already have to cut emissions? I mean, just using one example, the workplace parking levy, I think we really need to address that. I have a slight concern that the amendments from the S&P and Conservative groups are too focused on past successes in terms of climate. It is right that we acknowledge past successes in particular, for example, on decarbonisation of electricity. But we must not, either at national or at local level, rest on our laurels. There is so much hard work to do that simply saying, Weren't we wonderful in the past? simply does not cut it. The original Lib Dems motion asking us to simply reinstate the 2030 target which the Climate Change Committee said was not credible. I don't think that's helpful and I'm grateful that they've adjusted the wording to say that we need a bold and ambitious target. We do have a duty in Scotland, despite the fact that we have been quite good at getting our emissions down. I'm coming to a conclusion, Lord Provost. We do have a duty because we industrialise much earlier than most other parts of the world. Our historical emissions give us a moral duty to be driving this forward and that has to focus on action. Without Lord Provost, I move the Green Amendment and just to confirm that we are happy with the compromise circulated by Councillor Arthur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Booth. Thank you. And that takes us to the amendment by the Conservative Group, Councillor Piet. Thank you, Lord Provost. I don't think I can accept the composite amendment because Councillor Arthur didn't produce it to me until a few minutes ago and indeed didn't discuss it with me and hasn't really taken on board anything that I've promoted to be part of what we might agree. Lord Provost, I want to do two things though in speaking just now. Firstly, I want to tell you a bit about the good news because there is good news as we've partly heard from Councillor Pietaggia earlier, stealing some of my thunder. And I want to also then talk about realism because it's only by being realistic that we as Edinburgh, that Scotland, that the UK can take matters forward in this regard. The UK is 52% below peak emissions. Peak emissions for us happened in 1970. We're about 50% below 1990 emissions, which is what most people measure on, given the IPCC targets go back to then. We produce less than 1% of global emissions, either territorial or consumption. You can look it up. I've given you a data set to look at in the amendment. And even if we just go back to 2010 when the Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition took power in the UK, since then, Friedling Steinett, I'll say the UK has reduced 38% of its territorial emissions. The closest G20 country to that, Italy with 23%. Meanwhile, Indonesia is up 63% and India 69%. Other countries are still pushing their emissions up, countries with much bigger economies, far higher populations than ourselves. So 0.2% that I make, that as less than 1%, we cannot do this just by doing something here in the UK. We need international cooperation, and it's only by doing that that we will really make a difference. The second thing Lord Provost is this, we have to be realistic. I've heard lots of things said just now about 70% reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 in Scotland. Well, our own mini Stern for this council, let me remind us all, when we got it, when we set a 2030 target for net zero, it told us that we might make a 69% reduction by 2037 if we pushed as hard as we possibly could and used all available current technology. So it wasn't possible to do 70% by 2030. It's certainly not possible to do net zero by 2030. There isn't the technology available to do it. We also have to take people with us. So let's use what we've got, which is a movement in the right direction at a fairly large rate to in future set realistic targets. My anger, if it's not that, frustration with the Scottish government is that they set a completely unrealistic target. There wasn't a plan to get there. If you're going to set a target, you have to take account of not impoverishing people, not making them cold in the winter, and making sure that lifestyle compatible over time. Let's set realistic targets for the future. Let's work together on this, and let's get all our governments and this council working together, because that's what people want. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor White. And to 2nd, Councillor Mudd. Thank you, Lord Provost. I'll 2nd formally. Thank you. Thanks so much, Councillor Mudd. We're going to be up against the wire very shortly, but I have notes of contribution by Councillor McFarland. Thanks, Lord Provost. I'll try and be beefing. Thanks to Councillor Arthur for his kind comments. I'd like to think that my time on Transport Environment Committee, my voting record would meet Councillor Booth's appreciation in my time there. But I just wanted to kind of focus on what we do as Councillors in the power we have. We've got to have our eyes wide open. Some of the things that we're going to have to do to achieve any target is difficult, and we all have a responsibility in our communities to explain the reasons why people are going to have to go through. Quite hard change. We struggle to deliver a quiet route. I mean, but that's the level of the some of the things that are well within our power. They don't necessarily cost much money either. And we're struggling and going over, so it's been hours of committee time talking about something as simple as a tiny, tiny quiet route. So what I would just plea in my ask, and I hopefully won't be turning up at Transport Environment Committee with any PowerPoint presentations as a work counselor that much. But my plea is that talk of governments, talk of politics, is that everyone in every party needs to, A, not make things capital P political. If there's a kind of vote winner or a gain out of it, when it fits the right thing to do, our officers are clear in some of the reports that you say that this is the option that you need to pick, if that's what your priority is meeting these targets. So my plea is really just that we continue to have actual focus on these things, come together across the chamber, make difficult decisions, ask people to make difficult change, and get on with the things that we do actually have the power of such as workplace, park and levy, such as a congestion charge, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The list goes on, because there's quite a lot of work that we need to be getting on with right now, and that's what we can do and spend time debating. But if we're struggling to deliver a quiet route, I mean, I don't think any of us are in a position to lecture anybody, really, but I just wanted to have that contribution. Thank you. Thanks, Professor MacFarlane. Thanks Lamar. Thank you, Lord Provost. I wanted to, as briefly as possible, come in to talk about an example of energy efficiency that not only helps us in relation to our net zero. Carbon targets, but also puts money into the pockets of people who would otherwise be struggling to afford in the context of today's cost of living crisis to afford the very basics. And that, of course, is our Council House retrofitting program, and I'm very pleased with the progress that we're making in relation to that. And I know that amongst our tenants are people who are reporting that in the newly insulated and retrofitted homes, they're making savings of up to 70% on their fuel bills. But I have to say that the Scottish government set an incredibly ambitious target. It set a very high standard called the Energy Efficient Standard for Social Housing, which rejoices in the acronym of each two, and which obliges Councils to insulate and retrofit to that very high and laudable standard. But let's inject a bit of realism into that, because the average annual budget in order to carry out all of that work is 40 million for the whole of Scotland. And bearing in mind that our housing stock is currently hovering around 20,000, it doesn't take much of an expert in mathematics to work out that that goes nowhere near the kinds of budget that we need. So, in my book, if somebody's serious about serious and ambitious targets, then they really have to be met by the resources in order to enable us to reach those targets. The top targets, brilliant, ambitious targets, all in favour, give us the money. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor MARC. We've now moved to the summing up, Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Lord Provost, and thank you for everybody who contributed. Something I often say when I'm speaking to residents is that the UK government destroyed our economy here, and the Scottish government doesn't understand it. And I think that that's quite an important observation, but I do really do believe to get our economy back on track, we have to invest in a way that's just unsustainable. And I absolutely believe, I would say this, of course, that an excellent income and labour government will do that at UK level, and it's so... And it's slower as he shines soon around later, as well, in Scotland. But the reason I mention that is that what makes it difficult for us to set aside the funding that was mentioned to invest in tackling the climate emergency is what's happened to the UK economy and the economy in Scotland. And we have to be absolutely honest about that, but nonetheless, that income and labour government will have the most ambitious plan for climate change of any government we've ever had in the UK. And I hope we support that. But it's important to remember that policy, which was changed, it wasn't a ditch, it was changed, the numbers were reduced a bit. But it's just a policy, no voter had voted on it. And what we're talking about here is something which people voted on in election in Scotland had legal standing and was arbitrarily set aside at absolutely incredible decision, which does not compare to that labour policy change. And I want to touch on the working together thing, I'll just mention two points there. I'm afraid the more I read the Conservative Amendment law provost at this point about the 1% about the UK only being 1% of emissions. The more and more and more that just made me more and more angry, but that's not a great emotion, more and more frustrated because, yes, 1% of global emissions that were less than a thousandth of the planet. And that comes with a moral responsibility. And in saying that even wealthier people in this country have more of a responsibility to respond to the climate emergency than less wealthy. And I think that's something that we should bear in mind as part of that just transition. And in terms of the composite, you know, people in S&P perhaps not feeling involved in this kind of sort of dub-in, what I would say is the composite was actually written by Councillor Bianci. And the main change I made to it was to include the letter to the Scottish government asking for bold climate targets. That was the main change, and that was why the S&P didn't support it. So here we have people talking warm words about the climate emergency, but they're unwilling to accept writing a letter to the Scottish government saying you must do better. So, Lord Provost, I've tabled the composite. I think it takes on board all the key points and more from the Greens, and I'm really grateful for Councillor Bruce's contribution and Councillor Parker's, of course, as well. And I think also reaffirming that we really have to push the Scottish government to do more via the Lib Dems amendment via that letter. Yet another letter that Councillor D has going to have to write on our behalf. So with that, Councillor, sorry, Lord Provost, happy to move. Thanks very much indeed. Point of order. As I was named under whatever provision that is. I think I have been very, very mischaracterised there by Councillor Arie. I think it's a point of accuracy. Point of accuracy. If it could be short, we will not speak. I will merely say that, yes, I am glad that Councillor Arthur confirmed that I was involved in the writing. We attempted to reach a compromise. It's not an excuse for his speech. What is the inaccuracy? The inaccuracy was his statement of my reason for objecting. There were at least six differences from the last version that I sent to him to the one that he eventually put forward. Okay. That's helpful. Thanks very much indeed. Okay. Now, my understanding in that case is that there will be... There's an agreed position that the agenda by the Liberal Democrat group and the agenda by the Green Group are taken on board in the composite. The SNP group are still wanting to pursue your amendment and the Conservative group are still wishing to pursue your amendment. In that case, I think we have the three propositions. So, come here in the bell. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay. We are on item 8.2. It's a motion by Councillor Arthorn on Scottish Government scoping of greenhouse gas emission targets. We have the motion by Councillor for seconded by Councillor Jenkinson, which has now been amended so that there is a composite of the motion by Councillor after the Liberal Democrat amendment and the Green amendment. Hence that we have a SNP amendment 1 moved by Councillor Beyasci, seconded by Councillor Dauvin, and amendment 2 is the Conservative amendment moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Marrow. So, motion by Councillor Arthorn, SNP amendment 1, Conservative amendment 2. Can I take the votes please for the Conservative amendment? [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you and for the SNP amendment please. