 Ibarodau y Llywodraeth yn amlwg yn ffrwng yma? Rhaid. Fy hoeddi'r ffordd. Fy hoeddi'r ffordd y Llywodraeth ym Mhidder i'r Cymruol Cymru, eu penderfyniad rhaid am gyntaf Pederfeyd, ac mae'n yn y cerddau i'r penderfyniad, a maes i mi'r assistant o ddechrau ym gyntaf Pederfyniad Peder Saenfert. Mae'r penderfyniad ym Mhidder i'r penderfyniad ym gyntaf a brých o'i wno'r cymaint recall the best value notice issued by the government. This meeting is being livestreamed and recorded, and we allow recording, filming, and photography so long as the meeting is not disrupted. Please, would you all ensure that your phone is on silent or switched off? You should also keep your microphone switched off until you're invited to speak. If participating remotely, there are some. When you're invited to address the meeting, please make sure your microphone and camera are switched on, and then when you finish addressing the meeting, please turn your microphone and camera off. Members attending remotely should indicate their wish to speak through a chat message in the Teams meeting. Please don't use the chat facility for any other purposes, unless you're writing down a simple amendment. Those present in the Chamber should indicate their wish to speak by raising their hand, and I will ask the vice-chair to note the order of speakers. Any complex amendments should, of course, have been shared with democratic services in advance of the meeting. When we move to a vote on any item, and there is not clear affirmation, I will state that a recorded vote will be taken, and members in the Chamber will then vote electronically in the usual way. And the result will be displayed. The meeting is quarried, so we will proceed. Number one, item one, Apologies for Absence. Are there any Apologies for Absence? Thank you, Chair. There are apologies from councillors Hawkins, Van de Ven, Hales, Ripth, Hobro, Halings, Atkins and Warren Green. Thank you. And there are some members, I believe, participating remotely. We have one more Apologies for Absence, I think. Councillor Howe and Councillor Miyato. Thank you. Let's see, are there any members participating remotely? Yes, Councillor Natalie Warren Green and Councillor Michael Atkins. And Carla Hoffman, there we are. Good. So item two is declarations of interest. Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any interest, which relates to the item of business on the meeting, and if an interest becomes apparent during the meeting, then the Member should bring it to the attention of all officers at that stage. Councillor Lentell. Thank you. Chair, it seems to be immemorial custom at this point to ask if all officers here present are in compliance with their interests. Thank you. That's not a declaration of interest. I'm not quite sure what being in compliance with their interests would mean, but I don't think that's appropriate at this stage if you don't mind, Councillor Lentell. So do any other members have any interest to declare in relation to any item of business on the agenda? Okay, as I said, any interest becomes apparent later in the meeting. Please raise it at that point. And I remind members, item three, that they need to keep their register of interest up to date and to inform democratic services of any changes. So we come to the only item of business for tonight, item four, which is the best value note you've served on this council by the department for levelling up housing and communities. Since this is an extraordinary meeting of the council, we will not be agreeing the minutes of the last meeting and nor will be is the provision for public speaking an extraordinary meeting, so we will move directly onto the best value notice. Now, before I call on the leader to present the report, let me say that I would remind members that I called this meeting actually at the request of the leader of the Conservative group following receipt of the best value notice stated 3 November, and if I feel members are straying on to other matters, some of which we discussed and debated at our council meeting on 5 October, then I will intervene and remind people that tonight is about the best value notice and how the council responds to it. I should say also I'm aware that on 6 November, some members received a letter from the then minister for local government regarding personal liability. As to that point and the points that he raises, I think members have all received advice from the monitoring officer, which addresses the contents of that letter. Broadly speaking, it is the council that is responsible. I'm now going to ask councillor Smith, as leader of the council, to introduce and propose the item before opening up the item for questions to the leader. Thank you very much chair. So tonight, South Cambridge District Council is debating the recommendation to engage with the department for levelling up housing and communities to provide the vast amount of data they have requested from us. They've asked 80 questions requiring 186 answers. So whilst I'm pleased to be able to make the recommendation that's set out at 2 in your papers, I'm disappointed that we have to. The government's refusal to engage with us positively, despite two invitations from me, is puzzling. And we now have the situation where the previous minister for local government has decided to oppose the trial on purely ideological grounds. I suppose I should not be surprised, but I am disappointed. I'm still keen to meet with the new minister to discuss the trial. And I hope he really have written to him and I've said my door is always open. So the intent of the best value notice is perfectly clear. Is to sync our trial prematurely and provide a smoke screen for political attacks from the Conservatives. Rather than wait to read the conclusions of the trial next year, the Conservative government have decided to put party political interest first. The data requested in the notice from the government includes data not normally collected by councils. And the sum is nothing short of bizarre. The sheer amount of it will be onerous and costly for the council to provide. And that's a burden on our taxpayers. The Liberal Democrat administration in South Cambridgeshire have always and will always prioritise the best interests of the people who live in South Cambridgeshire. This is why we introduced the trial in the first place. And we're disappointed by those who've tried to turn this trial into an issue of ideological orthodoxy and a cultural war. At a time when we should really be working together to support our residents through the many challenges caused by this government. Not least of all the cost of living crisis, the health crisis, the social care crisis and the homelessness crisis. Councils across the country, but especially in expensive areas like ours, are all facing a recruitment and retention crisis. And this has been compounded by Conservative cuts to local government year on year. And councils have been forced to innovate and to respond as South Cambridgeshire has. We're no different in that regard. Michael Gove, in fact, owned earlier this year, called on us to innovate. But obviously it needs to be the conservative type of innovation and not everybody else's type of innovation. Thanks to the four day week trial, we will have saved hundreds of thousand pounds that annually would have been spent on agency staff fees. And we've already recruited over 50% of those most difficult to fill posts which really impact on the service that our residents get, particularly in planning. And I struggle to see why the government objects to this saving. The council's performance is consistently amongst the best in the country, exceeding or meeting the vast majority of targets set, which themselves are often stretch targets. And even when just occasionally we miss internal targets, the council has remained in the top quartile or even joint first place nationally in the UK. So the Liberal Democrats on South Cambridgeshire council will not buckle under pressure from the Conservatives and will continue to unwaveringly put the interests of the people of South Cambridgeshire first. And I hope that you agree to comply with the notice from the government and will not allow the trial to be prematurely disrupted before its natural conclusion when the emerging benefits are becoming so clearly evident. Thank you, chair. I'm going to divide this up into a session of questions, the leader. I would prefer those questions are on clarification of what's in the report and that we all stick to the best value notice if possible. So if you would like to indicate. So I'm not proposing to ask for a seconder at this stage because we will come to that shortly. At this stage we are asking questions of the leader who has just presented the report. OK, so if you'd like to indicate if you have questions to ask and the vice chair will have the happy task of noting the order in which you face your hands as far as that is humanly possible. Give us a moment here. Right. Let's start the questions. I think the first was Councillor Paul Bear Park. Thank you, chair. My question is quite simple. Could we just ignore the best value notice and the data request? Thank you. So that was one of the options we considered. So because it's been issued under non-statutory guidance, yes, we could ignore it. But we've invited the minister to meet twice now to discuss what the problems are we're trying to solve and to take a look at the early results. And now we're only four months away from the end of the trial, the later results of it. So by just ignoring it actually we're ignoring an opportunity to actually start communicating with the department even if we're not communicating directly with the minister. I think we should welcome the opportunity to share our evidence and hopefully it might filter through the civil servants to make it onto the minister's desk at some point in time. So when you're asked to do it by somebody by government, it's a sensible thing to comply as much as you can. And on this occasion I believe we should comply with the request. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair, and I'll address my questions for yourself. First of all, will the leader commit to all councillors seeing the data as it is submitted so that we can all see the figures that are being sent through, and also to include sharing with us the historical things that have been asked for such as the business plan, et cetera, as is in our appendices. Secondly, did the leader instruct the chief executive to intervene in the way that has happened on page 21 onwards in response to a letter that was written from politician to politician, or was this under the leader's instruction? Question as the introduction, Chair, about working together. If it's important to work together, why has the leader refused to allow all councillors in this chamber to have a vote? And I think lastly, does the leader accept that what we have now is a consequence of not fully looking at and debating the principle of the four day week in advance of the political decision taken by this council to take it forward? Leader. Thank you. So, I don't know as the answer, the first one, about sharing the data. I'm aware that the government has identified a very experienced, probably highly paid, statistician to deal with it, because there's a vast amount of data. So, I don't know as the answer to that, about whether we'll be sharing it, because I think there's possibly also GDPR consequences of some of it. So, I will come back to you on that one. I'm going to skip over the second one because I don't quite understand it at the moment. Sorry, have you got that? If I may defer to councillor Mills. Well, I'm just checking that I've understood your question. Are you talking about the email that went to some of the councillors from the Rowley? Yes, councillor Mills. Chair, I'll clarify through yourself. If I can turn you to page 21, where we have a letter that's gone to a redacted individual, which if you look at the first line, I write to follow up on the letter to councillor Bridget Smith from Minister Lee Rowley MP. So, I think we can all agree that those two people are politicians. Was the response here from an officer as per the leader's instruction or was she unaware of it? Thank you. Yes, I was most certainly aware of it. You know, the letter came, there's been correspondence with civil servants. So, it was one civil servant responding to another civil servant and it was absolutely with my knowledge. Going on to refusing a vote. As we explained last time, that will happen at the end of the trial. And the consequences have not. So, I am perfectly comfortable with the process that we have gone through. We had a problem of recruitment and retention and we mustn't lose sight of the fact that that's the reason for the trial. Cabinet rightly and properly made a decision to trial a four-day week. That process is underway. We had a debate in the last council meeting. Lots of information has gone out over the last 12-month period. So, I'm quite comfortable with the way that the whole trial has been run so far. I think it's right and proper and I just look forward to us getting to the end of it. And then having a, once all the data has been analysed, then obviously there will be a vote by all members in this chamber once we have analysed all the data. Councillor Annika Osborne. Thank you, Chair. What does the best value notice do? When is it usually issued and why do we have one? And also, I wondered how prepared the council is for the first data drop associated with the notice. Thank you very much. So, best value notice is in almost all, in almost if not all circumstances other than our powers, issued to local authorities that have got themselves most often into serious financial problems, like woking or Birmingham, or who have really dreadful issues over government, governance, sorry, or the processes or performance. Now that's not us. We had a corporate peer review three, four weeks ago that showed that we are one of the highest performing councils in the country, and we are enviably financially sound. It said that we had no financial issues, we had substantial reserves, and we were exposed to no concerning risk as a result of our investments. Most councils give their ITs to be in the position we're put in. So this is unusual bordering on bizarre that we should get a best value notice. It's because we have fallen foul of a conservative view about a four day week. They're just fundamentally opposed to it without looking at any of the reasons why one should embark on it, or any of the evidence coming out of it. I've not heard the same sort of objections from government about the public sector looking at four day weeks, and there are, sorry, the private sector embarking on four day weeks, and if you look at other parts of the world, in Scandinavia it's kind of the norm, large parts of Australia, in America a lot of the education establishments are moving for four day week. We're behind the curve in this country, it's the 21st century now, there's been massive learning thanks to COVID, the workplace has changed, and if we don't change with it, we're going to be left behind both from the point of view of recruiting and retaining people within the UK, but actually on the national stage we're already being left behind. So are we prepared to submit the same amount of data? So the first lot of data has to be in by midnight tonight, so depending on the results of this evening's meeting, somebody has ready to press a button. It's a vast amount of data, as I said, 80 questions, 186 answers. I hope government have got the capacity to look at it and analyse it all, and I hope they have the ability to use it fairly and wisely, but from our point of view, we're ready to go. Before we move to the next question, a point of information I think from Councillor Hathor Williams. Yes Jed, I just think it's important for all members to know that all that we've had from the peer review is an informal feedback session, the report has not been published and provided because it was referenced, and equally I think very important chair that people know that the peers made it very, very clear that their report wasn't in no way something that supported or had negative comments. It was not about the four-day week. They gave that right at the start that it was not there to defend the four-day week as the leader just has. Thank you for that. So if I have a point of information, please chair. So I was not referencing any comment from the corporate peer review on the four-day week. What I referenced was their comments, which those of us who took part in the presentation, about our finances, about the very positive culture within this organisation, and about our general performance. So I was referencing the facts as were presented in that initial download of information, actually with no reference to the four-day week. Though having said that, they did actually reference the four-day week. I think on the very first page of their presentation, actually. I think we had almost clarified that point, but I want to emphasise that this is a debate and a series of questions about the best value notice. So before I move to the next question, I would ask all members to keep their questions focused on that, keep those brief as possible, and I'm sure the leader will be happy to respond by keeping her responses reasonably brief. Thank you. The next question will be from Chancellor Eileen Wilson. Thank you, Chair. Have Lee Rowley and his successor Simon Hall given any reason for their refusal to meet with Cabinet members? So I've not had any feedback from Mr Rowley about why he's chosen not to take up my offer to meet. I sent a letter to Simon Hall MP at the end of last week, asking me to meet. I hadn't yet had a response, but he probably hasn't had time to read what was quite a long letter. Chancellor, Dr Martin Karn. Thank you for the