This council notes the outcome of the County Councils vote on Tuesday 21st March 2023 in regards to a referendum on Congestion Charging. While disappointed by the outcome it does not alter our view that there still should indeed be a referendum.
This council will write to the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council expressing this Council's support for a referendum on the introduction of a "sustainable travel charge" otherwise known as the "Cambridge Congestion Charge".
Decision:
Council Rejected this Motion.
Minutes:
Councillor Peter Fane, as acting Chair, explained that the motion had been amended with the Chair’s consent. It was noted that a maximum of 30 minutes was allowed for the motion.
Councillor Heather Williams explained that it was the first paragraph of the motion which had been amended, due to events that had occurred after the deadline for motions had expired. She stated that this motion had been brought to Council in response to the level of concern that many people had regarding the congestion charge. Part of the concern was that there was no mandate for the introduction of the charge and a referendum would allow everyone in Cambridgeshire to vote on whether they wanted to see it introduced.
Councillor Heather Williams stated that she was trying to find some consensus on this matter and she expressed her disappointment not just in the decision of the County Council to reject a referendum, but also in the nature of their debate. She stated that a referendum would give an opportunity for an open discussion, which would allow both sides to express their point of view. It was democratic and elected councillors should not fear democracy. She suggested that the Council’s representative on the Greater Cambridge Partnership should speak for the entire authority and should be asking for a referendum.
Councillor Richard Stobart stated that the consultation on this matter had received 23,000 submissions and there had been a considerable effort to hear the views of young people, who were greatly affected by this matter but would not be old enough to vote in a referendum.
Councillor Stephen Drew explained that many people who lived just outside Cambridgeshire would be affected by the establishment of a Sustainable Transport Zone, but would be excluded from voting in a referendum purely for Cambridgeshire residents.
Cllr Martin Cahn opposed a referendum as it was unclear what people would be voting on, given that the congestion charge proposals had not yet been agreed. It was also unclear who should be allowed to vote in the referendum, as the issue affected many people outside the county’s border. He concluded that it was too complex a matter for a simple yes/no question and he compared it to the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Councillor Tom Bygott stated that the Greater Cambridge Partnership wanted to impose a tax on residents without a democratic mandate to do so. He supported a referendum as the most effective way of determining the opinion of the public on this matter. Councillor Dr James Hobro explained that Cambridgeshire County Council would decide whether to implement the congestion charge and not the Greater Cambridge Partnership.
Councillor Graham Cone explained that he would be supporting the motion due to the number of residents, from a large cross section of the population, who had contacted him opposing the proposed congestion charge. He added that as someone who worked on the biomedical campus, he could report that there was considerable opposition to including Addenbrookes Hospital in the congestion charge zone.
Councillor Dr Richard Williams spoke in favour of a referendum as the congestion charge had not been an issue at the local elections and so the public had not been given the chance to vote on this contentious matter. He stated that the franchise for a referendum would be the same as the franchise used to elect councillors in a county council election, who ultimately would decide whether to introduce a congestion charge. He also asserted that voters considered the interests of young people and others who were not able to vote.
Councillor Peter Sandford stated that he understood that the cost of a referendum would be £1.5 million, which he felt could not be justified to residents, as it would be better spent on more pressing issues, such as fixing potholes. The proposed referendum essentially duplicated question 9 of the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s consultation and he concluded that we should wait for the results and analysis of this.
Councillor Judith Rippeth suggested that a referendum would disenfranchise not only those under 18, but also those who lived just outside Cambridgeshire and those, of all ages and locations, who had taken part in the consultation by the Greater Cambridge Partnership. The consultation allowed a more nuanced response that a simple yes or no referendum.
Councillor John Williams explained that the Greater Cambridge Partnership had just carried out an extensive consultation, which had resulted in 23,000 responses, with open questions that had encouraged nuanced answers to a complex question. The responses were being compiled into a report that would be discussed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership Board in June. The Board would then make a recommendation to the County Council on the proposed scheme. He opposed the motion, as a simple yes or no referendum disregarded the consultation and was not appropriate at this time.
Councillor Daniel Lentell explained that 15,000 Cambridgeshire residents had signed a petition asking for a referendum on this issue. He stated that compared to Brexit, the congestion charge was a simple issue and so a referendum would be appropriate. He opposed the charging of £5 for those visiting Addenbrookes Hospital, for Cambridge residents simply driving off their property and for delivery drivers visiting the city. He asked that businesses who were reporting that their livelihoods would be disrupted by the charge be listened to. He supported a referendum because the decision makers did not have a mandate to introduce a congestion charge.
Councillor Heather Williams stated that limiting the referendum to those who lived in Cambridgeshire made sense, as these were the residents most affected by the proposed charge. A referendum would explicitly ask whether residents were in favour of a congestion charge, whilst the recent consultation did not do that. She suggested that the cost of the referendum could be crowd funded, as this would be cheaper than having to pay the charge. She stated that those who wanted to introduce a congestion charge had no mandate to do so and a referendum could provide one. She explained that the congestion charge was a controversial, cross-party issue and a referendum was an appropriate way to deal with such a matter. She had been contacted by carers, businesses and a disabled person, all opposed to the charge. She explained that the actual wording of the referendum was not under discussion. The issue was whether councillors believed that residents should have a vote on this issue or not. She concluded that if councillors rejected a referendum then they were in effect saying that they knew better than the residents on this issue.
Councillor Heather Williams proposed and Councillor Daniel Lentell seconded the motion. A vote was taken and were cast as follows:
In favour (8):
Councillors Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Graham Cone, Sue Ellington, Daniel Lentell, Bunty Waters, Dr Richard Williams and Heather Williams.
Against (20):
Councillors John Batchelor, Dr Martin Cahn, Stephen Drew, Peter Fane, Bill Handley, Sunita Hansraj, Sally Ann Hart, Geoff Harvey, Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Dr James Hobro, Helene Leeming, Annika Osborne, Dr Lisa Redrup, Judith Rippeth, Peter Sandford, Richard Stobart, Natalie Warren-Green, Eileen Wilson and John Williams
Abstain (1):
Councillor Carla Hofman.
Council Rejected this Motion.