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you and for the motion by Councillor Arthorn. [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. That is 35 votes for the motion, 17 for amendment 1, 8 for amendment 2, the motion is carried. Thanks very much, we now move on to item 8.3, motion by Councillor Walker on Edinburgh Filmhouse, Councillor Walker. [BLANKAUDIO] Yes, thank you, Lord Provost. We were delighted to hear that the UK government has committed 1.5 million pounds to Filmhouse Edinburgh from its community ownership leveling up fund. As I'm sure many others in the community were delighted to, this funding will be transformative for the free development and reopening of the Filmhouse. And talking to people from Filmhouse Edinburgh, they are hoping that it will be open by the end of the year. The City of Edinburgh Council is committed to having a home for cultural cinema in the heart of the city. And agreed in November to contribute 60,000 pounds to support the return of the Edinburgh Filmhouse building. I would also like to recognize the huge amount of work that has already gone into securing a future for 88 Lothie Road by Filmhouse Edinburgh. And of course, the dedicated crowdfunding campaign is a widespread support from the community. And without that support, I don't think Filmhouse Edinburgh would have gone back 1.5 million pounds from the UK government. I'm excited to see how this funding could unlock opportunities for further collaboration between the Council and Filmhouse Edinburgh, such as a small screening room that we might be able to use for educational purposes in the future. So in this motion, we're just asking that the Culture and Communities Committee is kept informed of plans and timelines. And we consider any revenue implications since 2025, 26 budget setting, and I will be accepting the amendment from Councillor Heeb as slightly adjusted. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Walker. And seconder, thanks. Thanks, Lord Provost. I would just like to echo everything. Councillor Walker said this is a tremendous example of public, private and individual coming together through the crowdfunding and obviously with support of a business well known to us and headquartered here that we've secured the future for the Filmhouse. And yeah, thanks. Thanks to everyone concerned that we have secured collectively a future for this much loved Edinburgh institution. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Cameron. That takes us on to the agenda by the Green Group, Councillor Heeb. Thank you very much, Lord Provost. I'll keep this pretty brief. The Filmhouse is and will be when it returns a really important part of Edinburgh's film heritage. And I think all colleagues will remember the shock that we all felt when the closure was announced year before last. And the substantive purpose of my agenda today is just to remind us of what happened last time and ensure it doesn't happen again. We did invest over a number of years, £100,000 into the Centre for Moving Image in the Filmhouse, and then it went bust. And so we can't let that happen again. So I do just want the report that comes forward to us just to address what kind of relationship we will have. It might be a close one, it might be a distant one, might be somewhere in between. But I do think we need to keep our eyes a little bit more on that in terms of what our relationship would be, how the money's been given to the Filmhouse, what we're getting back, if anything for that. And if we're going to have a board member or not, so just some due diligence, I'm asking us to do. I just want to put on record before I finish the approval of Professor Birmingham. Thanks, I think we should all express to save the film house pretty much from the day. The closure was announced, the staff and the film goers who used it so well were absolutely on it, they ran a campaign over months. They made clear to many of us through emails how important the film house was to our constituents. They raised, I've just checked, it was £296,000 as well as the money coming from the various governments. And that's a big drink of money, we'll think go a long way to bringing the film house back, but also bringing it back better. So it's more accessible to wheelchair users and is much more welcoming and kind of up to date place. And I very much look forward to the film house we hope you might just want to put on record how grateful we are to save the film house campaign and for the way they did in getting this fantastic result. Thanks very much. And seconder. I'll second that formally, Lord Provost. Thanks very much, Councillor Miller. I don't see any further contributions, can we move straight to summing up, Councillor Walker? I think you're accepting the addendum. You're waving your right to sum up. There is no counter proposal, so is that agreed? Agreed. Thanks very much indeed. We will have a break shortly, but we're going to, we're going to item 8.4, now motioned by Councillor D on a budget outcomes. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Rose. I put this motion in just as the Executive Director sent round the members brief, so we've added that in, so I think it's really helpful. This motion being put in front of Council today is just a set of the path between the budget being agreed back in February, and that to ensure that the appropriate reports come to relevant committees in the right timing, and that there's an adequate time for them to be scrutinised. I'm really grateful for the Executive Director of Corporate Services to issue the briefing note to members, and I'm happy to change the start of the last paragraph to be a business bill and update, rather than a report to a committee. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Aye. And a seconder. Councillor GRIFFITHS. Formerly Lord Provost. Thanks very much. Councillor GRIFFITHS. There's an addendum, there's an amendment by the S&P group. Councillor MACKINIS. Thank you very much, Lord Provost. In fact, our amendment is quite a slight one. There's not an enormous degree of difference, but I think anybody who's spoken to me about budget between the last process and now will know that I could bore for Scotland on the topic, because I think we all recognise the fact there were quite a lot of things that went wrong with the budget process. Notably, one of the changes that I want to meet to this, which is to talk about the report coming forward, and indeed any form of reporting that comes forward, that we should have information about the delivery and timeline of the budget with specific reference to the time allocated for political scrutiny and discussion. Now, I think that is the key thing that we took out of the last budget process. There was no sufficient time for discussion, assessment, making sure everything was correct, and we felt that we were rushed into that budget process. I think it will do nothing but help us move forward and to reinforce the intent behind the original motion. In addition to which, I think it's well worth noting that we need to ensure that all of the budget commitments are, in fact, fully funded at that point. We've seen several examples now of things coming forward to as a committee, which have not come through the budget process, and that is causing us some deep concern. So I think it's worthwhile reiterating that in this particular context. Other than that, I would say that we support the intent behind Councillor Day's motion and hope that those minor adjustments will be accepted. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor McInnes. Councillor CUMAR. Thanks, Councillor CUMAR. I don't see any contributions. Councillor, do we like to sum up and indicate whether you're willing to accept the amendment by the SMP group? Sorry, they're not able to accept the SMP amendment. I think the finance community or the director of the corporate services have set out a clear process in the budget this year, which we'll see a cross-party budget working group. I think proposals will come forward early in June with the director of finance and the executive director. And I think that we accept there has not been a proper budget process for many years in the Council, and I hope this does properly engage us. As I and many members have said, it properly engages the whole city, and particularly those people in the city who tend not to respond to budget constitutions, but where we probably need to allocate more resources than the people who are in poverty and the issues around climate change as well. So I'm grateful for the work that the finance community and the executive director and head finance have done to bring forward a robust budget proposal this year, and I hope that the cross-party working group will lead to that work. Thank you, Councillor DAY. You have not accepted the amendment by the SMP group. I take the SMP group. I want you to pursue your amendment. With a degree of disappointment, Lord Price, yes. In that case, could we ring the bell and we'll have a vote? Thank you, Councillor. [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] [end] 33 votes for the motion, 28 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Thanks very much. We'll have a short break of 15 minutes now, returning at 3.15 for item 8.5, the motion on alleles. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, we're resume with item 8.5, the motion by Councillor Heap, a prohibition of council and allio use of strikes minimum service levels act, work notices, and just remind members that we hired a deputation on this matter earlier today. Thank you, Lord Provost, from the Leith Dockers strike in 1913 to recent teacher strikes for fair pay and the school strikes for climate, Edinburgh has a long and very proud history of people going on strike for a fair deal for themselves and for their communities. As we've heard this morning from the EIS representative workers, never go on strike lightly. They lose pay, of course, and they are always well aware of the impact of their destruction on people who use their services. But they do do it for good reasons of fair pay, fair conditions, and ensuring services are safe and fit for purposes, purpose for patients, for students, and other public service users. And those strikes do get results. In 1968, women sewing machine workers at Ford car factories went on strike equal pay, because they were only being paid 85% of the wages men doing the same job were paid. And that was absolutely instrumental in the introduction of the Equal Pay Act just two years later. And the council pays its own workers such as way stand clients and staff and teachers better than what otherwise have done without them taking industrial action or the prospect of that. So that's why it's vital we rule out today, ever using the Conning New Powers into the Minimum Service Levels Act, to force council staff back to work under the threat of the SAC. If granted these powers and if they are used by the council, we will destroy the largely very good relations the council has with its staff and their trade unions. And the UK government's own impact assessment outlines that risk as the SMP amendment does to and as we heard from EIS this morning. And if we take the absolutely disgraceful decision to force strikers facing a cost of a living process, not to strike for better pay and better pensions, then we will be plunging them further into poverty. And if we discourage our staff from striking for better and safer conditions, then both our staff and our service users will suffer. I say staff and service users, but of course our staff are also our service users, our constituents and our residents. Before I close, I want to address the use of powers by council owned companies and other arms-length organisations. Edinburgh trams as of last year is empowered to use these powers against its own staff. And while it has not done so, we very nearly did have a tram strike fairly recently. So this is a very much a live issue. And although at the moment we can't order Edinburgh trams or any other allio not to use work notices under legislation, my motion asks for a report so to see how we might be able to make that happen. We did manage to get Edinburgh leisure to pay the real wage. So hopefully we can get some similar movement on this issue as well. To close, Lord Provost Treggians are key to a fairer society. And had this legislation been enforced previously, workers would be less well paid, working worse conditions, working less safe conditions, and our residents would have access to poorer services. So for our staff, our constituents and residents, let's today reaffirm the importance of taking industrial action and support the motion today. Thank you. Thanks very much. Councillor HEAP. Seconder. Yes, Councillor MUMFORD. Councillor MUMFORD. I'd like to echo everything said by Councillor HEAP. And again, thank the unions for their deputations this morning. The only additional thing I'd add is that the UK government has not yet ruled out extending this act to education workers in Scottish schools, as well as English ones, something which would cause irreparable harm for schools, according to a Head Teachers Association. And while the Scottish government is being clear that they will strongly oppose any attempts at this, we should be in no doubt that we are witnessing a concerted attack on workers and unions from the UK government in an attempt to limit dissent, provide opportunities to fight and exploit our workforce. I'm proud that our Council values our relationship with trade unions, recognising that workers' rights lead to a better city to live and work in, something we're all committed to here. So with that, I second the motion. Thanks very much, Councillor MUMFORD. It takes us to the amendment by the administration proposed by yourself, Councillor Fichenda. Thank you, Lord Provost, and thank you, Councillor HEAP, for bringing in such an important motion. Our amendment is really just to clarify the breadth of this legislation which is going to impact workers in many sectors, and it's important to remember that the right to strike in the UK is already conditional. It's not an absolute right, because trade unions are forced to jump through a series of hoops to be able to call industrial action, and these tough conditions are designed to obstruct industrial organising and the fundamental right to take solidarity or second reaction remains illegal. From the attack on the right to actually be a member of a trade union at GCEHQ, workers' rights in the UK have been under attack for the past 40 years, and it is always important to remember that trade