This posting will be updated regularly as the latest news comes in from County Hall. Please refresh your page to view updates.
17:45 Walked through a couple of police waiting outside County hall.
17:50 Lots of chatter in the council chamber. The public gallery is full already and the committee meeting room is being used as an overflow.
18:02 – Prayers over. Followed by SE charter presentation.
Update #1
18:08 – Declaration of interest Cllr Brown
Cllr Joyce – Why has Cllr Wells not given declared a personal interest? Same to Cllr Webster.
Chair – This is up to individual Cllrs.
More declarations of interest than I’ve ever seen before.
18:12 – Several Question from the public
Paul Critchley – Councils interest in larger schools against the common theories around the world. Why not build small school?
Cllr Wells. – Will consider smaller schools, where appropriate. But remember that it’s relative.
Critchley – Optimal size is smaller than those proposed by the council
Cllr Wells, I’m not aware of that particular research.
18:15 – Mr Miller. The original set of data – 480 less
How can the public be confident in the data being used when there’s errors in the original data.
Cllr Wells – it’s complex process. Errors when pointed out, were fixed quickly.
Update #2
18:18 – Chris Jarman. Re the Real World Trust. Did Clr Pugh declare his interest at the Jan meeting?
Written response – Hillary Jarman
Cllr Brown – Code of conduct shows that Cllr must declare interest. Cllr Pugh is on the Real World Trust board on behalf of the council.
I feel it’s ‘unlikely to need to declare”
I do not think that Cllr Pugh was incorrect in his approach. If that doesn’t satisfy, Standards board
Mr Jarman – Declaration at the meeting. You didn’t really respond.
Cllr Brown – I don’t have the details of the supplementary questions.
18:23 Chris Welsford – Standards Not Tiers. Is it fair to remove the school from rural areas – it’s a service.
Cllr Wells – In June/July time the council will reflect on this. If there’s more people traveling into the area, they disturb the rural nature.
Has there been any research on the additional costs of transport if the schools are to close?
Cllr Wells – Not sure I can give you the detail you require. Written answer to follow.
18:26 – End of written questions – on to the spoken ones.
John Worthing
Check and balances – Unwise to propose changing the rules on disposing assets.
Shouldn’t there be a maximum return on the councils assets
Cllr Brown – this will be debated in the agenda. “Best value interest of the council.”
It might be more desirable to dispose of the assets, not getting the maximum.
Example – Building may be preferred to be used by the community.
18:33 – Agenda Item 4
Update #3
18:33 – Agenda Item 4
Clr Joyce – wide spread concern – and no specific guidance from DCSF.
Also to manage the resources better.
Address – We should have had a lawyer check the election papers.
“words can be twisted by a twister”
Change is needed, but Cllr Pugh is …
Applause from gallery
We said we’d maintain local schools.
Cllr Pugh has reneged on a 2nd promise.
Many parents see the three options as not choice at all.
When I proposed my oriental school plan, it was supported in a _free_ vote.
Report came back in
Who can believe what he can be said
No integrity
No evidence that any of the three proposals will improve.
DCFS showed no concern of the original proposals.
Cllr Pugh has reneged three times.
Office need to come back with _all_ of the options
Rushed, ill conceived proposal, should be put out.
Update #4
18:42 Cllr Gardiner (seconder)
Council appear to be not honest.
Many school governors didn’t know that they capacity has been increased.
Cllr Wells said on the radio that it should be one per household
The public has been confused and mislead by the council.
Your strong leadership is farcical.
18:45 – Cllr Bell(?) If the leader is aware of the strong feelings against this proposal. There is large number of people against it on and off the Island. Nationally Tories and Labour against them.
The public are tell us loud a clear, no closures.
18:48 – Cllr Knowles. An email from Cllr Pugh to
Wed 30 March 2005 – Sent to Every Child Matters.
I am writing as a supporter. I am a strong supporter of small schools. I am completely opposed to these changes and will fight tooth and nail against them.