information about the letter, the email we received on November 6, in which the Minister appears to be menacing us with financial penalties, and which we've now been told it's the council which is responsible. This appears to be a form of menacing to councillors. What recourse do councillors have against the Minister? Do we have any claim back on the Minister because this is effectively trying to influence our decision? Thank you very much, Councillor Karn. So we showed this letter to our council who described it as quite extraordinary and rather shocking. So I've never seen the likes. However, even though my personal view is that it was a scare letter, you are all mature, intelligent people in this room and I think you can all make of it what you will and do with it what you wish. Councillor Mills might like to intervene. I just wanted to make comment that it was rather strange because it didn't seem to go to all councillors. So certainly I don't know whether the opposition group or were in receipt of this email from early Rowley, but many of us on the Lib Dem group didn't see it or didn't receive it. I'm very happy for Councillor Heather Williams to respond to that on behalf of a group. I do believe that it's been mixed across the council and that was due to the way that it went through the spam filters when I raised it. That's what I was given. Right, the next question from Councillor Annab Bradman, please. Thank you, Chair, and through you. It's in two parts, please. So firstly, since this request for an onerous amount of data might be construed as unreasonable, can we request in return a weekly interpretation of what they are actually doing with it and what they're trying to find out from it? And secondly, I wanted to ask what will be the cost of collecting and submitting that data for us? Thank you. OK, so I think it's important that we, as we have done the whole way through this, that we are the grown-ups in the room and that we behave in an adult and a professional manner and that we've been asked for the data by government. We don't know what they're going to do with it and so on, but I suggest we just submit it to them. Throwing it back at them, actually, we don't want to create more work for our officers who are having to pick this up. They're the ones who are having to do the work to come up with this extraordinary amount of data on a weekly basis. So I think one needs to just knuckle down and do it. On the subject of cost, yes, there will be a cost for this council. There will be a financial cost. There will be a time cost. There will be close tabs on what those costs are so that we will get to the point where we will be able to tell you what the cost of complying with this best value notice has been. But we haven't got any choice, but these aren't costs that we've imposed on ourselves. This is government imposing these costs on us in South Cambridgeshire and consequently on our taxpayers. So the money we spend on this is money we won't be spending on something else. Councillor Bradman, I think you had another question you wanted to put. That was both the questions and they've both been answered. Thank you, Chair. Next, Councillor Sally Ann Hart. Thank you, Chair. I think part of my question might have been answered, but I would like to ask it. So does the council leader agree that the especially onerous amount of data being requested is completely disproportionate and speaks more to the political posturing of the government? And I guess my timing with that really is does the leader think that South Cambridgeshire District Council is being treated unfairly by this government? Councillor Mild. Thank you. So to provide weekly data on things that we are doing currently that we don't provide to ourselves on a weekly basis. So monthly salaries is an example of that sort of data. We clearly don't have it until the end of the month. And so a lot of the data that we've now been asked for includes that sort. So it clearly is onerous and impossible, but we do have a relationship with the department which is talking about this data and getting us to get an accommodation of what data is available to us and that we can pass on in a reasonable manner. So it's a work in progress. We're doing what we can to make a sensible job out of rather outrageous requirements and we'll report back as we progress with that reporting mechanism. Thank you, Councillor Mild. Now before I ask the next Councillor to put their question, I have three more questions listed. Councillor Richard Williams, Councillor John Batchelor and Councillor Dan Lentell. And I would hope that after that we could move on to the debate on emotion. Do I have anyone else who wants to ask a question before we get to that stage? Two more, I think. Three more, right? We will manage that. So I repeat my urging would members keep their questions very short and concise and I'm sure the leader will do likewise with her answers. I then call on Councillor Dr Richard Williams. Thank you very much, Chair. And through you, Chair, I've got two questions. First, I'd like to ask the leader about her response to Councillor Heather Williams earlier on this letter written by the Chief Executive, which is on page 21 of our bundle. The leader referred in her answer or suggested in her answer that this was somehow a communication between civil servants. I would note that this letter directly says it's responding to the Minister's letter to Councillor Smith. We have no other document in our bundle which is a substantive response from Councillor Smith to the Minister. So I think we can only assume from our bundle that that letter from the Chief Executive is the only substantive response that was made by this council to the Minister's letter. Can I ask the leader whether she thinks that is an appropriate letter for an officer to send, that it was well known by this point that the four day week was a matter of political contention. It's been in the press apart from anything else. This letter makes various assertions about misleading data. It repeats political points that are being made by the council in terms of the savings. Does the leader believe that's an appropriate letter for an officer to send, or does it risk, unfortunately, which none of us want, dragging an officer into political controversy? My second question, the leader in her response in a statement earlier, made reference to savings that the council has apparently breached from this and filling hard to fill posts. Is Councillor Smith aware that I actually asked about these hard to fill posts and I specifically asked about the dates when those hard to fill posts were filled and three of those posts were filled before the four day week trial even started, and one of them was actually filled before it even went to Cabinet. But that was provided to me as data of apparent savings. Is Councillor Smith aware of that? I think you're clasping at straws, Councillor Williams. Conversations about the four day week have been going on at various different levels. Our chief executive has been in communications, I think by phone quite a lot, with civil servants throughout the whole process. And it's perfectly right and proper that the chief executive should be tasked with sending a letter, a communication to a senior civil servant who would be working directly for the minister. So, you know, there's nothing to see here. Now, on the issue of the hard to fill posts, I'm struggling to remember the absolute detail, but I know that when I was made aware that you looked into this, I asked questions about it, and it was all to do with the reporting, and that it was from the point at which we announced the start of the four day week trials, and the point at which we made a public announcement that there was going to be a four day week trial. We started counting from that point, and I might ask our names just to confirm this, but I'm sure I'm right. It was from that point because at that point potential employees became aware that we were going to put a trial the four day week, therefore it was already an attraction to new employees. So, I believe the counting went from there. Actually, I might come to Geoff memory because he probably has confirmed what I've said, I hope. Yes, through you, Geoff. The figures came from a snapshot which obviously had to be taken before the report to the cabinet was put together. I do believe there was one of the posts that was filled before the four day week started. I must look from my recollection and thought the others had started after the trial, but within a couple of days of the trial it's starting. But whenever you collect figures, obviously when you're doing it for a report, there's a period between the figures being collated and then being published and debated at committee. Councillor Williams, I'm going to allow you to come back on that. Thank you, chair. I do want to come back on this. The data I was provided, one of those posts was filled on the 5th of September 