union and workers' rights in the United Kingdom are some of the most restricted in Europe. Service levels are just another attack. They're just the most recent attack. And ironically, many workers, especially in the public sector, especially in transport, in education, in the fire service, would actually welcome laws that said that there would be a minimum amount of workers to deliver the service that they're supposed to be, and actually it would be an aspiration. But of course, this act is not about improving services. It's about preventing workers from defending services, from defending their jobs and conditions, and fighting back collectively. Let's remember that this week in the UK Parliament, the CEO of P&O, a company which two years ago illegally and will unlawfully sacked more than 700 qualified seafarers admitted to staff being paid under £5 an hour. This was a chief executive who in 2023 earned a salary of 325,000 plus a bonus of 183,000. That's what happens when the profiteers are allowed to call the shots. And if the Tory government genuinely wanted to guarantee vital services and avoid strikes, they'd bring to an end the private sector profiteering and ensure workers are paid a wage and they would invest in public services. Thank you, Lord Provest. Thanks, Councillor CHENDER. And a seconder from the Administration. That would be me. Lord Provest, thank you. What a way to treat workers who put their own lives at risk during the pandemic. What a way to treat them. It's absolutely deplorable. This is not just a tack on workers, right? It's a tack on the whole society. These are workers who look after us in times the most neat at most emergency when you're flipping houses on fire. Who'd you look to? And they already have life and limb service provisions, as we heard from the deputation today. And we have found at all times that our relationship with workers is that they stick to these life and limb provisions and often go beyond them. It's an absolute outrage. It's an unworkable piece of legislation. There's talk of actually naming the people that have to turn out because I do want to get on a train or a bus or a tram that's driven by someone who's too unwell to go to their work. But they've been named in a document that forces them to turn out or put their job and their colleagues at risk. These are workers that we need to rely on. These are workers that stand up for us. These are workers that when they go on strike, they are often striking to maintain a level of pain conditions that will attract sufficient people to work for organizations that need trained, qualified, dedicated people to look after us. And it's absolutely appalling that this has ever seen the light of day. And I really, in second in this, I can barely contain how angry I am about the Putin Councils and other public sector workforces in such a position. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor Wap. The agenda by the SNP Group, Councillor Nicholson. Thank you. I absolutely agree with the anger of all the others who have spoken. And we're really grateful that Councillor Heap brought this. So thank you. Like other folk in the room, I'm a proud trade union member and I will always support the right strike. Indeed, the Scottish Government Ministers have described this legislation as unnecessary and wanted and ineffective. We whole heartedly supported the motion but just wanted to highlight that the UK Government's own analysis has pointed out that this legislation is likely to cause prolonged and more frequent disputes. Thanks. Thanks very much, Councillor Nicholson. Councillor Muchen. As the trade unionist who cares about the working conditions of my colleagues, I'm just going to say formally. Thanks very much, Councillor Muchen. That takes us to the amendment by the Conservative Group, Councillor Pight. Thank you, Lord Provost. We've put forward an amendment which considers us and thinks about this. We did ponder just saying no action to this today, but we decided to put some words on it to show that we have thought about it. At the end of the day, why are we here as Councillors? Why do we elect people here to Westminster, to Hollywood? We elect them to look after our public services. Those services are for the public to provide a service to them. And the whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure that even in times of strikes, there is a minimum service level available. It's not to ban strikes altogether. Indeed, I'm intrigued by the SNP amendment here, because effectively, Councillor Nicholson and McNeese Meakin are pointing out that even the UK government thinks it is possible it might make strikes go on a bit longer and be more prevalent. But the point being, there will be a minimum service provided to the public while those strikes are happening. That's all this is about. It's ensuring that there are trains to get on. Maybe fewer than normal, but there will be some. It's ensuring there is a hospital service open if you are in crisis and need it. And the likelihood, I think, of it being used by this Council, under any administration, is probably about nil to nil. So this is really just posturing and politicking to have yet another pop at the Conservative government. That's what the motions about. That's what it is. It's grandstanding. But let's put that aside. Let's think about why we're here. We're here to serve the public. Not always to just be constantly carping on on behalf of internal producer interests. We should be for the consumer interest. Those are the people who rely on our services, Lord Provost. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor White. And to the second, Councillor Matt. Thank you, Lord Provost. The Chamber will have noted earlier today that this is not a Conservative group that does not engage with the trade unions, recognise their important role or seek to work with them in delivering, in supporting the workers of the Council as noted by Mr Harold in his deputation. So I'm sorry to disappoint Dave. But as Councillor White has said, someone actually has to stand up for the consumer here. We're not in a consumer business. I don't like calling residents to whom we deliver vital services consumers because they are the people who send us here who we represent and who this Council provides vital services for. And I think that they interest and then they need to be represented in this Chamber today as part of this debate. And I speak as the daughter of someone who in the 70s untrained with the wrong equipment had to go and stand in for the firefighters and was responsible for the soldiers that did that in the Midlands to a great deal of pressure. We wanted to avoid that in the public. This is what this seeks to do. And so I submit second the Conservative amendment. Thanks so much, Councillor MURPH. Councillor LANG. Thanks very much, Lord Provost. I'll be brief. I listen very carefully to what the Conservatives have said. The argument appears to be that this legislation is needed to protect public services. In my experience, those in the public sector who strike more often than not, strike because they also care about public services. They care about a lack of investment. They care about a failure to recruit and retain staff. They care about staff tiredness, staff burnout. And actually I think the risk is that this legislation actually runs the risk of removing what has been often a very important mechanism that forces government, Scottish, UK, local, to sit up and take notice of those who understand public services better than any of us do, because all of them work at the front line. So yes, sometimes industrial action can be difficult and disruptive. And it can frustrate politicians like us who have got a responsibility to try and deliver public services, but that's the whole point of it. The whole point of industrial action actually is to make the politically powerful sit up and take notice. So I don't think it's a divide between those who care about public services and those who don't, because actually in my experience, and I think we saw this earlier on with the legislation, it's those who work on the front line, the often other ones that care most and understand the most about the pressures that exist in public services. And for that reason, the Lib Den group will be supporting enthusiastically, Councillor Heap's motion. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot. I've seen no other contributions. So Councillor Heap can ask you to sum up and indicate what you're prepared to accept and what you're not prepared to accept. Yeah, thank you. Very happy to accept the Labor and S&P amendments, not the Conservative one. I do apologise as well for emailing a verbal amendment to mine and not verbalising it, so I'll do it now. That's insert at end, new point 10, and request the decision noted in point 8. If taken today, is communicated to CEC staff and residents? That's fine as a verbal amendment. OK, so I take it that those whose amendments have been accepted are not wanting to pursue them separately, and I take it that the Conservatives are still wishing to pursue their amendments. So if we could ring the bell, we'll have a vote. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, that's 52 votes for the motion 8 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Thanks very much indeed, that takes us on to item 8.6 motion on anchor field building by Councillor D. Thank you very much and happy to move my motion this afternoon. I spoke mostly around this this morning, but I will reiterate that we have had the meeting residents. So we'll be fortnightly meetings with local members and officers to update on any progress we've got. But it has been absolutely, I know an absolutely horrendous time for the residents who have been having this around their homes, and glad to see that everybody is now back in their homes and working with the Council and their insurers to come to solution and apparent repair for the building. I think it's accepted that we've not always got it right, and officers have fed that back at the meeting. My motion agrees that we will continue to not only work with the residents, but to engage with the contractors. There were exorbitant costs for scaffolding, which the officers are looking into just now. I know there's another quote came in from residents just in the last 24 hours, which I've asked officers to look at as well, and we're keen to absolutely keep the costs necessary to a minimum, given the awareness and nature of this situation. As was last part of my motion, commits to reevaluate all the costs, and as I touched on earlier this morning, that will include not applying any of the traffic management costs that were incurred by the Council, and entirely looking at all the costs incurred by the Council and contractors to see where we can help, and of course, to agree that we will, I think, through either Councilor Maar or Council, what's committed to making any required changes to the missing share scheme should that need to be increased, and I think officers are supportive of that as well. There's a commitment from me and the officers to ensure that we support residents through this process until a permanent repair is complete. It has been an extremely difficult time for everybody concerned. I do want to put my thanks to the residents and to Jackie Timmons in the shared repair service, the continuing to do to come to solution in this situation, have to move the motion. Thanks very much, Councillor D and a seconder. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Lord Provost. I'm seconding this amendment as a word colleague for the avoidance of any doubt on my left, but I do so because I want to put on record to my commitment to support the affected residents in whichever way that I can, whether that's continuing to try and improve communications between owners and officers, whether that's getting certain charges reduced or waived, or whether that's making sure that residents are involved in the decisions that are made towards a permanent solution for their building. I'm more than happy to keep doing this. As Councillor Day said, this is a really distressing situation with potentially devastating financial and personal consequences for the owners of these properties. They are our constituents, and so the very least this Council can do is to communicate clearly and consistently with them, so that they can make financial decisions in the most informed way. And this to me isn't political. I get the attraction of a spiker discussion about who said what and when and based on what information I get it. But personally, I don't think that serves the residents particularly well, and so instead I'm focused on supporting these residents by working together with word colleagues, plural, and with officers for as long as it's needed, and I second this motion. Thanks very much, Councillor D so Jamie. There is an amendment by the S&P group moved by Councillor Dobbins. I get a lot of progress. First, if I can make a verbal amendment, as Councillor, either intimating his report earlier in his remarks, just now our proposed 0.4, the part of the first sentence relation to costs associated with road closure has, indeed since being agreed with residents, so I'd like to delete that, and our 0.4 will therefore start agreed that costs for scaffolding, etc. This has been a very difficult time for residents, and I think all word Councillors have been involved. I'm very pleased that residents and Council officers are now fully engaged. It's been a bumpy journey to get to this point, but it now seems to be working and effective. The key points in our amendment are that, firstly, given the fluidity of the situation and the need to respond to developments in quick time, that any need to bring further motions to full Council shall not be subject to the six-month rule. Secondly, that costs associated with make-safe works be charged back to residents at reasonable mutual agreed rates, subject to F&R scrutiny. I would add that getting to a mutually agreed position may require some discussion. In a mail I was, I received yesterday from residents, which was sent to the Council's shared repair team. A quote obtained by the residents were scaffolding, reflected a charge of five times less for putting it up than they've been advised by Council, and 20 times less for the weekly rental charges. So there's, I think, a lot of discussion to go. In our amendment we talk about a developed option. This is where the residents recognize that they do not have the skills or the competencies or organization to manage these repairs and they've requested that the shared repair service take the lead and the amendment is asking the officers consider this and report back. It's not to say that shared repairs must do it, but if there's an option that the residents can consider. There have been a number of structural service conducted and indeed understand the various insurance companies representing the residents are finally going to conduct collectively conduct yet another survey. The requested report in our amendment to F&R summarizing the results of the various services is critically important in order to determine the cause of the significance and rapid movement of the building that suits strong since the late 1800s. There have been comments made in the press, I understand, from Councillor Landon based on one of the survey reports. However, other reports also understand suggest other potential causes. We believe that transparency in getting to the cause is the only way to arrive at a fair resolution and I move our amendment. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Dobbins. And to second, Councillor Nawsmith Vay. Thank you very much, Mr Provost. I was listening carefully to Councillor Doney and it sounded very reasonable except nothing that she's proposing that we vote for today in the administration party's motion actually addresses the fundamental concern and gives Councillors the ability to have influence, proper influence and decision-making over the charges that residents will face. And that is a concern. We are proposing a solidified bit of governance in terms of Councillors, I think, doing their job in making sure that residents do not face exorbitant bills. That's a point we all agree on. But they same peer that only one standing up and saying that Councillors should be taking that decision explicitly. And Councillor Doney might say that she doesn't want any scrutiny and accountability of the administration which her party is part and that it doesn't really matter who said what when. Well, I have to say, having spoken to the residents, it does. When residents feel like they've been gassed lit, when residents feel they have been misled, when residents feel misleading comments that were made in the press about them, they're building, when information has been withheld from Councillors, as part of the discussion we had on this as recently as February, I'm afraid it does matter who said what and when. It matters because it's part of a democratic process of this Council. And I will just end, Lord Provost, by saying one of the key asks in this MP proposal is that we see in the data room, if necessary, the surveys that have been concluded. There have been surveys instructed potentially by a number of authoritative bodies, including the Council, Cranston and Haven, and potentially others as well that the Council may be in retention of. Those have not been shared with Councillors, and if the Labor position supported by the Lydam coalition colleagues, and I'm assuming supported by their Tory coalition colleagues, vote to deny Councillors access to that information, they are hamstringing our ability to represent the people who need representation most. When things go wrong, Councillors need to step up and work collaboratively with officers, but it's us that should be taking the decision to make sure that residents are protected, and that's exactly what the S&P position does. Thanks very much, Councillor NOLS-McVie. Councillor Booth. Thanks, Rauch. Indeed, Lord Provost, just very briefly to explain why Greens will be supporting the original motion. This has been an extremely difficult time for residents, but I think there is a slight risk that the amendment will jump to conclusions, and we feel that it's better to wait for the information that has been agreed to in the report in the original motion, particularly around the tram line and external areas. I acknowledge there's been considerable work with ward Councillors on that, and my colleague, Councillor NIL, has also been involved in those discussions, so we will be supporting the motion as originally tabled. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Booth. There are no further contributions, so the Councillor did acknowledge you to sum up and indicate whether you're prepared to accept the amendment. Thank you, Lord, and can I thank Councillor Dobbins. Approach to this, it seems that he wants to work with local members, as he's one of them, to come to a solution, unfortunately, that's not the same as his seconder. The comments made by Councillor Dicks are down here, just unfair, that was comments that were said at the meeting as well, and I hope Councillor May you might go and reflect on them, maybe that's why he's in the backbenches now. This is not about being political, though, but obviously it's absolutely opposite. It's about local members trying to work together with the residents and with Council officers to come to the best solution we can. I think, as you heard from Councillor Booth, we don't need a jump to conclusions, as it seems to be suggested by some. We want to meet with us openly and fairly. And in the discussion we had with residents, they asked for some things from us, which is what was exactly in progress, which is really looking at the cost of scaffolding, really looking at the traffic management costs, which I've touched on earlier, and also regular meetings, which I've all committed to. And only a few people asked to access potentially the shared repairs scheme that may need to be increased, and again, as I touched on officers, have been open to that being increased subject to the relevant committee's agreement. So luckily, as the local members, we are all committed to make this happen. The coalition would be clear already. There's no coalition in it. And we've heard, just some Councillor Booth, the Greens will be supporting a sensible approach to this. Not a political approach to this, Lord Provis. A sensible approach to get the right thing done for the residents down at anchor field on that basin have to move the report and unable to accept the S&P's political motion. Okay, thanks very much. And I take it, the S&P are still wanting to pursue your amendment. In that case, we will have a vote to bring the vote. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] We are on item 8.6. It's a motion by Councillor Day on anchor field building. We have the motion by Councillor Day moved by himself, seconded by Councillor Dijkstra Downey. And against that, we have S&P amendment moved by Councillor Dauvin, seconded by Councillor Noles McVay as verbally amended. So motion by Councillor Day against the S&P amendment. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you and the votes for the motion please. [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you. That is 42 votes for the motion, 18 for the amendment. The motion is carried. Thank you very much. That moves us to item 8.7. Motion by Councillor Stineforth, Chinese manufactured CCTV cameras. Councillor Stineforth. Thank you, Lord Provost. As there are no amendments tabled for this and we are approaching four, I'll be brief. This is about cyber security, particularly with regard to the privacy of our citizens and the CCTV cameras that monitor our city. And it's about ethics that the Council should make every effort to ensure that equipment it uses was manufactured in an ethical way. That is why I have brought this motion today. Obviously the legislation around procurement is complex, but Ross Greer's office in Hollywood, who has been campaigning on this on a national level, is looking into what can be done around the procurement legislation on this issue. So hopefully advice will be coming from the Scottish government on that. With that, I propose this motion. Very much Councillor Stineforth and is there a seconder? Formerly. Thanks, Councillor Parker. There are no amendments. Is that agreed? Thank you very much indeed. Takes us on to 8.8. I think that during this we are likely to head into the four o'clock one minute quick fire round, but I think you may have time to propose it, Councillor Parker. I'll be quick. Yeah, thank you, a lot, Provost, and thank you also everyone for their engagement on this, including a number of officers who work with myself and F&R leads in the run up to today. I think the deputation we heard from you earlier was very clear about the problems many students are experiencing around Council tax discounts, not being correctly applied in cases where students are taking longer than is standard as part of their PhD study. And I think the deputation was also very clear about the real hardship and anxiety that this was causing those students. The policy for student Council tax exemption is in place and is based on national legislation, and I think it is the process around its application, which is now the problem. My understanding is that that problem partly lies at the hands of the universities and the interface between the data and information that they hold and what is shared with the Council, an issue which has rid its head previously. The thrust of the motion then is about asking officers to engage with students and universities to resolve the problem of exemptions, not being applied correctly, and this is something which has become especially apparent in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic. There is a composite motion which I've put together taking on board the amendments submitted, making it clear that the problem is process not policy. This has been circulated and for ease and to save some time it will be proposed by Councillor Watt and Councillor Uni in lieu of their respective amendments. Thank you very much, Councillor interjecting. That takes us to the amendment by the Lib Dem group, Councillor Uni. Are you supposing the composite instead? I'm going to be withdrawing our amendment and then seconding the composite, so I'm not sure how that actually works. So the Lib Dem amendment is being withdrawn, excuse me, I will reset my brain. The amendment by the administration was being proposed by Mandy Watt and it suspect is being replaced by the composite. Right, Councillor Watt. Quickly new that, thank Councillor Parker for bringing this, thank everybody for getting together in a composite, excellent deputation. I know that Council officers have been working on this already with the University. Once the policy is clear, it will be on our website and we will work with the universities. The Council will work with the universities, all of them, to make sure that people are aware of where they stand. Getting into debt for Council tax is awful for anybody on a low income and that includes some students. PhDs, that students are taking it really seriously and they are a big value to the city and to society. There can be real advances and real talent that comes out through PhDs and it will be good to support that. So thank Ben again, Councillor Parker again, thank you, Councillor Uni, who is going to second and without moving the composite, thank you. Thanks, Councillor Watt. Councillor Uni. Thank you, Lord Provost and thank you to Councillor Parker for bringing the original motion and also for his fantastic composite as well. I think it really addresses the concerns raised in all the different amendments. It is fundamentally concerning that people are getting into such difficult situations because of the application of the misapplication of Council tax potentially and we need to help our residents, especially those who are on lower incomes to make sure that we are applying every bit of help to our residents that we can in the cost of living crisis. Yes, second. Thanks so much, Councillor Uni. Councillor Mo, I understand that you had emailed saying you were intending to withdraw your amendment, but I just need some confirmation. I think there's been some rather loose use of the word policy today, so given that ours was based on process around it being a policy, I will withdraw it because my understanding is this is just processed rather than policy. Thanks very much for that clarification. I think I can now ask Councillor Parker if you wish to sum up, but I think there is no counterproposal. Yeah, that was fine. Let's just crack on. Okay, in that case, there is no counterproposal. Is that agreed? Thank you very much indeed. We now move on to 8.9 and we can invite Councillor Uni to propose just. Thank you, thank you, Lord Provost. I'll begin with an admission. I didn't have breakfast this morning, and I'm sure my grand would be aghast at this. Every morning, she looked after us, she made sure that my sister and I had breakfast before we headed out for the day. I know how lucky we were that this was our experience throughout my primary school years. Every piece of research on the subject highlights how important a good breakfast is for young people, for their health, educational attainment, child poverty and social well-being, all these things and more are improved as a result of getting the nutrition that you need in the morning. There are several breakfast clubs already operating throughout the city providing a fantastic service. However, in some places, demand outstrips places available. Additionally, it seems that there is a variety of pricing options with different clubs providing different numbers of free places. Staffing pressure seems to be a real prohibitive factor. I know that down many primary school in my own ward, they're struggling to maintain provision. I have absolutely no problem with different situations existing in different schools. Every learning environment is unique, and the educators there are best places to tailor their breakfast clubs to meet the needs of young