Agenda item

Carried forward from October Council meeting

The Council had before it a report by the Chief Officer - Data Insights which presented an Annual Review Report which highlighted progress with respect to the 2023-24 Council Delivery Plan approved by the Council on 1 March 2023.

The report recommended:-

that the Council note the report and provide comments and observations on the information contained in the Annual Review Report at Appendix A.

Councillor Yuill moved, seconded by Councillor Allard:-

That the Council note the report.

Councillor Malik moved as an amendment:-

          That the Council -

(1)  agree to note the Council Delivery Plan Annual Review Report; and

(2)  agree the key milestones noted in the report reflect the ongoing inability of the SNP to deliver anything meaningful within their Council Delivery Plan adopted at Council in May 2022 despite being 2½ years into their term of office.

During the course of Councillor Malik moving his amendment there was a reaction from Councillor Allard which led to various interruptions and the Lord Provost calling a short adjournment. Upon resumption of the meeting, the Lord Provost stated that he had warned Councillor Allard via a nonverbal cue at the time, however he apologised for not articulating this verbally to the meeting.

Councillor Malik then resumed moving his amendment and was seconded by Councillor Watson.

Councillor Brooks moved as a further amendment, seconded by Councillor Kusznir:-

          That the Council -

1.    Notes the report and agrees that the Council delivery plan broadly reflects the manner in which the SNP-led Administration run the Council;

2.    Notes from the report that a number of SNP-Liberal Democrat Administration pledges have:

a.    not been enacted, or

b.    are no longer to be enacted, or

c.     have been watered-down, such as Citizens Assemblies;

which is indicative of a third-rate council leadership, who are ‘managing’ rather than ‘leading’ Aberdeen City Council.

3.    Furthermore, notes the most recent City Centre Masterplan and the City Centre bus priority route correspondence with 3^rd party stakeholders, as highlighted in a recent newspaper article.

4.    Further notes that the Council administration has favoured bus companies over our business-rates paying, city centre businesses in the presentation and consideration of the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (also known as Bus Gates).

5.    Further notes that the Conservative Group Leader has written to the Executive Director (City Regeneration & Environment) for assurance that the Member-Officer Relations Protocol (MORP) was not breached by any SNP-led Administration pressure, put on Council officers, to favour permanency of the city centre bus priority measures over that of the economic wellbeing of our city centre business-rate paying businesses.

6.    Instructs the Executive Director (City Regeneration & Environment) that should it not be possible to offer assurance that the MORP was not breached (as per item 5) that the item is further investigated and reported back to Full Council.

During the course of summing up, Councillor Malik agreed to incorporate Councillor Brooks’ amendment into his amendment as a joint amendment. Councillor Brooks therefore agreed to withdraw his amendment.

Councillor Tissera moved as a procedural motion, seconded by Councillor Malk:-

          That the vote on this item be conducted by roll call.

On a division, there voted:-

For the procedural motion   (22)  -  Councillors Ali, Blake, Bonsell, Boulton, Brooks, Crockett, Cross, Farquhar, Graham, Grant, Houghton, Kusznir, Lawrence, Macdonald, McLeod, Malik, Massey, Nicoll, Mrs Stewart, Thomson, Tissera and Watson. 

Against the procedural motion  (23)  -  Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Al-Samarai, Allard, Alphonse, Bouse, Hazel Cameron, Clark, Cooke, Copland, Cormie, Davidson, Fairfull, Greig, Henrickson, Hutchison, MacGregor, McLellan, McRae, Mennie, Radley, van Sweeden and Yuill.

The Council resolved:-

to reject the procedural motion.

The Council then divided on the substantive item.

On a division, there voted:-

For the motion  (23)  -  Lord Provost; Depute Provost; and Councillors Al-Samarai, Allard, Alphonse, Bouse, Hazel Cameron, Clark, Cooke, Copland, Cormie, Davidson, Fairfull, Greig, Henrickson, Hutchison, MacGregor, McLellan, McRae, Mennie, Radley, van Sweeden and Yuill.

For the amendment   (22)  -  Councillors Ali, Blake, Bonsell, Boulton, Brooks, Crockett, Cross, Farquhar, Graham, Grant, Houghton, Kusznir, Lawrence, Macdonald, McLeod, Malik, Massey, Nicoll, Mrs Stewart, Thomson, Tissera and Watson. 

The Council resolved:-

to adopt the motion.