2022. This went to cabinet on the 12th of September 2022, and presumably the post was filled on the 5th of September 2022. It was advertised a good deal before. Now certainly none of us knew. First I heard about the four day week trial was right at the start of September. Can I, if you could forgive me for interrupting you, we're way off course of discussing the best value voters are. The leader does not just get that, it's a chair's intervention. There is nothing constitution that gives the leader advantage over any other member. I'm going to take us back a step here. I did agree to allow Councillor Richard Williams to ask a short follow-up, but I do not want this council to get tied up in discussions about the dates of particular events which none of us have seen. So, I think we've heard Councillor Richard Williams' follow-up and a brief response from the leader, and then I will then proceed to the next question. Do you want to respond further, leader, or do you feel? No, I don't want to respond because actually we're here to discuss the best value notice, and I think it's important to stick on subject. I'm going to intervene in here a little bit just to say that we will not be able to clear up the exact dates of the appointments concerned here today, nor do I think it would be productive to do so, but I think maybe there's scope for a little bit of subsequent correspondence on that. Dr Richard Williams, are you okay with that? We can move on to our business. Thank you. So, the next on our list is Councillor John Batchelor. Thank you, Chair. I just wonder if the leader could clarify for us how this best value issue actually affects our shared services. We have various partners, and in particular, I'd like to know how the City Council views these matters. Thank you. Just to be clear before the leader answers that question, this is how the best value notice affects our partners, not how they're affected by the four-day week trial. Thank you. Leader? Thank you. So we have shared services with, most of our shared services with Cambridge City, and the leader of Cambridge City shares our consternation at the issuing of this notice and is completely supportive of the position that we find ourselves in this evening. Similarly, quite a lot of other councils do as well, so I recently had a letter signed by all of the leaders of all of the Suffolk councils and another one from the leader of Central Bedfordshire voicing their support and their disquiet and their shock that we've been issued with this notice. I've also been notified today that another letter has been signed by 15 other leaders, and that's expected to increase still further. This isn't just about South Cambridgeshire, this is about the sector, and it's about the sector objecting to a best value notice being issued inappropriately to a council that is a high functioning financially sustainable council. I think the leader may have mistakenly said all the Suffolk councils there. I do believe it was not every single Suffolk council, and she may wish to clarify her mistake. Five of them, I apologise. That's clear, thank you. I think next it's councillor Dan Lentel. Thank you, chair. I have to say, I do find the talk of this being an ideological battle between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems rather silly, but I'm massively in favour of the four day week, and I think we could have avoided this in Brolio if three things had happened. First of all, my question is, does Bridget Sprith regret not doing two things, one thing, and having allowed one thing to happen? The first thing, does she regret not having engaged with councillor Heather Williams and the blue team to actually come up with a version of the four day week that wasn't going to be quite so radical? The one that we've got five days paid for four days work is the Reykjavik model. It's not the only version of four in seven working available. It's the most controversial, and when it was successfully tried in Reykjavik, Iceland, the whole economy, public and private sector went together rather than just one small local authority. Councilor Lentel, can you give me a little bit of a question? Councilor Lentel, please? I'm going to say to you, would you keep to your questions? Why didn't you work with the blue team? Why the Reykjavik model? And why did she allow, or not seem to be concerned, that the CEO was faking, sexing up the data? You know, we've all seen. Councilor Lentel, I think that matter has been investigated under the member officer protocol, so it would be wrong to make such allegations here tonight. Then I'll simply point out an indicator of potential failure, a culture of denial and lack of openness to constructive advice and challenge. That is a potential of indicator from the documents in front of us. Does the leader regret any of her decisions that have led to this? Of course the Conservatives are going to try and make political hay out of this on a national level. There were ways to frustrate their attempts to do so, none of which were taken. Before the leader answers that, Councilor Lentel, I think those of us who have long memories going back, as you do yourself, I know, will remember that the term sexing up data is rather politically controversial, and I would suggest you're not appropriate in this. Thank you, Chair. Can I ask for your direction? What is the correct term for describing an officer who corresponds 60 times in the month prior to the independent report, 60 times and sends a document that has been massively changed? Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Lentel. Let us ask the leader to deal with the gist of your question. I could not hear any question relating to the paper in front of us, so I will not be responding. Councillor Sunita Anuraj, please. Thank you, Chair. Do you think that the government have made the data request unmanageable in order to set us up to fail? I think, Chair, the answer that I gave to an earlier question about the unrest data has already been answered. I cannot speak to the motivation of this Parliament or its former minister who is responsible for asking for this collection of data, and so I will leave aside that. It is annoying in the extreme that we've got so much work to do, which is distracting us from the implementation of the programme that the best value notice describes, but we are doing what we can to satisfy those demands. Thank you. Next question, Councillor Richard Stobart. Chair, thank you. I want to talk about data and pick upon the question that Councillor Hans Rarge has just raised, but also refer to questions and answers that Councillor Bradman and Councillor Hart also asked for. So, we talked about data, and in fact, really the issue here is the flow of information. We haven't really ever touched on the flow of information. Now, 80 questions and 186 answers doesn't say very much about what information the government is requiring of us in order to pursue the process of the best value notice. What is the possibility that a dialogue could be opened up about what is the information flow required and what would be reasonable? We've got to bear in mind, I think there is a backdrop to this, that we've referred to officers, there are also civil servants in the department who are going to be under pressure to handle this data, and shouldn't we be expressing some concern about those individuals too? So, could we move to a position of good mutual exchange of information as opposed to this somewhat confrontational view of data? Yeah, thank you, Chair. So, in response to that, I would say that there's a fundamental practice in information technology of turning data into information, but we've only been asked for data, so that's what we'll be providing. We'll do our own analysis on that data, and we'll give it to the parties. So, in the case of practice, we've used the Bennett Institute to do that analysis for us as well independently, and what the department wants to do with that data is entirely up to them. Thank you. Unusily, I'm going to ask a question myself here. The minister asked that we appoint an independent third party to monitor our data that is presumably separate from the appointment of Bennett to monitor the earlier stages of the trial. What stage we've told that? So, we were asked what we have said to the civil servants is that in order to avoid any accusations of marking our own homework, we would prefer them to recommend an analyst to deal with the data. And we're waiting a response from them and a suggestion as to who that person might be. But we think from the point of view of public perception, if it's somebody appointed by the government, then nobody can accuse us of any sort of manipulation. Thank you, leader. And then I hope this may be the last question before we move on to the debate. Councillor Jeff Harvie. Thank you, chair. My questions have already been asked, so thank you. Thank you very much. Now, members, we've been going for under an