people, but also the parents who are, I assume, always rushing in the morning to get their kids to school, get them to the breakfast club, but then also get to work. What I'm keen to ensure that comes back in the report that I request in the motion is availability of places, affordability of places, quality of provision, and getting that comparison with neighbouring local authorities as well. The report of request is designed to gather information, understand the hurdles and work out options to improve the provision of breakfast clubs. Finally, I'd like to see this improvement come through support being provided to schools to deliver them in the way that they deem best. I propose the motion. Thanks. I just wanted to, could you, just because we're approaching four o'clock, indicate which of the addendums and amendments you prepared to accept? Happy to accept the S&P addendum, but not the Conservative. Thanks very much. Did a seconder? I think this counts for young. Thank you very much, Lord Provis, standing in for this one. I'm very pleased to second this. As a parent myself, I went through many a year of being reliant on breakfast clubs when my children were younger. It helps in so many different ways, but working parents in a very practical way, but children in getting a good start to the day, especially with issues of affordability and equity do exist. We do need to understand the playing field, we need to know what's available, where it's available, and affordable and accessible is for people before we can then move on to see how we try and help address where the gaps are. So happy to second this. Thank you. Thanks very much, indeed, Councillor Young. The addendum by the S&P group were within sort of seconds of the four o'clock thing, so Councillor, if you could be brief. I will, Lord Provis, yeah, I'll just be very quick. So this is a really good motion from Councillor Uni, and very much welcome the bringing it forward. I worked, as colleagues will know, for a few years in North Edinburgh as a support assistant in local schools, and during the, I suppose, the depths of the failed austerity project that led by the Conservative government, and saw firsthand how devastating that project was on hunger in our communities, particularly those that are experiencing poverty, generational poverty at times. And so our addendum really seeks to kind of bring out, it's very simple, bring out some of the relationship with very clear relationship, which we all know, using the data that we have available between our poverty communities of multiple deprivation, the statistics that we have on that, so that we can flag those areas potentially where there are black spots. So, yeah, happy to propose our amendment, our addendum, sorry, and very grateful to colleagues in the Liberal Democrats for accepting it. Thanks very much. Councillor Hill's lot. Seconder, Councillor McFarland. Formerly, thank you. Thanks very much. Takes us to the amendment by the Conservative group, Councillor Mert. Thank you, Lord Provis. I'll be brief, whilst no one doubts the importance of good nutrition for children. There are various government specified requirements for children and for access to food, and what Councillor Uni's motion does is ask for an awful lot of information that I think would be very, very difficult for officers to gather. So what we've asked for is bearing in mind that this slots international legislation, which we will have to report back to the national government, can we start by getting that information back and then thinking, is there more information that we need, or is that sufficient for us to plot what we can do? Unfortunately, the Council doesn't have the resources to feed every single child, and many children are fed by their parents, but before going off to school, we need to target it where it's most needed, and hopefully this information that we've asked for will enable us to do that. I move our amendment. Thanks very much, Councillor Moute. Councillor Katie, we've now hit four o'clock, so you have one minute to second. Formerly. That's even better. Thank you very much. Because we've now hit four o'clock, I'm afraid there are no contributions after four o'clock. I'm afraid, so we will need to just move to the... Is there something else? I think, Councillor, you indicated that you were accepting... You were not accepting a Conservative group amendment, but you weren't accepting the addendum by the SNP group. That's correct. Sorry, Lord Provost, I understand that the Labor Group was going to propose a verbal minor changes to wording. Oh, right. If it's a proposal, yes, you have up to a minute. Thank you, Lord Provost. It's just an under point one to change food to healthy, an under point two reducing to mitigate. Is that acceptable to movers? Great. In that case, and I take it, the Conservatives are still wanting to pursue your amendment, so what we will do, I think, is ring the bell. Oh, apparently we need a seconder for Councillor GRIFFITHS. Councillor GRIFFITHS, thank you very much. I think we will now ring the bell and we will assume that the bell has been rung for all subsequent ones after it is finished. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are at item 8.9. It's motioned by Councillor Uni on breakfast club provision. We have the motion by Councillor Uni moved by himself, seconded by Councillor Young, and against that we have the Conservative amendment. Seconded by Councillor COWIDY. Motion by Councillor Uni, can I take the votes, please for the amendment. And the votes for the motion, please. Thank you. That is 52 votes for the motion and 8 for the amendment, the motion is carried. Thank you very much indeed. Item 8.10, I am ruling that that falls file of the six-month rule, so it may be able to be brought back later on. 8.11 is the motion by Councillor CUMAR on the UK government Rwanda bill, Councillor CUMAR, I'm afraid you have one minute. Thank you, the safety of Rwanda, it's an oxymoron itself. There's no safety for asylum seekers in Rwanda. This bill is so horrendous that new powers had to be created just to oppose human rights. Now, we don't have the powers to change this law, but we can ensure that no flights out of our city will depart for Rwanda under this inhumane scheme. But we also need reassurances from the Labour Party that they will repeal and repatriate anyone deported. I move. Thank you. And that was commendably concise. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor CUMAR. Thank you, LORD Provost. Toddry, pathetic, self-defeating piece of fascist nonsense. As a quote from Alison Thullis, who's our SMP affairs spokesperson at Westminster, she's also the constituency MP for, I understand, the constituency of the highest number of refugees in the UK. Where's Streeting, Labour Cabinet spokesperson, we are not looking to unpick the Rwanda policy. I think that explains why the Labour amendment actually takes the guts out of some of it, some of our proposal. Why not ask, in my airport, to refuse such reprehensible activity? Why should I shift it on to the Scottish government? And why is there a lack of willingness to meet our 5D expectation of writing to a circular starmer? What's to stop them unless Cami needs to scurry to Mr Sarwar, who in turn will need to scurry to Mr Starmer to check what needs to be said in the letter? Thanks very much, Councillor McInnes. That takes us to the amendment by the Administration, Councillor Day, in a minute. Thank you, LORD Provost. I have to move the Administration amendment. In the second paragraph, I'd like to add what it says, Councillor Follough requests the Council of the Rights to, to include Edinburgh Airport and the Scottish Government. I mean, I'm pleased that most parties in the Chamber are keen for a new Labour government, as I am. Couldn't come sooner. But my leader has been quite clear that Labour will repeal the Rwanda Act in government, should they be in government, when elections are called. Couldn't have been, couldn't be clearer. The timeline has not been given yet, because we need to get into government and see what messages there has left that in before we can then take forward. Progressive policies for the UK that will work together across all nations in the United Kingdom. My leader in London, Keir Stanner, has said that he wants to crack down on people's smuggling gangs. I'm afraid you're running out of time. I have to move, LORD Provost. Thanks very much, indeed. Seconder, Councillor Jenkinson. Okay, formally, LORD Provost. Thanks, Councillor Jenkinson. It takes us to the Liberal Democrat Amendment, Councillor Lang. Thank you, LORD Provost. So, I think on any measure, this act is a failure. It's a failure in morality in terms of how it impacts upon some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It's a failure practically. In fact, there is zero evidence. It is deterring small boat crossings. And it is a failure financially. Almost £300 million spent and not a single flight taken off. And, LORD Provost, if, as all the polls suggest, there is going to be a change of government this year. We believe that it is important that the incoming Prime Minister and the incoming Labour government not just commit to scrapping this act, but scrapping it as one of its very first acts in government in the first 90 days. Thanks very much, Councillor Lang. And second, Councillor Thornely. Thank you, LORD Provost. Councillor Lang is quite right. It is a failure in so many ways. I would add one final one. Morally, it's disgusting, and the Labour Party needs to decide where it sits. Seconded. Thank you very much, Councillor Thornely. Okay. LORD Provost, I'd like to move no action. Okay, thanks, Councillor White. When LORD Provost, very quickly, this is a matter for the House of Commons and the House of Lords. They have had extensive debate on this. We understand some of the issues being raised from other parts of the Chamber here. But I reckon those have been debated extensively at length in those two other places. That's where they should be debated. All of these parties, not much of that party, it's a Scottish-only party, but all of these parties have representatives there. They've taken part in that. And apart from anything else, the challenge I would put back to them is if you do not declare Rwanda a safe country and allow for processing of migrants in that country, and you saying that Rwanda isn't safe, then what challenge do you have to sort the problem of people being trafficked in small boats across the Chamber? Thanks very much, Councillor White. Seconder for no action. I look forward to the appointment of Councillor Kumar as leader. We worked together in education where she had proven herself to be tenacious, composed and focused. All good attributes. I heard she intends to embrace unity in this Chamber rather than the divisive rhetoric of her predecessors and others who have been in the mix for her position. I had hoped for a wind of change, and I've been very disappointed with the tone of the language of grotesque and disgusting is not the fitting of the Chamber. This is not the UN. Our job is to fix potholes, empty bins, and oversee the running of schools, not dabbling in foreign affairs or the home office. I welcome the opportunity to bait these issues, and that would be on the campaign trail for Edinburgh South with Councillor Kumar, not here, and I second no action. Thanks very much indeed. Okay, Councillor Kumar, to sum up, can you indicate what you're prepared to accept and what you're not prepared to accept? Thank you, Lord Provost. Very delighted to accept the Libdam Amendment and unable to accept the Labor. You will not accept? Not accept, thank you very much. Okay, I think that leads us to a vote about action and no action first, and then, depending on the outcome of that, potentially further vote. It does indeed, Lord Provost, yes, you're right. So we are on 8-8-8-11, motion by Councillor Kumar in the UK Government Rwanda bill. We have the motion by Councillor Kumar, elected by Councillor McKinnis, which also accepts the Liberal Democrat Amendment. We have the Administration Amendment, which was verbally amended, moved by Councillor Day, seconded by Councillor Jengerton. And we have the Conservative Amendment of no action, moved by Councillor White, seconded by Councillor Cowdy. So we'll take a first vote on 4 and against no action. So can I please take the votes for no action? Can I take the votes please against no action? Thank you. The Provost, we'll have to end with to our motion. Okay, that is 8 votes for no action, 52 votes against no action. We then, Lord Provost, have no other vote to have. There's then no other proposition, so the motion is passed. That takes us to item 8-12 by Councillor Kumar, Edinburgh Community Learning and Development Partnership Plan. Councillor Kumar. Thank you, Lord Provost. The HM Inspector report highlighted really good things with the CLD plan, but it also highlighted failures in leadership and governance. And although there's a paper coming to the June Committee in Education, a composite motion has gone on out because we do want more time to review that and do it well. So I move. Thanks very much indeed. Could I have a seconder? 