If elected I will be among the leading cheerleaders for you cause.
18:51 – Not sure on Cllr name,
I can’t vote on aspirations and wish lists.
I’ll ask for a named voted.
18:52 – Cllr Pugh
Where do I begin? (‘Resign’ shouted out from the gallery)
Yes it’s a matter of public record that I was against. Perhaps I was wrong.
I feel that there is a need to change.
Update #5
Pugh continues ….
I’m not ashamed to say I have been wrong in the past. We haven’t necessarily got it right the first time around – eg with the figures.
There are two questions
Which structure?
Which schools?
Letter received from governors body – we entrust you to make the right decision.
It’s an insult to the teachers and the parents to abandon the consultation now.
Who is to say that there will be mass school closures?
(chair – please don’t call out from the gallery)
18:57 – Clr Lumley – I’m ashamed that this travesty of democracy has been carried out. I’m embarrassed for Cllr Pugh.
No doubt various Cllrs will have received assurances from Cllr Pugh.
(muttering from the councillors)
I’ve had assurances from him – but learned that you cannot always rely on a reassurance from Cllr Pugh.
Cllr have said that it was done to Government.
Update #6
In our view there is still time to look at this again properly.
Councillors, I urge you to reflect that reassurances made to you, may not stand in a month or so.
19:02 Cllr Arnold – questionnaire is an insult to the public. My remarks are
Was the manifesto just window dressing. This is an attempt to cheat the electorate.
We have met the enemy … and it is us
(lots of applause)
19:04 – (didn’t get Cllr name, Sandown) – St Johns will close under any of the ‘options’
I’ve never participated in a protest previously, but I was proud to do it recently.
Update #7
Have some councillors been given assurances?
I appreciate the support from our MP on all of the concerns.
19:07 – Independent Cllr
This motion is an affront and an insult to parents who have responded.
To guillotine it is terrible.
Clr Joyce was renowned for not listening during his time looking after schools.
The current consultation is valid and should be completed.
Congrats to Cllr Pugh & Wells for their transparent approach (laughter from the gallery)
19:10
Why is not one member in the Tory party are speaking to oppose the motion?
May be the independent should buy a blue tie in the future.
Clr Pugh says he will now listen – it’s too late. He should have done it _before_ the consultation.
It’s an abuse of power that you’d find in a 3rd world county.
19:12 – Cllr Swan – I’m here as a mother. The questionnaire is an insult.
Update #8
We need diversity and human proportions for the schools.
19:15 – Cllr Fitzgerald Bond
We should remember what we’re being asked. This motion effectively ends the input of the public in this process.
Lib Deb – Point of order – I object to Cllr FB’s comments – Liberal Dim – I don’t think he’ll be there much longer.
This is a gutless motion.
19:17 – Cllr Murphy
I’ve never understood the political phrase Dead Man walking – I’m looking at some of you now.
I think the whip must be on the Tories – sustained by fear and favour.
We’ve heard that they’ve been sworn to secrecy.
The Options are confrontation not options.
Like asking a turkey, if it wants the chop before or after breakfast.
The Tories were beating their breasts about the closure of Post offices – where their loyalty on the closure of schools.
Update #9
Wanting to make a name for yourself – you should be careful what it is. It could end up to be twit.
(here it comes)
(please don’t coo)
19:28 – Cllr Wells
When all else fails – resort to the personal insults.
Sorry about the insults to the leader.
Cllr Lumley – the assurances to other members – that is a shocking an appalling accusation to make
(general derision)
On the word of my honour – that has not been the case.
(chair – please let people talk without interruption)
Jim Knight makes statements that are woolly.
We want clear guidance from the government.
What about standards? No-one has mentioned this.
I think it’s an affront to stop this process.
It may not be that there will be massive school closures.
Members have not fully understood the debate.
I suggest that you vote this down.
19:34 Cllr Bishop – Jim Knight said last night, “no, it’s not my fault”
My email has been deluged – shows that there’s no comparison between this and the previous proposals.