hour, and therefore I'm not proposing a break at the stage and any listen and would like it. I suggest we move straight on to the debate. Assuming, of course, that anyone wishes to put a motion before us. You're very welcome to give two answers at once if you choose. Assuming I said somebody should wish to put a motion, a proposal before us. So we have a recommendation in this report, and our recommendation is that we note the report and agree that the council engaged with E-Loc to provide the data requested. And I'm quite happy to propose that we consider that. And do you have a seconder for your proposal? I thought you might. Thank you. So, again, I will take contributions to this debate. Who wants to open up the debate here? Right. Shall we then move straight? No, we do have somebody who wants to open up the debate. I see you. Councillor Heather Williams. I think that's quite telling, really, isn't it? No one wants to discuss it on that side. Sorry, Councillor Williams. I don't think we heard that comment. Did you wish us to do so? I think, Chair, that the option is not the correct option, and we will display a proposed amended recommendation from ourselves, which you may want to give people time to digest, Chair. OK. Well, in that case, I suggest that... Have we got that available in the form we can display? Let us display the amendment, and then I suggest we take a 10-minute break. And we can come back to the debate on that amendment after our break when we've had time to digest that and anything else we may wish to digest. Chair, would you like us to move a second or wait? Yes. Would you like to move that, and then you have a second? Do I take it? Would you wish to speak at this stage or later? I'll speak at the end. At the end. OK. So, if you would just move your motion, and then we will have a short intermission before we proceed to the rest of the debate. Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you. So, you'll see displayed a revised recommendation, but it's very akin to option 3 in our reports. The reason that I believe this is the correct way to respond to the best value notice, as opposed to the other one, is as the report says there are unknown financial costs that we would be putting the council to. We also have the huge reputational cost that this is affecting this council and the effects it's having on residents and officers. Because although we've had the nice cherry pit highlights this evening, we do know that it is causing actually worse working conditions for some. And some just cannot do this. They cannot get their work in in those hours and our residents suffer as a consequence. I advised in May to change course and now there is an opportunity here for the administration to do that if they choose it. We've heard earlier from the leader quotes from legal advice. Legal advice that we on this side have never been able to see and I do hope will be shared with us. I wonder how much actually been spent on such legal advice for us to do this. The leader is referred to that we need to have mature, sensible debate. And yet, instantly, when councillor Dr Richard Williams answered something that didn't go down well, we saw that completely be deroded as with councillor Intel. I might not agree with everybody in this chamber, but they deserve the right to be heard, listened to and responded to, refusing to answer questions, refusing to allow debate, and refusing to accept that elected councillors should be allowed to vote, because don't forget we're still not voting on the trial here. We are voting on a reaction to the best value notice is not the way that this council should be run. And I believe that something that could be crossed partly people could be very uncomfortable with. There have been no consultation with residents and yet this would expose, if it was option one, more financial risk when they haven't been consulted with. Something that we have been criticised by people internally and externally for not doing. There has been the gathering of views from residents and a survey was done, which showed that 76% of the returns were against this council doing a four day week. There are shaking of heads, we've had a chuckle because they know that survey was done by the MP. But ask yourself this and here comes the grown up debate that the leader was said was so important. A different viewpoint and instantly ridicule, disrespect and dismiss. That's not mature debate. I disagree fundamentally with what the administration is doing, but I still sit here and listen to what you have to say. Now the reason I reference this is because there is no consultation document with residents or survey of residents views for us to look at. So rather than laughing at the fact that somebody outside just because there is certain political party has taken the initiative to do something this authority should have been doing, I think is wrong. Here we have an opportunity. I don't believe I'm out of time yet councillor Mills. Here we have an opportunity to set right things that should have happened previously. I said before change course before it's too late. This council is ready. Thanks to the administration ignored warnings time and time again. What will it take? Business plan. I've asked earlier, can we see it? I get told no, no, there's lots of data. We don't know if we can do this on the earth. We get no guarantees as councillors here because our residents don't matter because the people that elect us are somehow less important. Why do we not get access that information? Why can we not have that commitment? Why do we get laughed at in this chamber for having a different view? So hopefully, chair, people will reflect on their behaviour this evening, although I doubt it because it happens quite often that as soon as we say something someone tries to shut us down. But here is an option and it's an option driven majorously from this report. Have a look, read it and I'm actually going to put a plea out that as individuals read it and think, is that the right thing for the council? Forget the fact that I'm a conservative putting this forward. Surely that is the right thing to do given the situation we are now officers and councillors and residents in. Thank you chair. I appreciate you will now go to an adjournment, but thank you for allowing me to move my motion beforehand. Thank you councillor. I said we'd move straight to an adjournment. The only person who I have shut down in this debate is I must apologise to councillor Brown Mills. I should have given him an opportunity to put his proposal, speak to his proposal first. Rather than going back a stage, I wonder whether councillor Brown Mills would agree to respond to the proposal and then we take our adjournment. Is that acceptable to both sides? Yes, I don't think I need to say it. I don't know whether it's councillor Mills or councillor leader. So I don't think there's anything to add to the original proposal so I'm quite happy to let that stand but I'm not quite sure of the process now with the proposed amendment. Let's just take that ten minute break and when we resume I will just outline the process so we all have a clear idea. Councillor Bredinham, did you want to say something before we proceed to a break? Yes, just a procedural matter. Can I just check? Did we check who was the seconder and whether they would reserve their right to speak at the end of the debate? We have checked. We have a seconder councillor Graham Cohen. He is asked to speak at the end of the debate and we will come to that later. So, as I said, I would explain the procedure when we resume at, let's say, five past 1905. Okay. Thank you, Members. Thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome back to this meeting of South Cambridge District Council. This is an extraordinary meeting. We just had a short break and we will now resume. Just to remind Members, we're on an amendment moved by Councillor Heather Williams. We have a total of 30 minutes to discuss this. We've had 25 minutes. We have 25 minutes left, rather. I would ask Members, therefore, who want to contribute to the debate to keep their comments short. Should ideally be less than three minutes and, of course, we need to leave time for the seconder and for closing statement. So, the debate is open. I don't know whether we have other speakers listed. I think the first I have is Councillor John Williams. Thank you, Chair. I want to pick up on some comments made by Councillor Heather Williams. First of all, Councillor Williams gives the impression that the four-day week trial is compulsory, which in fact it isn't. Staff are able to opt out of the trial so they can continue working five days a week if they do not wish to take part in the trial. In fact, it's very interesting that the political assistant of the Conservatives has chosen to work a four-day week as part of the trial. That's one choice. Sorry, Councillor Williams, can I just stop you for a moment? The point of order, which