4-9, Lord Provost. Thanks, Councillor. His vote. I'm just catching up with my procedure here. Councillor Griffiths to propose an amendment by the administration. Thank you. Councillor Kumar, very kindly incorporated the words that we were going to put in an amendment and to go with the... That's withdrawn. Sure. My understanding is we've got an all-party composite. So I'm going to write some guidance on composite motions because they're always confusing to me as well. Because you can't have a composite motion against nothing, which means that Councillor KUMA had to move her motion. And that's seconded, put it on the paper. Then we need someone to move and second the composite so that that can get agreed. So Councillor Griffiths, would you like to move the composite? You have it up to a minute. I will informally move the composite. Thanks very much indeed. And a seconder of the composite. Councillor Uni, seconded formally. Thanks very much indeed. There are no other, I think, I hope. I think that's it. So there is no other proposition. So is the composite agreed. Great. Thanks very much. Right. Item 813 by Councillor Kumar. And by children's partnership. Councillor Kumar. Thank you, Lord Pervis. This motion is actually quite simple. We recognise importance and value of children's partnership and multi-agency work. What we do have concerns and concerns across the chambers is how that actually works, how important decisions are made and the democratic processes. We've had too many items come to the committee with that proper scrutiny that is being made somewhere else. And we need to strengthen that and I'm happy to move our position. Thanks very much Councillor Kumar and a seconder. Thanks Lord Pervis, that's me again yet. So just to echo what my colleague Councillor Kumar has said, this is about governance and accountability. We're elected to this chamber and sent to that committee to represent interests of young people and the families. And in order to do that and to do our best by them, we need to make sure the decision-making bodies are transparent and accountable. So I second. Thanks very much Councillor Haslam to move the agenda by the Liberal Democrat Group, Councillor Uni. Thank you, me again. Yeah, we think it's a really good motion. We just added that little point on, I hope it's acceptable. Just in the interest of transparency as well, we hope that will help. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you very much, Lord Pervis. I'm happy to come up and second this one. As Councillor Kumar has touched on and thank you for bringing this here, we have had some issues lately in education committee. We are lack of knowledge and understanding over areas of responsibility and delegation has caused us some challenges. So I really welcome that this is before us. We'll help to provide that kind of real definition. And again, in terms of our addendum, we're trying more and more to have things we have passed and are now in the public for transparency and for accessibility. And hopefully you'll find our addendum accessible, acceptable. I'm happy to second. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor Young. Then the addendum by the Conservative Group, Councillor Cody. Thank you very supportive of Councillor Kumar's motion. Thank you very much for bringing it. Our addendums, the F2I were taken from motion from the EIGB in November and we thought there were some parallels. So we're hoping that that would add to the scrutiny and the final point was to add a briefing just to help with members' understanding. And I propose. Thanks very much. Councillor Cody. Okay. To second, Councillor Jones. Thanks very much, Councillor Jones. Now, could I ask Councillor CUMAR to indicate which you're prepared to accept? Accepting them all. Accepting them all. In that case, there is no counter-proposal as I agreed. Thank you very much indeed. That takes us then onto item 814 by Councillor Aston on Edinburgh bus station and there was a written deputation on this matter. Yeah, thanks, Lord Provost, obviously, as we saw in the deputation, I'm sure we all kind of instinctively know the bus station is a key piece of the city's strategic transport infrastructure. Kind of up there with Waverly and Haymarket in terms of importance and as the bus users' group said in their deputation, probably handles more passengers than Haymarket station does. So, obviously, the rumours we've seen in the press that sites way out in the outskirts like Ingleston could potentially be considered a very worrying effort to be taken seriously. You know, clearly, that far out from the city centre massively diminished the attractiveness of travelling to Edinburgh by intercity bus undermines the levels of integration we currently have next to the train station, the tram stop, our excellent local buses, and of course, the inevitable impact of that is that it makes car travel more attractive, which is exactly the opposite of the council's strategic priorities. And, you know, this isn't – we could be told potentially commercially sensitive information without the council having to tip its hand in terms of future negotiations, but we have to see what options are available, what contingencies they are. Thanks very much. That's the minute I'm afraid. Thank you. And, seconder. Formerly the province. Thanks very much, Councillor McFarland. There is an amendment by the administration, Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Lord Povis. The bus station itself is a gateway to Edinburgh, 5 million people per year. Go through it. A lot of them, it's their first interaction with Edinburgh. Isn't that right, Councillor Bandol? We have to remember that and we have to get it right, private joke. And I would also – I want to thank Councillor Arson for bringing this along because I think that we need to speak about buses here more often, I think. But this is really important for the city and I'm looking forward to looking at the options appraisal with other tech members, hopefully sooner rather than later. Thank you, Lord Povis. Thanks, Councillor Arthur. And a seconder for Councillor Arthur. Formerly. Thanks, Councillor for the agenda, and then an addendum by the Green Group, Councillor Bandol. Thank you. We're grateful to Councillor Arson for bringing this motion and agreement that has been reached by everyone, I believe. Our denim just quickly makes the point that the current owner is a pension fund for former coal industry workers, which should have the best interest of its members as a hard. And in this case, it is in the interest of its members to support a trust transition that ensures nobody is left behind as we decarbonise our economy. So, essentially, a located bus station that is encouraging low carbon travel is exactly what it should be investing in. Thank you. Thanks very much. And a seconder. Formerly, Lord Povis. Well, thanks very much indeed. Thank you. That takes us to an amendment by the Conservative Group, Councillor Cody. Thank you, Lord Povis. Our amendment is fairly simple. It's designed to both support the motion for a report on what is a significant issue for the city's public transport network and to keep the breadth of ideas. More open by trying to avoid focus on compulsory purchase issues, which we have not the funding, nor should we have the inclination to trample over the rights of private property owners. I agree that continuation of a centrally located bus station is of great importance. And I trust great consideration would be given to an alternative site where we have more control, such as Cassiterra's car park. With that, I thank Councillor Astin for raising the motion and propose our amendment. Thanks so much, Councillor Cody. And thank you very much. I agree with Councillor Astin's concerns. And I'm glad that he brought this today regarding the bus station, how important it is to residents and also Edinburgh bus users group. We support a report coming in three cycles, but we need to know what discussions have taken place so far with the owners of the bus station, including any discussions surrounding the purchase of the site, finding an alternative site in the city, and the impact to relocate the bus station to sites such as Engleston, which we think would be concerning to Mary to many. It would also be remiss of me not to raise our concerns around a compulsory purchase order, forcing the cohort to sell and using public money to make this purchase, which could prove legally difficult. We want to see what options are available to the Council to ensure that Edinburgh retains a bus station in the centre of the capital. Thanks so much, Councillor Woodrow. That takes us to the summing up. Councillor Astin, could you indicate what you're prepared to accept, what you're not prepared to accept? Yeah, absolutely happy to accept the Labor amendment and the Green Addendum. And I think I've got agreement from the Conservatives to accept their amendment as an addendum on the basis that the three cycles timeframe instead maps to what Councillor Arthur has set out in terms of June or August. I'm seeing lots of agreement from the Conservatives. In that case, if all of those are acceptable, there is no counter-proposal, so is that agreed? Thank you very much indeed. That takes us on to item 815 by Councillor Gartner, sister city's recognition. Councillor Gartner. Thank you, Lord Provost. And in bringing this motion, it's important to note that we really value the links and solid down to our sister cities. The link with Munich came about after the devastating war between our countries, and it's now 70 years old. I understand that there's broad agreement in the Chamber about celebrating the names of the sister cities and marking and street names. And we therefore accept parts of the amendments from both the Labor and Liberal Democrat groups. Where we differ is that we're requesting a report to the Planning Committee to consider renaming the part of the street where the Russian Federation is located to Kiev, Giv Street. This is about the true solidarity of the citizens of our sister city at this difficult time. Producing a report to a small ask compared to the suffering that's going on in that city. As a student in Glasgow in the 1980s, I was made aware of the importance of solidarity and the impact of actions that Councillors can take through the renaming of St. George's Place in Glasgow into Mandela Place, and how that gave solidarity and inspiration to the prisoners in Robin Island. I'm afraid your minute is up. Thank you, Lord Provost. Councillor Gail explain the civic government Scotland Act and how that interfaces. Wait a minute. Thanks very much. Seconding. I believe Section either 87 or 97 of the Civic Government Act 1982 allows us to rename Street's given 28 day publication in the local press. I hope that a report that is requested by our motion could go into much more detail than I can at this point in a second. No pressure. Thank you very much indeed. The amendment by the administration, Councillor DAGLISH. Thank you, Lord Provost. First of all, I want to thank Councillor Gartner for bringing forward this motion. I think it's right to show our support for our sister cities across the globe, but particularly the city of Kiev in the nation of Ukraine. Our amendment focuses on the question of the process regarding the naming policies and what is the clearest way of achieving. As well as acknowledging the fact that underrepresented groups, particularly women, is a focus of water streets named after. I appreciate Councillor Bailaji trying to give us some information about this act, but this act was only introduced about 45 minutes into this conversation. I think we need more time to discuss and debate that and understand its ramifications and implications and get officer comments. So I might not be able to accept that. I think the Labor amendment clearly states that all 10 sister cities should be added to the street name bank with Kiev being named as the first amongst those equals. And that we try and centre the focus of our attention, not necessarily on the Russian consulate in Mabel Street, but focus on the unique and positive flinks we have of our sister cities and residents in those cities that live in Edinburgh. Thank you, Lord Provost. Thanks so much, Councillor DAGLISH. And to second, Councillor Lazy-Marian Cameron. Thank you, Lord Provost, just very briefly. I agree with what Councillor DAGLISH has said, but also highlighting the fact that we do have many underrepresented groups, especially women, that we also have taken a decision previously to name streets after. Thanks very much indeed, Councillor Lazy-Marian Cameron. And then amendment by the Liberal Democrat group, Councillor Thornley. Thank you, Lord Provost. I'd like to congratulate Councillor Bailaji on his power of recall. While we completely understand the sentiment of Councillor Gardner's motion, we do have some concerns. We feel these concerns are pretty well captured within the Administration Amendment, so we'll withdraw. Thanks very much indeed. Okay, that is withdrawn. So can I now move back to Councillor Gardner and ask you just to clarify once again what you're prepared to accept and what you're not. Thanks. Yes, so Lord Provost, what we will accept and will add a point six in is to take from the Labor Amendment. The following, the Council's street naming procedures were last updated by Planning Committee on October 2019, when it was agreed that the priorities should be given where possible to women's names. And then we're taking from the Liberal Democrats to address underrepresented groups and promote diversity. And then that involves renaming our 6, 7 and 8 as 7, 8 and 9. And finally, on to 9, we're going to add, after our words, new streets, full stop, we're going to add the Liberal Democrats' sentence. This action should be considered as an opportunity to highlight cultural links between Edinburgh and its sister cities to strengthen and recognise cultural ties. Thank you, Lord Provost. Okay, thanks, Councillor Gardner. I hope everybody got that. But if not, can I just check with the administration whether you're still wishing to pursue your amendment separately? We will, thank you. You would like to, okay. And Liberal Democrats want to continue with your, okay. In that case, that's withdrawn. Okay. So that there's just there for one vote. Yes. Okay, thank you, Lord Provost. So we are on item 8.15 is motion by Councillor Gardner. And it's just the city's recognition street naming. We have the motion by Councillor Gardner, moved by himself, seconded by Councillor Biassie. And against that, we have the administration amendment, moved by Councillor Doubtley, seconded by Councillor Cameron. So motion by Councillor Gardner against administration amendment. Can I take the votes, please, for the amendment? Thank you, and the votes for the motion, please. Thank you, that is 28 votes for the motion. 