Thanks very much.
Please be seated.
Okay. So we have two council meetings today.
The special meeting and the second one.
A veritable feast for everyone.
So welcome to this meeting of the City of Edinburgh Council
and I hope you'll find today's proceedings interesting.
I must draw to your attention
that the meeting is being filmed for live
or subsequent broadcast via the council's internet site.
You should be aware that the council is a data controller
under the General Data Protection Regulation
and Data Protection Act 2018.
We broadcast council meetings
to fulfill our public task obligation to enable members
of the public to observe the democratic process.
Data collected during the webcast will be retained
in accordance with the council's published policy.
Generally, the public seating areas will not be filmed.
However, by entering the meeting room
and using the public seating area, you should be aware
that you may be recorded and images
and sound will be stored as mentioned above.
Children will not be filmed, though sound will be heard.
For this special meeting that we'll go straight through,
I do intend to hold a break immediately after the deputations
in the second meeting and then to have a break for lunch
at around 1 o'clock.
Counselors may wish to be aware that there will be some members
of the City of Munich Council, our oldest twin city with us,
who will be joining us at lunchtime
and I hope you'll make them feel very welcome.
Okay. I think we can now move on to the order of business
for the special meeting.
Thank you, Lord Provost.
So motions and amendments have been circulated
and a composite amendment for this item has just been sent
out just ten minutes ago, so please have a look at that
if you haven't already seen it.
That takes you then on to declaration of interest
and this is just declarations of interest for this item rather
than the whole agenda.
So are there any declarations of interest, either financial
or non-financial, from Liberal Democrat Group, please?
And the SNP Group, please?
Labour Group?
Councillor McKenzie?
Conservative Group, please?
And the Green Group?
Then that does take you on to deputations, Lord Provost,
and we have one deputation and it's from Liberton
and District Community Council.
Is it the council's wish to hear the deputation?
Yes, thank you.
We can welcome them then.
[ Pause ]
Good morning.
You're very welcome.
As a deputation, you have up to five minutes
to present your case and following that,
there may be questions from members of the council.
So we very much look forward to hearing what you have to say.
If you wish to know how the microphones operate,
you press the button in the middle and a red light comes
on and then we will hear you.
So the floor is yours.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
My name is Graham Forbes.
I'm Secretary of Liberton and District Community Council
and I'm here with our chair, Bill Crowell,
and our planning convener, Ronnie Shaw.
On behalf of Liberton and District Community Council,
we wish to make three pleas to the committee with regard
to the community council scheme.
Our first plea is to retain the name of Liberton
and District Community Council.
In 2009, our name was changed from Liberton Community Council
to Liberton and District Community Council
to indicate the inclusion of new estates.
We consider the proposed name of Liberton, Gracemount
and Inge Community Council to be exclusive rather than inclusive
since it adds only two of the areas
within the community council area,
which also includes Annick Hill, Howden Hall and Morton Hall
and potentially Birdie House.
Historically, Liberton covered a very wide area,
including the aforementioned estates.
We feel, therefore, that the name Liberton
and District Community Council does not require change.
We note in this respect that a supplementary motion
to retain the name has been put through the council
and we welcome a positive decision on this.
Our second plea relates to the proposed boundary changes.
Following a request from our planning convener,
council officers provided population figures
for Liberton and District
and Gilmerton and Inge Community Councils.
Though it is not clear whether these include estimates
for new housing developments.
We are currently in discussion
with our neighbouring community council with a view
to reaching an agreed position on revised boundaries.
Both councils feel that the current proposals would not
deliver an equitable population balance.
We would therefore appreciate
if the committee would allow us additional time
to present an alternative proposal during the final four
week consultation period.
Our final plea concerns the rules for nominated groups.
We feel that the scheme should make it easier
for community councils to seek involvement
from locally active representative
but often not tightly constituted interest groups
such as residence associations and parent-teacher councils.
We feel that the registration procedure for the appointment
of nominated representatives deters local interest groups
and should be changed.
We suggest the removal of the requirement
that groups should be constituted for over a year,
that they must re-register before each election
and that they must be of benefit
to the wider public beyond their members.
We believe these changes would help to increase participation
and the diversity of membership and we urge the committee
to consider these suggestions.
Thank you for the opportunity
to make these pleas to the committee.
[ Applause ]
Thank you very much.
Do any members of council wish to ask a question?
Thank you, Lord Provost and thank you for being here today.
And thank you for being succinct in your remarks as well.
If the council weren't to heed your pleas,
how would that affect the effectiveness and workings
of your community council?