particular order are we referring to? We don't give away HR information of employees. The Leader of the Member for Finance just referred to the working arrangements of an officer of this council. Would you like to say what the Lib Dem political assistant is doing or how he's getting paid more? I think there is some validity in that point. Councillor Williams, could you please not mention the particular circumstance of any one employee? I've just used an example. It's an employee's choice as to whether or not to work four days a week as part of the trial. There is no compulsion. It's not expected that all employees should work four days a week. That's the point I was trying to make. Second thing I want to make is that I believe Councillor Heavill Williams was at the staff in an employment committee where we had a report on the effect of the four-day week on our staff performance and recruitment and retention. I'd like to remind her and inform the members here that that report showed that our staff turnover was down. Point of information, Chair. If the member who is speaking wants to give away now he may or we can take a point of information at the end. I think the member doesn't wish to, so we'll come back to you in a moment. First of all, our staff turnover is down, our sickness is down and our recruitment has clearly benefited because the number of applicants for posts has gone up. So our performance so far as our staff are concerned has improved and that was reported to the staff in an employment committee at which Councillor Williams attended. So I would hope that members will take account of the facts of the trial and that they give it and as I say, if you look at there, we're talking about stopping the trial in March. That's just over four months away. I would have thought that it was quite reasonable for the trial to continue for another four months and then we can assess it. Then all members of this council can make a decision based on the evidence that we then have to decide whether or not it should continue permanently. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor John Williams. Then we have a point of information from Councillor Williams. A point of information, Chair. I did not say in my remarks that it was compulsory but we do know from the reports that actually for many officers they have found that their work has intensified to a point where it has increased their stress levels and that actually a high percentage that I would consider No, it's a point of information. I would be grateful if we could just let her complete it and then we would come back to some of these points in the debate. Councillor Williams, if you could wrap up your point of information because it should be very brief. Yes, and what was referenced to the data and I was told as a meeting, I had a series of questions at that meeting because I was concerned about the liability of the data, some of which are still outstanding. So the fact that my presence was there scrutinising reports is not unless the lead member has answers for that. But equally, Chair, we were told that this was a debate about the best value, not about the merits which is why I didn't reflect that in my speech but I can start that debate if you so wish, Chair. Thank you for that point of information. Let's come back to the debate on the best value notice, if we may. And I think next I come to Councillor Barnumill. Hang on, sorry. I'm just reminded of the rules here that if an amendment is moved, the mover of the original motion has the right to reply at the close of the debate of the amendment but may not otherwise speak on it. So, Councillor Barnumill, I will be coming back to you at the end of the debate but I would be grateful if we could not hear you just now. My apologies. Councillor Bridget Smith, however, we can hear you, so please. Thank you. Okay, so let's just have a look at this amendment. What does it do? Well, actually what it does is it tells us to ignore the best value notice. It's no different to the other option which hasn't made it through, which is just to ignore it. This is no different, it's exactly the same. It says don't send the data, don't know what government have asked you to do, write a letter instead, saying that I think demanding that the notice be withdrawn, that's going down well. Right Minister, remove the notice and if you remove it, then we'll be stopping the four day trial before the end of March 2024. That is not going to land well. So, you know, this is actually, I don't know whether the Conservatives are being so smart as trying to encourage us to fall into a trap but that's what this is. It's a trick, it's a trap. It is no different to saying don't send the data. Now, we know that in order to minimise any further burden on this council, the sensible thing to do is to comply with the best value notice. We have nothing to hide. We would be delighted to share our data because it's good data that's highly supportive of our trial. So, why would we do this and not share it and instead send a sloppy letter demanding that the notice is withdrawn if we stop the trial? So, you know, this is a trick and a trap. Let's please not fall into it. Let's knock this silly nonsense on the head straight away and get back to voting on the original recommendation. I don't know whether that was intended to be a proposal we moved directly to the voters chair. I do not feel we've had sufficient debate on the amendments yet. So, if I may, I will come back to you on that shortly. I know that certain members are keen to respond to some of what was said there. I would remind you that Councillor Graham Cohn will be speaking a seconder at the end of this and can no doubt deal with any points of controversy. But before we get to that, I want to continue the debate on this amendment from Councillor Heather Williams, which is on the screen above you, and I would be grateful if members contributing to that debate would stick to that point. My next call, Councillor Dam, then tell, please. Thank you, Chair. I'll be voting for this amendment, and it's with an extreme amount of reluctance and sadness, because four-day working is something that we have in our house. My wife works four-day week. She's only paid for four days, and like many healthcare professionals in South Cambridge, she's not best pleased that the recubic five days pay for four days work model has been adapted in South Cams, rather than coming up with a model that might have avoided this extraordinary meeting, might have avoided Heather Williams giving this no political support, and might have avoided, yes, the Conservatives have managed to score a massive goal on this because there's nobody defending the goal. There are models of four-in-seven working that are massively better suited to a small local council, and we could have adapted and adopted those. We could have said x per cent of new jobs or existing jobs will be adapted and changed over to four-in-seven rather than traditional five-in-seven working. We could have worked with people rather than against them. It's the number one indicator of a potential failure in the guidance document, a culture of denial and lack of openness to constructive advice and challenge. You know this trial has not worked when the whole principle of four-in-seven working has been so massively undermined and devalued as a result of this frankly botched trial. The reason it's been botched is it wasn't debated, it wasn't voted on, despite the fact there's a Lib Dem supermajority, and it would have been successfully voted on, but also, and let's be weirdly clear here, the CEO whose pet project this is, it's not really Bridget Smith's project, it's the CEO's, the CEO interfered with, you'll have to tell me what the correct terminology is. Councillor Lentell, you're straying into HR matters, you may recall I had to ask another member earlier not to do that, and I did ask you at the beginning to focus your remarks on the best value notices. The reason that we should come back to the best value notices and the amendment on the screen. The reason that this amendment makes sense is because this trial is now going to cost a lot more money and deliver a lot less. It's not going to deliver anything in terms of usable data because the data has been compromised. The data is not usable. That is not the scientific method. 