32 for the amendment, the amendment is carried. Thank you very much. That takes us on to item 8.16 motion by Councillor Mumford on landlord registration fees. Councillor Mumford. Thank you, so Provost. This motion has been borne out of, and has caused, some confusion this month, with conflicting information coming from the Council and the Scottish Parliament about whether Councils do have the power to charge landlord's additional fees. So I'm very grateful for all the engagement with officers on this, and from the Liberal Democrat colleagues who will be proposing the composite amendment. And so I'll say now we're very happy with that. Because although our groups have different views on over how exactly we should take action on this issue, and which committee it should sit under, there's clear agreement between our positions. And that is that local authorities should have more say in and control of the fees associated with the private rented sector in our city. I'd also like to thank Libdom and SMP colleagues for pointing out that the fees have slightly increased from what's in the motion, a sign of how long these conversations with officers in the Parliament have been going on with going on for. So with that, I move this motion. Thanks. Thanks, Councillor Mumford. And seconder. Just formally. Thanks very much, Councillor Parker. And the amendment, is it Councillor Flannery? Okay, just checking that. So with drawing the motion, amendment, in favour of the composite. Somebody needs to propose the composite. That's me. Okay, well, please go ahead. Please go ahead and propose that composite. I'd like to propose the composite. Thank you very much. Is it a seconder? Sorry. Yes, thank you, Lord Provost. And thank you to members across Chamber for indulging us in this. I think local politics is strongest when we explore things fairly and if it means working together to look at things to make sure things are fair, then that's what we will do. Thank you. Seconder. Thanks very much. Now, I think, and I'm just going to double check with Councillor Mumford that you're happy to accept the composite amendment. Yes, which has been proposed. And therefore, there is no counterproposal. That's correct. And therefore, we're all agreed. Is that right? Fantastic. Good. That takes us then onto item 817, motion by Councillor Ray on the Jean F. Watson bust. Councillor Ray. Thank you, Lord Provost. And moving this motion, put some very honour to bring. I would like to thank, firstly, the cocktail triplets. The singular one. And then I would also like to thank Miss Jean Watson herself who's out, had contribution to her in this city. We wouldn't have the gallery that we have and the very expensive coffee shop appended to that. I've alluded very much forward to seeing Jean Watson's bust. She's splendid next to that coffee shop. And I would say that at this point, I'm afraid I can't accept the amendment. And I thank my colleague who will second this motion, Councillor Mumford, for sending the link to the resources that I request to the Liberal Democrats. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. So, I've got a hint there that the secondary would might be Councillor Mumford. Councillor Mumford. It is. Thank you very much. Just formally, though. Thanks very much, Councillor Mumford. The amendment by the Liberal Democrats, Councillor Thornley. Thank you, Lord Provost. And thanks to Councillor Ray for bringing this motion. I recall she's been looking into this for some time, and she's done a power of work behind the scenes in the spirit of the concerns expressed about the extent of our request and our amendment. We're happy to drop on U.4, so it just becomes a report to culture and communities. I move. Thank you. And, Councillor Rosalner. Formerly. Thank you very much. Can I – that's all of the proposals. Can I now go back to Councillor Rainsey in the light of the amended amendment? Are you prepared to accept that or not? No, it stands as this, I think. Thanks. Okay, Liberal Democrats, we wish to pursue the amendment as adjusted. The report needs to go to a committee, so yes, we will pursue. Okay, so we'll have a vote. Thank you. Okay, we are on 8/17. It is a motion by Councillor Ray on the G&F Watson Bost. We have a motion moved by Councillor Ray, seconded by Councillor Mumford. We have, against that, a Liberal Democrat amendment moved by Councillor Thornely, seconded by Councillor Osler, which is just the .3 element of the amendment only. So, motion by Councillor Ray, amendment Democrats. Can I take the votes, please, for the amendment? Thank you, and for the motion, please. Thank you. That is 36 votes for the motion, 24 for the amendment. The motion is carried. Thanks very much. That then ticks us to item or province. 8/18, which is motion by Councillor Cody banning the use of mobile phones during school day, and there was an excellent deputation heard earlier today on that. Thank you. Thank you, LORD Provost. I think the motion is fairly self-explanatory. It is about trying to combat the issue of distraction of mobile phones during the school day. I was fairly elated last night when I checked the amendments and saw that the Greens and the Lib Dems seemed to be single of the same page. I was very then deflated, disappointed this morning when I found a composite motion against my position. So, I am going to propose, I think we've got a strong position and I'm going to propose my motion. Thanks very much, Councillor Cody and second, Councillor Jones. Thank you, LORD Provost. The survey referred to in this motion has shown that teachers in Scotland have mixed views on banning phones in schools. But, however, the vast majority survey say that mobile phones disrupt classes. And that is the point here. We need to try to achieve a balance. The most important fact I think here in the survey is that while 72% of members indicated that the school had mobile fine policy, only 10% could refer to a policy that they considered extremely effective or very effective. And to me, that is the point. We need to get a policy which is used by all schools which is effective. Thanks very much, Councillor Jones. Now, there has been a composite which has been circulated. Do I understand from all of the other groups that were proposing amendments that you're withdrawing your amendments in favour of the composite? I'm seeing nods, so if you don't shout, that's happened. So could I invite the person who is proposing the composite to propose it? Thank you, LORD Provost. I'm trying to find a cut everything out. There are pros and cons regarding these digital devices in schools, but it's not a new issue. It's been around for quite a number of years. We know the UK government has released guidance on mobile phones in schools in England, and the Scottish government is about to bring guidance forward due to course. A number of our schools across the city have already implemented their own policies regarding mobile phone usage. Any policy we implement is best guided by our teachers, young persons and the wider community. Where guidance is welcome, it's also vital that we do not implement this without the consultation of our teachers and young people, and to ensure that no blanket ban is enforced which may disadvantage any young person for whom access to a mobile phone is essential. That's why I think this is a great opportunity, ask our schools what implemented bans or restrictions they already have in place, and also ask the young people's forum for their views on the matter and further identify with any gaps in existing policies. I'm afraid that's the minute. That's a perfect timing, thank you very much. Yeah, that's my self lord provost. I'll be very brief because Councilor Griffiths has pretty much said everything that expressed everything that I've used on it. When I saw the motion that came forward from the Conservatives, I thought the banging on drum, it's not going out about the UK government's position in their guidance. That's not an effective way to implement policy. If they're serious about the harms and the problems that mobile phone usage causes in schools, then bring forward policies that have a strategy towards minimising mobile phone usage that actually will be effective, which means working with the communities, working with the broader school communities, working with parent councils, working with people. In order to build effective policies that have buy-in from those communities, so we're happy to second this composite. Thanks so much indeed. Just a double clarification with Councillor KAide that you still wish to pursue your motion rather than the composite. Is that a yes? That's a yes, we've no idea which Scottish government are going to come back with their guidance. In that case, we moved to a vote. Thank you lord provost. We are on item 818, it's a motion by Councillor KAide on banning on using mobile phones during the school day. We have the motion moved by Councillor KAide, seconded by Councillor Jones. And against that we have a composite amendment moved by Councillor Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Hislaw. So motion by Councillor KAide against composite amendment. Can I take the votes please for the amendment? Yes. Thank you, and the votes for the motion please. Thank you. That's a vote for the motion 52 for the amendment. The amendment is carried. Thank you very much. I will now vikit the chair and invite the deputy lord provost to take over. Thank you very much. Thank you. Lord provost I hope you're not going to leave us. I've got stairs. Members of council is my very happy duty to propose the congratulatory motion for 40 years service as a Councillor to our 258th lord provost and lord lieutenant of the city of Edinburgh. When he was elected our lord provost, the lord provost said I look forward to being a proud civic lead for the world's best capital city and working to make sure Edinburgh remains a leading light on the global stage. One of his well washers said at the time also he will need every ounce of his patience and ability to make people work well over the next work well together over the next five years. I first got to know Robert in the mid 90s prior to being elected myself when Robert was elected to the then shadow authority. And since then I've got to know him extremely well. We were Bailey's together in the last term and of course I happily serve as his deputy lord provost during this term. I'm very grateful to Robert as being a former EICC board chair like myself for his continued support and wisdom in that role. And I think it's absolutely wonderful that we're all here today and that six days ago you would on the 3rd of May that absolutely marked your 40 years since your first election to the city of Edinburgh. Robert congratulations from me and I think that's because of all of the chamber that we appreciate what you do as our lord provost but what an inspiration to have served our city of Edinburgh so well so faithfully so diligently and the job that you're doing as lord provost particularly tune a bit years in and you've already had some significant events to deal with and to represent our city so finally so thank you very much for your service as a counselor and as our lord provost thank you. [Applause] The second counselor line thank you very briefly deputy provost coming from a party of liberal democrats who tend never to win elections. It's all the more extraordinary that we've got a member who has done that 10 times but by any measure serving as a counselor for 40 years is an extraordinary record of public service. And I think Dolby Paul all of us find more extraordinary than anything else is that you still do it with such energy and with such stamina. And whether it's been in opposition administration or as our lord provost it's been clear that your commitment to this city has been total. So congratulations on reaching the most extraordinary milestone although I know you're quite competitive so you've still got a few years yet to go before you break the all time record that has been set. But thank you for all that you've done and our congratulations Dolby. [Applause] Well I'm now completely embarrassed but thank you thank you all for your kind words and your applause. I'm sure it won't last we'll get into the next council meeting but thank you so much I really appreciate that. We now due to your efficiency in getting through these motions have a chance to have some questions and supplementary questions until five o'clock so the treats just never end. Here we go. So it's question 10.1 by council keep increase and take up of blue badges for answer by the leader of the council. Is there a supplementary? There's no supplementary. Question 10.2 by council you missed you sub blue badges. Oh it missed you sub blue badges for answer to the council. Is there sub-flage? Yes. Yes please Lord Provost. Thank you to the leader for their answer. The answer notes the officers are currently developing a business case to support ongoing blue badge enforcement. As the council caught 21 people misusing badges at the same time as thousands going unclaimed will the leader commit also to an additional business case to better support people applying for blue badges and other entitlements. Good evening. Thank you Lord Roskin. Thank you for this supplementary. I mean I think the increase that we've seen in the customer hub to ensure that people who are applying for a wide range of benefits has been reported to PNSF for a previous dip in that and some issues with employing colleagues to work there. The customer hub is increased that we're also working across the city with the many welfare benefits providers in the third sector as well. There have been droppings in schools and community hubs and local venues across the city to try and access both blue badge requests and much wider benefit support and advice. But I absolutely welcome to bring forward any other suggestions that the officers might take forward in terms of accessing allowing more people to access blue badge applications and wider benefits as well. I know the local teams across the city would be really keen to hear that so thank you for your supplementary. Thanks so much. Christian 10.3 by Councillor HEEP negotiations with large events organizers. Is there some symmetry? I mean usually well organised this time I got them in first. Thank you to the convener for their answer. The answer says that in relation to large music events the venue is hired by a promoter who is responsible for decisions relating to ticket provision and neither the venue nor the council have any influence. They might not have any direct power but I would argue they do have influence. And as our new Chief Executive put it at Culture and Community some time ago we can still ask nicely that the tickets are provided as a community benefit and as a gesture to the city. So can we please do that? Councillor Walker. Yes, first of all I want to thank you Councillor HEEP for championing free and reduced tickets in terms of the commercial venues. We did think you look just absolutely no chance like for the tails with the last two or are we going to be given free or reduced tickets? But we can take it further and I'm very good at asking nicely so give it a go. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. Question 10.4 by Councillor HEEP firework control zones. Thank you. I know there's Taylor Swift fans in our group so they'll be pleased about the last answer. In terms of 10.4 thank you for outlining the community request process. I understand from officers that residents wanting to propose a city wide zone can email the email address provided to make that request. That's really, really welcome and I thank officers for that, for facilitating that and for their work more generally on control zones. That being the case, can I ask why that opportunity is not referred to anywhere on the Council's webpage and AFCZs, anywhere in the Council's press release on Monday, nor on the application form. It's only in my email inbox at the moment. Councillor Walker. I think this is really good work going on within the Council in terms of investigating what we can do to control. Fireworks and the sale of fireworks. As to why that's not on the website. I don't know but I will investigate and see that it is on the website. Also, I think you'll be aware that this is an item that will be discussed at Cultural Communities Committee in a week's time. Thanks. Thank you very much indeed. It takes us to question 10.5 by Councillor Parker at Grass Cutting Trials. Is there a supplementary? Yeah, thank you. With regard to the answer to question six about promotion and engagement, come the convener confirm that those resources will be shared with elected members so that we can share the good news far and wide and as soon as possible. Councillor Walker. Very happy to confirm that. Thanks very much. That takes us to question 10.6 by Councillor McFarland, Morrison Street, Low Mission Zone. Thanks to the convener for his answer and the officers for the hard work on this. Can I just get reassurance that ghost signs as part of this work will be landstoff and the adjacent streets that the Western Community Council have raised. The signage is reviewed around the kind of around the actual street itself as part of that work to make it safer. But thanks for the answer. Councillor interjecting. Happy to pick that up. Thank you. Okay. Thanks very much, Councillor Arthur. Question 10.7 by Councillor Lange, pedestrian crossings. I do. A lot of progress. Thank you. So an answer to question one, the convener says that new pedestrian crossings could be prioritised if there are the last bullet quote, luckily identified issues, which feels like quite a broad term. Does it think it'd be useful to have our briefing note, round Councillors, so we can understand what kind of issues would justify a new pedestrian crossing separate from a PV2 assessment? Councillor Arthur. I think this is part of the move away from the PV2 assessments. What I'll commit to is over the next two or three committee cycles, maybe get something in the business building just to clarify that point. It's not a problem. Thanks, Councillor Arthur. Question by Councillor Lange, planning concerns granted within Queen's Ferry over the last eight years. I've got no supplementary for this or questions, 9, 10 or 11. Okay. You're making me rush past my list here. So that's question 10, 12 by Councillor Caldwell, CPZ phase one and two dialogue. Thank you for us. Thank you, Councillor for the answer. In regards to answer two that you gave, the phase one monitoring will lead to phase two to be examined by committee. How will phase one engagement and monitoring lead to improvements within phase one, Leaf, Abbihill, Gorgay, Chandon? Thank you. Councillor Arthur. Thank you, Councillor Arthur. I shall speak to officers and get an answer for you. Thank you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 13 by Councillor Beall, emergency yellow lines. Yeah, thanks. I'd just like an answer. Does the Council actually have a specific policy for how it implements these statutory instruments for emergency yellow lines? Because it seems a bit like a bit more sort of detail in that, please. Thanks. Councillor Arthur. I think, essentially, I mean, the Council uses the policies very, very rarely. So I think, essentially, what they're doing is following the legislation. If you do have concerns about it, you think there's a policy gap? Please get in touch and I can chase that. Thank you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 14 by Councillor Nolles-McVay, charges to anchor field residents. Councillor Nolles-McVay. I do thank you very much, Lord Provost. Can I ask in relation to answer number 4, how will Councillors ensure that bills do reflect market rates for scaffolding? What decision-making mechanism is open to Councillors to be part of the final decision on the bills that are issued? Councillor DING. As I touched on, I thank Councillor Nolles-McVay for his supplementary. As I spoke of earlier, the officers are working through all the costs and the recent information that was supplied to local members about the difference in scaffolding costs, for example, has been investigated. Officers, in the earlier response to the discussions, I did commit that we will bring forward the report to PNS. And if there's any of that information that can be provided in that report, we will, of course, supply that for scrutiny to all members. Thanks, Councillor DING. I get question 10, 15 by Councillor Nolles-McVay on anchor field. Thank you, Lord Provost. Can I ask in relation to answer 1, who is the lead owner that's mentioned in the answer? Because this is a building where every property within it is owned by someone different. Councillor DING. Thank you, Lord Provost, Councillor Nolles-McVay for his supplementary. I am aware that there was one member who, I think, from the group took a lead on this and had contacted the consultant. And that's where the information was fed back to, and the officers understood that they had been shared. I'm not sure that was shared with all the residents, but it was a request from one of the owners for the consultant's report. Thanks very much. Question 10, 16 by Councillor DOBIN, tram payments to residents of anchor field. Councillor DOBIN. No, something around you, thanks for 17. Thank you very much, Councillor DOBIN. It takes us to question 10, 18 by Councillor Nicholson, Carres Act funding. Thank you, yeah, quick supplementary, thanks for the answer. Could I have some information on each year from 2021, a breakdown of how much has been distributed to Carres through the Adult Carres Support Plan? I'm aware that you won't be able to give that to me now. Thanks. OK, Councillor POX. Yes, thank you, of course, Councillor CASSIDY. Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. Happy to follow that to provide the information. Thank you. Thanks very much, Councillor POX. Question 10, 19 by Councillor CASSIDY. His luck, West Craig's transport links. Thanks, Yadu. Thanks, Councillor After, for the answer. I'm curious to know if you think that the fact that these residents and these new houses that were promised public transport links aren't going to have a bus service for potentially another year or more is going to increase personal car usage and congestion in West Edinburgh. Thanks, Councillor Ather. Yeah, obviously it's a really concerning situation, and I'll be honest, I wasn't aware until you used the question, so I'm really grateful for your reason to question. Thank you. Thank you very much. Question 10, 20 by Councillor Afton, traffic light and pedestrian crossing lightbulb. Thanks, Lord Provost, and I find the convener for his answer. My supplementary is in relation to the answer to the first part of my question. I am really struggling to understand how this answer could be provided. Obviously the plural of anecdote is not data, but will the convener agree to seek out the data behind this, to give us an understanding of, you know, why the data is not matching up to what people are seeing in the streets every day? Councillor Ather. I think the point I was trying to make is that I'm not aware of there's been any increasing problem, and I think that was suggested in your question. But genuinely, if you've got specific questions, I can put them to officers and get an answer if there's not a problem at all. Thank you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 21 by Councillor Parker. Yes, thank you. Can the convener confirm the reason why the advertising contract with Leonardo was terminated as detailed in Question 9? Councillor GRIFFITHS. I don't have that information, but I'll get that to you. Thanks very much. Question 10, 22 by Councillor Flannery, Saint visits for fees for Binhob Design, South Side area. Councillor Flannery. Hello, yes, I would like just a little bit more clarification. Please answer three. You gave me good information about 135 Binhob location, 67 of which were reported. But my question was about South Side Newington, particularly. So, could you please tell me the specific sites and site visits for there? Thank you. Councillor MURPHY. Apologies, I must have missed a tip of your question. I'll get that answer to you as soon as possible. Thank you. Question 10, 23 by Councillor Flannery, impact assessment. Again, could you confirm that impact assessments are done on all the surrounding roads where there are major road works? I don't think you address that directly. Councillor interjecting. I think obviously a closure like what we've seen at Cameron's tour was unplanned. I can only assume that an impact assessment is done on surrounding roads, but there comes a question of where you clearly draw the line. So, if you're able to put the question in a more specific form, I'm happy to take it back to Officer Znask and that's what happened. It's not a problem. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. Do you want to get a little comeback without an offer? No. OK. [LAUGHTER] Worth a try. Question 10, 24 by Councillor Flannery, parking permits. Yes, and again, it's confirmation I'm looking for here that we are issuing parking permits, knowing or knowingly knowing that actually there aren't the spaces for them. So, again, can you confirm that or not? Councillor interjecting. I think that's the case and I don't think it's new. I think all the time I've lived in the city, certainly for some years that has been the case. Of course, not all the spaces are getting used all the time, but if Councillors do have a concern about that and they want to bring down the number of permits in their zone, they're welcome to come along to committee with a motion asking for that. That's not a problem. Thanks very much. I understand Councillor Douglas is not present, so his questions will be dealt with under the five o'clock road, that's 10, 25 and 26. I'm going to push through to the end because it would be unfair to leave Councillor Booth out of the list. So, Councillor Jones, question 10, 27, number of places allocated for early years. Thank you for the answer and no supplementary. Thanks very much indeed. 10, 28 by Councillor Mitchell, coming up in review. I was expecting to get to me. Sorry. The question I have, which is ready, is how could I have clarity on how there could be more second stage complaints compared to first stage complaints? Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Councillor Mitchell. I'd love to see it. I've been taking off the culture and communities. I'm glad to see you're still in the binhole. Excellent. Yes. That's an interesting question. I will get an answer to that for you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Question 10, 29 by Councillor Booth short term length. Thank you very much indeed, Lord Provost. I thank the convener for her answer. The statistics appear to show that certificate of lawfulness applications account for more than 80% of certificate of lawfulness applications are still to be determined. Please can the convener clarify the reason for this? I thank my colleague for the question. I don't actually know the answer straight off because obviously it's quite complicated. I know that there is a complication in the level of detail that is required to actually understand a certificate of lawfulness and sometimes some of the applications don't have full information. So there is a request to go back to individuals to get more information. But what I will do is I will find out from colleagues to get an answer back and I will make sure that everyone has the answer because I'm sure it's of interest to everybody in this room. Thanks very much. Councillor Osler. And the final question, Councillor Booth. Thank you, Mr. Dean. Lord Provost, I thank the convener for his answer. In answer to previous questions, he committed to engage with ward Councillors on the school street at Stonewall Street. But that is absent from today's answer. So will the convener please clarify whether he will engage with both Leith and Leith Walk ward Councillors on this in the future since it sits on the boundary? Councillor Ather. Very happy to Councillor Booth and if you want to arrange a meeting, I can get an officer to come along and talk about what's happening and that's not a problem. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that concludes the business, so thank you all for your patience. Fantastic. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.