Confused to find a whole governors board that supported the closure of their own school – Perhaps that they’ve given a hint that their school will remain open
19:36 – Cllr Cousins – I disagree totally with the motion. I have had no bribes.
19:38 – Cllr Williams – have had no bribes. Can I call the vote?
19:38 – Patrick Joyce summing up. JFB – you obviously can’t read. it’s not about stopping debate.
12 members stood for a named vote.
For
Arnold
Peacey-Wilcox
Ward
Bowker
Humby
Stephens
Bishop
Churchman
Joyce
McRoberts
Foster
Mosdell
Swan
Gardiner
Lumley
Adams
Knowles
Against
Pugh
Abrahams
Brown
Bulwer
Burt
Cameron
Cousins
Cunningham
Fitzgerald Bond
Hobart
Humber
Hunter Henderson
Kennett
Oulton
Pigot
Scoccia
Sutton
Webster
Wells
West
Williams
Wood
Hancock
Whitaker
Tuson
Tate
Vote 26 against 17 for
Motion is lost.
Update #10
5b – Ferries
Ferry companies are confusing the public with many different prices
IW council support will add weight to the MPs
19:45 – Cllr Hunter Henderson – propose an amendment
We will continue to work with the ferry operators.
Amendment .. same up to … “instruct the Policy Commission for Business & Infrastructure to invite the ferry companies to give evidence on their pricing structure and future plans for cross-Solent travel.”
19:47 – Cllr Hancock. Like to second the amendment.
Amazing that this should go to consultation, but the education proposal do not.
19:48 – (missed name) I think the amendment waters the proposal down
Cllr Sutton – I’ve grave fears about this. We, as a council, need to be careful.
19:51 – Cllr Oulton. I support the amendment.
I’m surprised to see the amendment – Cllr Hunter Henderson didn’t say anything about this.
There’s a time scale for this as the planned date of submission is Sept.
What would the residents think if they find that the council don’t support their MP.
The amendment goes against what I’m proposing.
19:54 – Cllr Fitzgerald Bond. What Cllr Sutton says — we’ve got to be very careful — it smacks of government getting involved with banking
19:57 – Cllr Mosdell – There’s little point in sending this to the Commission, as the paper covering most of it ….
19:58 – Cllr Ward – confident that ferry companies do not abuse their position.
19:59 – Cllr Lumley – I was uncertain about supporting this. I have a feeling that this is being kicked into the long grass. Strange that I’m supporting the Tory MP & the Tory council isn’t.
20:00 Cllr Pugh –
20:02 – Cllr Bishop – fair trading is the key phrase. We’re not accusing them of anything. It’s just a logical thing to ask.
20:03 – Cllr Scoccia – Would we have got a 50% discount without the hard work of Cllr Ward.
20:04 – (didn’t get name) If we rock the boat, we may lose out 20% discount.
20:04 – Vote on the amendment. For 27 – Against 13
20:06 – Cllr Gardiner Very puzzled by this change. You’re asking amateurs to question professionals. Cllr Scoccia implies that we should be on our knees in front of the ferry companies.
Named Vote.
In favour
Abrahams
Brown
Burt
Cameron
Cousins
Cunningham
Fitzgerald Bond
Hobart
Humber
Hunter Henderson
Kennett
Oulton
Pigot
Scoccia
Sutton
Ward
Webster
Wells
West
Williams
Wood
Hancock
Whittaker
Tuson
Taylor
Pugh
Against
Bishop
Churchman
Joyce
Roberts
Foster
Mosdell
Swan
Gardiner
Lumley
Adams
Knowles
Stephens
Humby
Bowker
Absentions
Arnold
Vote – For 27 Against 14 Abst 1
20:14 – Item 7 – Implementation of Parish Council for Newport, Northwood, Ryde and Whippingham.
Cllr Pugh – gives an explanation
A few councillors pitched in. Some debate on Carisbrooke not being it’s own area.
Vote – 38 For
None against
two abstentions