60 emails in the month prior to the so-called independent report from the Bennett Institute, a track changes document in which key negative data points will remove. This is all a matter of public record, means this trial has no value as a scientific enterprise, so unfortunately, yeah, we should scrap it. Thank you, Councillor Lentell, you're just on time. We then come to Councillor Richard Williams, please. Thank you very much, Chair. I am speaking in support of this motion for a number of reasons. I am speaking in favour of this amendment to the motion because I believe that this council should take steps to wind up the four-day trial in an orderly fashion and should do so immediately. The leader earlier, Pazale, accused me of clutching straws when I was talking about data that I don't think she knew about from our own council. But the motion does not say demand. It says request. It says request for the best value notices to be drawn on the provider of the four-day week is stopped and I think it is vital that the council does do that. There is simply no democratic mandate for this four-day week trial. We had a district council election in March in May 2022. This wasn't mentioned on any election literature and then four months later the council announces it's going to run a four-day week trial for its staff. Now either this four-day week trial was hastily pulled together with that proper due process or this was known well before, potentially before May 2022 and was simply not disclosed. But the fundamental point is that this council has not had a vote on this trial. Only the cabinet has voted and it therefore has no democratic mandate and I think that is partly the reason why it is not accepted by most people in South Cambridgeshire. We've heard already a snapshot of some of the problems with the data which is another reason why I believe this trial should be brought to a halt. The council has, in information to me, claimed a post has been filled because of the four-day week that was filled before it was even publicly announced. At the Employment and Staffing Committee meeting in September I asked about data on staff sicknesses and whether that took account of the fact that by definition if people are working four days a week they'll take fewer sick days and if they're working five days a week I couldn't be provided with an answer. Councillor Heather Williams asked exactly the same question at the Employment and Staffing Committee meeting a few weeks ago and again couldn't be provided with an answer. There are significant questions. Councillor Williams, I think we're straying off the best value notice a little here. Would you kindly come back to that? These are the reasons, Chair, why I believe that we should be bringing this trial to an orderly halt at the earliest possible opportunity and that is why I am supporting this amendment. Councillor Sue Ellington, please. Thank you, Chairman. I feel that I need to bring this back to the data that is being requested and having looked through what's being requested I feel there's one element that is not included in that data and that is the actual operation and how it is affecting residents and if I may indulge the council on one example that I personally have had where a planning officer was very in response to an email from me said he would be very happy to meet the parish council and discuss a new direction in planning for the village which seemed to have significant implications for that village. So the parish council, as you can imagine, under some difficulty, managed to get together parish councillors and provided him with three dates to which they sent to him and the automatic response was, thank you for your email, I will endeavour to read it within the next seven days. Well, I thought we had a 48 hour working day response time and of course none of the dates were suitable so they had to start all over again and it's those sorts of events. Councillor Ellington, you make a good point but I'm sorry I have to ask you to return to the amendment under discussion. Well I think I am Chairman in that those are the sort of best value that our residents hold dear to their hearts. I don't really want the figures, they want to know how it affects them and this is not coming through in a very positive way. Thank you. And now Councillor Sumbiger please. Thank you Chairman, so I am also supporting this amendment. Just as our residents have not been consulted on this action, the general council has not been allowed to vote on whether we should conduct such a trial. The government has made its position very clear, it has made numerous requests for us to hold this trial immediately. If you have a look at what is written on at the top of page 14, the former minister says, we reserve the right to take further action as necessary in the weeks and months ahead. And on page 20 he says, I wish to reiterate that we are currently considering other financial options available to us regarding ending four-day weeks in the local government sector. So they've made their position very clear, the leader has also made her position very clear and I would summarise her approach by saying that her approach is full speed ahead and down the torpedoes. So in the documents we have before us we have potential further action from the government. This is putting the council and the residents who pay for the services the council provides into a very great deal of danger. So these documents make very clear that the purpose of this data request is to ensure that residents get value for money. So the data request is there because the leadership of this council has refused to back down and has decided to go into a full confrontation with the government, which is always an unwise thing for a smaller government to do to a larger one. Now, councillor Milnes said earlier in the section when questions were being asked that it would be impossible to collect this data. I don't know whether you recall having said that. We also heard other members saying that he was going to put a great deal of strain on our officers and create a great deal of work for them to collect this data. So I'm wondering why councillor Milnes is proposing to send data which he at an earlier time said would be impossible to collect. That doesn't sound to me to be particularly coherent course of action. councillor bygwr was rather you come to your point of information at the end of this. I'm almost finished. Yes. Then we'll come back to you. So my view is the sooner this trial can come to an end, the better. And the sooner it comes to an end, the sooner the data collection can stop. And that's why we have put this amendment up. Thank you. councillor Milnes, before we come to your point of information, may I just explain that we have run out of time for debate, which is why I'm not able to take further contributions, which I apologise. We have of course time for councillor Graham Cohn to second this amendment and then for councillor Milnes as the original proposal to respond. And then that will be we will then come to a vote. Now, I don't know whether councillor Milnes, you said you had a point of information, whether you feel you can include that in your summing up or whether you want to make that point of information now. Just a very brief, impossible to collect. And I gave an example of such data, which was impossible to collect. We pay monthly salaries. We can't do that by fall to give a weekly result. Thank you for that. I think we now move to councillor Graham Cohn, who is going to second the amendment. Thank you, chair. I'll try and be brief. Essentially, I agree with the proposal of the motion, which is why the amendment, which is why I'll be supporting the amendment. I believe it's what my residents want in this amendment. So these are residents that haven't had any consultation like us as councillors haven't had a vote on the four day working week in its entirety. Anecdotally, I was discussing the options with healthcare professionals in the office and probably the most powerful comment was from a healthcare professional that said actually my biggest bill other than rent is council tax. And I'm worried if we don't do anything other than option three within our papers that more money could be spent on this project that none of us have had a say in including my elected member unless they sit on the cabinet, I suppose. So I think in terms of democracy, it's fair for me to support this amendment because I really do believe it's what my residents want. Thank you, councillor Cohn. And now councillor Brian Mills. Thank you, chair. In terms of this amendment, it's clear that we on this side of the chamber or our group in this chamber are not happy with what it would require us to do. We've discussed various aspects of this in terms of ideology and at sites that anti-Dilevian tendencies of Rhys Morg who couldn't go with people returning to, not returning to their desks after various lockdowns when people were working at home. And Anthony Brown's Taxpayer Alliance inspired survey should be treating with the content it deserves for being completely biased. So we're not going to take any notice of whatever the figure he came up with. We do have to look after our residents and our council taxers, taxpayers best interests. And that's entirely what we are about here and producing evidence to base up that decision on. And that's what we are. We're a party of evidence-based policy. So we're collecting the data and we should conclude to the end of the term and comply with the request for the data from Dilip. So that's our proposal