Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R M Udall, Ms C M Stalker, Mr P Denham, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald and Ms P Agar.
The motion was moved by Mr R M Udall and seconded by Ms C Stalker who both spoke in favour of it.
The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.
Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:
· This motion would not only protect the Council's employees but enable this Council to show leadership and an example to other employers in the county. The current policy of allowing 5 days compassionate leave at the discretion of the relevant Director or to use sick leave was insufficient. The proposed 10 days paid leave would boost employee confidence and provide financial security
· Lack of self-esteem and confidence was a major factor affecting victims and anything that could help them in these circumstances was vital
· The flexibility of the current arrangements meant that approval was discretionary and not a right. The three main concerns of victims were housing, finances and health and each of these factors needed time resolve. In some cases, there was the need to protect children
· It was surprising that the administration was unwilling to support this motion. It was the right to receive this leave that was important, giving employment protection rather than relying on the discretion of managers. Only a small number of employees would be affected by this right and therefore the financial impact would be minimal.
Those against the motion made the following comments:
· The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Transformation and Commissioning commented that the Council had committed to a pledge against domestic abuse and sexual violence. The Council had a range of policies to support employees with time-off with pay including up to 7 days special leave. The Council's current policy framework was flexible and could be utilised to support employees experiencing domestic abuse beyond the 7 days. Employees were encouraged to disclose issues to line managers who could respond flexibly to requests for time off and seek approval for special leave. Given this flexible approach, the notice of motion was unnecessary
· The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families argued that this motion was flawed because it sought to make the victim suffer whilst the perpetrator was left untouched.
On a named vote, the motion was lost.
Those voting in favour were:
Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr A Fry, Mr M E Jenkins, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr L C R Mallett, Mrs F M Oborski, Prof J W Raine, Ms C M Stalker, Mrs E B Tucker, Mr R M Udall (13)
Those voting against were:
Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos, Mr T Baker-Price, Mr R W Banks, Mr G R Brookes, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms R L Dent, Mr N Desmond, Mrs E A Eyre, Mr S E Geraghty, Mr P Grove, Mr I D Hardiman, Mr A I Hardman, Mr P B Harrison, Mr M J Hart, Mrs A T Hingley, Mrs L C Hodgson, Dr A J Hopkins, Mr A D Kent, Mr S M Mackay, Ms K J May, Mr A P Miller, Mr J A D O'Donnell, Dr K A Pollock, Mrs J A Potter, Mr A C Roberts, Mr C Rogers, Mr J H Smith, Mr R P Tomlinson, Mr P A Tuthill, Ms R Vale, Ms S A Webb. (34)
Those abstaining were:
Dr C Hotham. (1)