If the council were to--
If we didn't agree to what you're asking us to do.
What are we asking you to do?
Basically, give us time during the four-week consultation
period to revisit the boundaries in discussion with Gilmerton,
Inch and council officers and also with respect
to the nominated groups.
We do think that the conditions
for registering nominated groups are too restrictive.
It narrows the diversity of the community council.
About 95 percent of our community council is represented
by this demographic here which is not good.
We have tried to encourage, let's say parent associations
of local-- one particular local school and a community garden,
kind of non-aggressment association.
And to some extent, while they start the process of trying
to register, it kind of basically falls down.
And I think it is due to the complexity
of the registration system.
I also think it's very important that we try
and encourage more people from various groups
to become involved in community councils.
There are no further questions.
So can I thank you very much for your deputation
which you've made very succinctly
but also very eloquently.
We will consider that and we will consider the item
immediately following this, so if I could invite you to go
to the public gallery and listen to what is being said,
we will move straight on to the item in a minute.
Thanks very much indeed for your deputation.
[ Applause ]
[ Silence ]
OK, that does take us on to item 4.1, review the scheme
for community councils and their boundaries
and there was a composite amendment
which has been proposed.
So could I invite Councillor Walker to propose?
Thank you.
Thank you, Lord Provost.
I had the privilege earlier this year of being invited
to the meeting of community councils that was organized
by the Edinburgh Association of Community Councils.
It is fair to say that there was a free
and frank exchange of views but it was always polite
and the views of the representatives
from the community councils have shaped my proposals this morning
with 46 community councils representing a diverse range
of communities across Edinburgh.
It is important that we take a flexible and adaptive approach
to this scheme that while acknowledging some challenges
basically supports the work and the wealth of knowledge
within these organizations.
While we recognize that lack of turnover may be an issue
for some community councils, imposing a one size fits all
term limit for chairs will be disruptive to the stability
and continuity of our community councils
and it is not a requirement that we apply to ourselves.
Instead of compelling knowledgeable chairs to retire,
we should focus on improving the publicity
around community council elections
and we should facilitate better use of technology to try
to ensure that a diverse range of voices are reflected
within community council office spirits
and to improve their communications with residents.
Similarly, decisions on naming community councils we feel
should be taken by the community councils and not imposed
by ourselves as the City of Edinburgh Council.
It is important that we respect the local knowledge
of our community councils regarding the needs
of their communities and we do not limit them
with prescriptive top down policies.
Instead, our role as the City of Edinburgh Council should be
to empower decision making and to facilitate training
and improve technology wherever possible.
I'd like to thank all the proposers of amendments
who came together quite quickly this morning to try
to present a clear choice between two different options.
Thank you.
Thanks very much, Councillor Walker.
And second, Councillor Graham.
Formerly Lord Provost.
Thanks very much indeed.
Are there any kind of proposals if that is not the case?
Is -- oh, sorry, Councillor Standiforth.
Yes. While we're willing to accept most of the composite
that has been shared, we would support option one --
option two, not option one.
We feel that term limits would allow more voices to be heard.
While we thank them for their dedication to volunteering
to that role, the fact that chairs can remain
in post four decades does mean
that new voices sometimes struggle to raise
and be heard, especially as community councils are apolitical
and are not subject to much, if any, campaigning.
So for that reason, and to avoid that stagnation
and introduce new voices, we would support option two
as the answer to 1.2 in the composite amendment,
not option one.
Beyond that, we are happy with the composite amendment.
Thanks, Councillor Standiforth.
And a seconder?
Formerly, thank you.
Thanks, Councillor Bandol.
OK, contributions?
Councillor Thornley.
Thank you, Lord Provost.
I want to start by thanking officers for their work on this
because the feedback from one
of my community councils last night was
that they felt more engaged than they had for a very good while.
I appreciate that's not a universal view, but it shows
that good work has indeed been done here.
There's a lot here and a lot of different positions
and combinations, and I want to thank the Culture
and Communities Convener for pulling it together.
Much of that we do support.
We have a lot of additional work streams proposed here
to support community councils going forward.
It's important that we -- we think it's important
that we follow through on that and make sure
that we're actually doing what we say we're going to do.
However, we also need to keep track of these
and make sure it's progressed and applied, which is why I'm glad
to see that Councillor Walker has accepted our 1.9.
We have, I understand, a requirement that for
to progress to the next stage, we need a two-thirds vote.
On that basis, we will support the composite as written.
Thanks so much, Councillor Thornick.
Councillor Molybdenum.