and I think that's probably enough of a summation. Thank you, Chair. Well thank you to all our speakers. We now move directly to the vote and I'm not going to ask whether we can do this one by affirmation. We will take this vote electronically on the amendment before us is as on the screens. And if you obviously press your blue button first, if you are in favour of the amendment, then you press the green. If you're against it, then you press the red. The vote is now open. A little bit of patience, members. There are one or two voting issues to be resolved before I can declare the final result. Have we all voted? I haven't voted. Let's try again. Any others having difficulty registering their vote? Give us a moment to do. I just want to make sure that everybody has had a chance to vote. It's all right. Councillor Drew has just given me the finger. That's all right. Thank you, members. That concludes the vote and the result is, as on the screen, eight in favour of the amendment and 24 against it. That amendment is defeated and we now move back to the main motion, which has already been proposed, I think. Councillor Milans, I didn't give you the opportunity to formally propose your motion earlier on. Do you want that opportunity now? This is my recommendation. Yes, it's my leader's recommendation. I think we're all happy that the leader should speak to this. Thank you. I think we've said enough. It would be really good if we could move to the vote, please, and we'll go home for some supper. I second that. Thank you, leader. I'm sure we're all in favour of our supper. The question is whether there's been sufficient debate. Do I have any other speakers on this? If the leader will forgive me, I'm going to take two other speakers. One, Councillor Dan Lentol at the moment, and secondly, Councillor Heather Williams. Councillor Dan Lentol. Thank you, Chair. I do think it's worth asking the question. Is there any situation in which a Conservative Government and Westminster is going to accept this council continuing with a four-day week trial, even a successful one, without simply saying we're going to move up and up the pyramid of the end-to-end process of interventions? Don't mention the special measures. Is there any evidence that says, look, we can spend oodles of taxpayer money keeping this botched trial alive, but ultimately the Conservative Government is simply going to move us up the pyramid because, as has been said, they have an ideological score to settle. They are bigger, and sadly they can impose it. It doesn't have to be that way. So, if that question could be answered, are we simply going to throw good money after that because the Conservatives are never going to let us out of the end-to-end process of interventions as long as the four-day week thing continues? Thank you. Councillor Heather Williams. Thank you, Chair. You do seem to have a microphone problem this evening, so maybe just don't turn it off. We might be safer. So, just to the substantive item and the option that's being proposed here, and I would like to clarify as well that, because I have a different viewpoint on this and because I think that there is a different way to run a council, that doesn't mean it's a trick, a trap or silly nonsense, as was described earlier. It's a difference of opinion, and it's the fact that I believe that was how best, as others do, to serve our residents and to be so dismissive of that is dismissive of not only the opposition, but the residents we serve as well. We have a duty to do and that's what we are doing. You might not like it. I might not like what you propose and what you put forward. I don't and I make reference to the agenda and I make reference to what's said, but I don't say you're tricking me, trapping me or silly. They're derogatory terms and disrespectful, as is other things we've heard tonight and witnessed. The reason that I won't vote for this option that's been put forward, because I believe it exposes this council to more risk, unlimited financial costs, because essentially this asks us to sign a blank cheque, because there are no costings being done. I actually think a lot of people will leave this Chamber feeling treated with contempt, but that's nothing new chair, but really sad for how politics in this Chamber is actually really dragged across the floor and don't think we're going to be quiet because of it. We will keep doing what we're doing because we were elected and this is our elected right to do, no matter how much you try to ridicule us. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Before I come to the leader who now has the right to respond to the debate, the reason that I didn't move directly to a vote earlier on as requested was that I wanted to ensure there was sufficient debate on this. Whilst I appreciate that there may be one or two who haven't had full opportunity to contribute to this debate, I think most members have had an opportunity should they wanted and I feel we have, whether or not we like the responses we are receiving, I think we have had a thorough debate and so I now move to the leader to respond to that debate before we move to a vote. Thank you, so I'll be brief. This is a political meeting called for political reasons to discuss a political subject. Government have treated us politically. They've turned what should have been an operational matter, us trying to innovate and find a solution to the problems that we have in South Cambridgeshire. They can best of our autonomy, our sovereignty as a local authority with elected members here and Government have chosen to interfere. So the additional costs that are concerned that are being incurred are being incurred because Government has decided to put politics before progress. The Liberal Democrat Administration here are trying to move this authority forward into the 21st century and Government are trying to hold us back. So politics before progress. So Councillor Lent will ask me whether the Government would ever tolerate this. Well hopefully we're going to see the end of this Government before very long and then hopefully we will have a Government who really do, when they say they want us to innovate, stand by it and aren't picky and choosy about what sort of innovation it is. So no, I don't honestly think the current Government will ever embrace what we have done. But sometimes you just have to stand up for what you think is right and I firmly believe we are on the side of right. We're not doing this because we want to be splashed all over the Daily Mail. It's not a nice place to be. We're doing this because we want to turn South Cambridgeshire District Council into the modern and caring council that we promised we'd turn it into back in 2018. The Conservative administration before that had failed completely to address any of the recruitment and retention problems. We've heard not one iota of possibilities from across the floor about what those solutions might be. We hear an awful lot about what they don't want. We don't hear anything about what the alternatives might be. So we are on the side of right here and sometimes you have to put yourself in uncomfortable places in order to follow through on that. So I am perfectly comfortable with what we're doing at the moment. It is going to be tough. I don't quite know where it's going to end but Government have asked us for this vast amount of data. We have nothing to hide. We are pleased to share our data with them. I live and hope that I will have an opportunity to speak directly to the new Minister who I know stands by the Government's view on the four day week but that doesn't mean that there's not a sensible discussion to be had. But I thank the members of the Liberal Democrat administration for their unstinting support on this matter and I look forward to us continuing on to this strange new world of weekly data collections. So thank you very much Chair. Leader, before you conclude, can I ask you to just remind us of the exact wording of your proposal? So we can be clear when we proceed with the vote. What are we voting on? Thank you very much. I've got my vast number of papers here. Right, so the recommendation is Act 2. The recommendation is to note the report and agree that the Council engage with DLUHC to provide the data requested. Thank you. Members, I think we are now ready to proceed to the electronic vote. A usual procedure when set up if you would press the blue button. And then we are voting on the proposal as put by Councillor Bridget Smith just now. So if you are in favour you press green and if you are against you press red. Again, Members, there are one or two Members who may not have managed to vote yet so we will ensure that they have that opportunity before we announce the result. So the result is, as before you on the screen, in favour of the proposal as put by the Leader, 24 against 8 and that motion is passed. That concludes this extraordinary meeting of the Council. Thank you very much, Members.