Meeting documents

The Chairman advised that a Motion to Council: Supporting Women Councillors had been received from Mr S Lambert and also an amendment to the Motion, proposed by Mr M Tett.

Mr S Lambert proposed the motion and made the following main points:

·         The Fawcett Society had undertaken cross party research with evidence from female councillors across the country with a view to answering the question ‘Does Local Government work for Women?’

·         A key theme of the report was how to get more women into politics – this required actions from political parties and also local authorities in promoting being a councillor to women and other minority groups.  It was noted that there had been a significant increase in the number of female MPs but this had not been reflected in local government.

·         In the private sector, research had demonstrated that more diverse teams perform more effectively and it was important that the Council should be representative of the population as a whole.

·         It was natural to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities and to encourage more women into politics it would be helpful to remove structural barriers, for example, paternity leave.

·         At Buckinghamshire County Council there was only one female Cabinet Member, no female Select Committee Chairmen and only one of the four Statutory Committees was chaired by a woman.

·         However the Council did have strong female role models in its senior management team and this motion was designed to enable women to achieve and believe that they can.

·         Whilst the Council may not particularly have a problem with sexism or sexual harassment, it was important to have clear policies in place to deal with this.

Mr Lambert concluded by commenting that this was an opportunity for the Council to lead the way in supporting women councillors.

The Chairman noted that Mr Tett, proposer of the amendment to the motion had waived his right to speak in favour of Lin Hazell, Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing. Lin Hazell made the following main points:

·         In the majority group, 37% of Members were female and this was 14% in the opposition group. Also over 10% of County Councillors were from a Black or Minority Ethnic background, therefore the Council was already diverse.

·         Lin Hazell had not come across anyone who had felt they were unable to stand as a councillor or who had felt blocked in any way by male colleagues. She did not believe that there was an issue in Bucks but the recommendations of the Fawcett Society report should be considered by political parties and also perhaps the Member Development Working Group.

The Chairman invited Members to debate the motion and the following main points were made:

·         The Leader commented that whilst the Fawcett Society report was very interesting, the original motion implied that we had an issue in Bucks, which he did not believe to be the case.  He did not agree with the idea of quotas to increase representation for women or any group. Finally as noted previously the Council had a number of senior female officers including the Chief Executive, providing evidence that the Council was not discriminatory.

·         There was no need for positive discrimination as women had progressed. It was noted that half the District Council Leaders were women and they had achieved these positions on merit, not because of their gender.

·         Female Members wanted to earn their place on merit, not because of positive discrimination although it was recognised that women should be encouraged to play a part in public life and women councillors could act as role models, especially for younger people.

·         In addition to women, it was important to encourage people from all backgrounds to consider standing as a local councillor.

·         This was an issue of psychological aspiration for women. The debate should not focus on whether the Council had an issue currently, it was about standing up and ensuring that there would not be any problems in the future.

·         A significant proportion of Members disagreed with the idea of quotas for candidate selection.  In reply, Mr S Lambert commented that he had not mentioned quotas in the original motion as he agreed that all Councillors should be chosen on merit.  He believed that the proposed amendment to the motion was a lost opportunity to make a valuable change for the future.

·         A Member commented that she had hung on to her seat for twenty years despite changing her party political allegiances in that time and she paid tribute to the new Honorary Aldermen, who had also been long serving female members of the Council.

RESOLUTION

The amendment as set out on the Council papers was voted upon by a show of hands. This was carried.

A short debate on the amended motion then took place.

RESOLUTION

The proposed motion as amended was voted upon by a show of hands. This was carried unanimously.