Yes, thank you, Lord Provost.
I just wanted to speak a little bit about the retention
of Option 1 and the support for not having a term limit
for chairs.
Having worked with community councils for many years
of differing health sizes and constitution representing
different sizes of population, I think we need to be realistic
about the pressures that we're putting.
If every community council was returning so many members
at election time that there was an election
for every community council, I would be saying
that term limits might be appropriate.
But I think we have to recognise that the reality
of this is, especially with some of the smaller community councils
and there's a wide variety of population size
that community councils represent, that you may end
up getting rid of community councils or leaving them
without a chair if we impose this on them.
Councillor Walker spoke about not imposing measures
from above, and whilst I appreciate you may think
that this would be the catalyst that would bring in new voices,
having had to rescue one particular community council
on a number of occasions at election time,
there simply isn't the variety in the voice to have
that imposition on those members.
And I think we should recognise some people have done this job
for a long time, but I cannot think of any community council
where a chair has been in situ for a long time
who has restricted other people from coming in,
but they've carried on doing that job
out of the duty to that community.
And we simply don't have -- and if we get to the happy position
where we have many more members wanting to be members
of community council and that that is a barrier,
then I think we might want to revisit it.
But on this occasion,
I think we should be recognising the good work that some
of those longstanding members have done
and not putting artificial constraints
which will make it more difficult for them to operate
because they are a valuable part of our local democracy
in the city.
Thanks so much, Councillor Murray.
Councillor Leslie, Marion Cameron.
Thank you, Lord Provost.
I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who's come together
in support of the composite.
I remember the time we didn't have a Liberty
and Community Council.
We had no community council in that area and it was set
up in 2001, and as was heard in the Deputation,
it became Liberty and District as things grew in the ward.
I hope that this whole process in terms
of the consultation period especially will attract
and stimulate interest in supporting and connecting
with our community councils, whether as part
of an affiliated group or indeed as someone who wants
to become a community council.
And I also make a plea, and this is a plea I've made many times
in different places, committees and council.
I also hope that we as a council will continue to respect
and value the contribution of our community councils and value
and view them as a resource, as a local resource.
They're not just there for consultations
on things we want to consult in.
They're there to provide other local information and insights
that we as elected members find very, very useful.
And I know that as councillors we're busy and I know many
of us have more than two, three community councils in our ward
and it's difficult juggling diaries, but with technology
and with communications things are a lot better in terms
of how they were when I was first a councillor in terms
of being able to have that connection
with our local community representatives.
They are statutory bodies.
We should respect them and resource them so and I hope
that post consultation period, whatever the outcome,
that we have a renewed sense of and set of community councils
and community councillors.
Thank you, Lord Provost.
Thanks very much indeed.
There are no further contributions, so could I invite
to Councillor Walker to sum up?
Yes, thank you.
I am really pleased that there is only one point of difference
between us all and that's over a term limit.
And my view on that has been shaped by talking to,
listening to representatives from community councils
and I think the way to encourage new people
to come forward is not by us imposing a time limit,
but by using the facilities that we have
to encourage more people to become involved
in their local community council.
And that's not just words.
The proposals in this paper are really quite specific
about how we can publicise the elections
and improve communications.
Thank you, Lord Provost.
Thanks very much, Councillor Walker.
So I understand there are two propositions before us.
Therefore, we will need to have a vote.
So could we ring the bell, please?
[ Inaudible ]
[ Silence ]
[ Inaudible ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
Okay, thank you.
We are on item 4.1, the review of scheme
for community councils and their boundaries.
Just to clarify, Councillor Thornley did touch on this.
Anything which looks at the scheme
for our community councils is very specific
in the legislation, hence why we have a special meeting,
rather than having it in normal business.
Any amendments to the scheme, even for consultation,
require not less than two-thirds of the council to agree.
So I do need two-thirds of the council to agree, hopefully.
And if everyone votes who is in the chamber, that is 41 of you.
So just to make clear the position in terms of voting.
So we have a composite motion from the administration,
the SNP group and the conservative group,
moved by Councillor Walker,
seconded by Councillor Graham, as circulated.
And we have a green amendment, which takes upon option two,
instead of option one, which is the difference
between the two positions.
And that is moved by Councillor Staniford,
seconded by Councillor Bandolf.
So composite motion, green amendment.
Can I take the votes, please, for the green amendment?
And for the composite motion, please.
[ Silence ]
Thank you.
That is 50 votes for the motion, 10 for the amendment.
The motion is carried.
Thank you very much.
That concludes the business of the special meeting.
So we will move.
