a)    By Councillor Haseler

 

The RSPCA and a number of RBWM residents are very concerned for the welfare of animals given as prizes at fairgrounds and other public events, calling for a ban on this practice.

 

This Council:

 

i)               Agrees to ban outright the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Council land.

ii)              Requests the Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection to write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land.

 

 

b)    By Councillor Tisi

 

The Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms Act) 2021 requires schools, from September 2022 to ensure – 

 

•         Uniform policies are published online 

•         Supplier arrangements give the highest priority to cost/value for money 

•         Tendering is designed to avoid uncompetitive single supplier contracts 

•         A supply of second-hand uniforms 

 

Given the cost-of-living crisis we must ensure the commitment of all borough schools. 

This Council will: 

 

i)               Require all schools governed by the Act to demonstrate evidence of its implementation 

ii)              Create a mechanism to ensure continued compliance. 

 

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

Motion a)

 

Councillor Haseler introduced his motion. He explained that he had brought the motion to Council as a direct result of residents asking him to do so. Animal ownership was a big responsibility; one that should be planned and well thought out. Animals often did not have their needs met before, during or after being given as a prize. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it was an offence to give an animal as a prize to anyone under the age of 16 except in the family context. The RSPCA believe that this did not go far enough. It would like to see legislation introduced similar to that in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 which stated that it was an offence to give an animal as a prize regardless of age, except within the family context.

 

Local authorities had the opportunity to introduce bans on council owned land as well as raising public awareness in ending the outdated practice. Whilst a range of animals were given as prizes every year, the most popular, goldfish, often suffered from shock, oxygen starvation or die from changes in water temperature. Those who won them as prizes did not often have an aquarium set up so may keep them in an unsuitable environment or illegally dump them in a local waterway. Nine local authorities in Wales and 28 in England had supported a similar motion.

 

Councillor Taylor stated that she 100% supported the motion but was concerned how it would be policed, for example at travelling fairs.

 

Councillor Davey commented that he supported the motion, but he would have liked it if the proposer had spoken to private landowners that hosted the fairs to get their support.

 

Councillor Davies commented that the welfare of animals was something very close to her heart. Members would remember this from a previous debate on a RSPCA motion, to reduce the noise level of fireworks sold in the borough. She had been disappointed that the administration had not supported that motion, she was going to support this one.

 

She had spoken to the Licensing team to find out if there were any known instances of live animals being given as prizes on borough land. They were not aware of any examples but advised that the event holders would not at present be required to notify the local authority and that it was not illegal unless the person receiving the prize was under 16. They suggested that the council might therefore need to introduce a byelaw for this to take effect. She therefore asked how the council would ensure its good intentions were enacted.

 

Councillor Cannon commented that it was a no-brainer. Animals should not be given as a prize. The motion was about what the council could easily do on its land; he was sure Councillor Haseler would speak to other councils to see how they were managing enforcement. He would take up the challenge to write to the government.

 

Councillor Haseler commented that other local authorities were restricting the giving of pets through their licensing structure. In relation to private land, he felt this would be best looked at once legislation was in place.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Haseler, seconded by Councillor Cannon, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council:

 

i)               Agrees to ban outright the giving of live animals as prizes, in any form, on Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Council land.

ii)             Requests the Cabinet Member for Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, and Public Protection to write to the UK Government, urging an outright ban on the giving of live animals as prizes on both public and private land.

 

Motion b)

 

Councillor Tisi introduced her motion. She explained that the Children’s Society found on average that parents were spending around £315 on uniform for a child at primary school, and £337 each for a child at secondary school. 

 

At The Baby Bank charity, school uniforms were provided for families who were struggling with the cost of living. Pre-loved generic uniform such as grey school trousers had always been given, but increasingly it was being asked to purchase expensive new branded items such as dry-clean only jumpers and logo PE kits with personalised vinyl initials that could not be removed. These items were way beyond budget, especially when buying for multiple children. This caused parents personal embarrassment and distress.

 

As a teacher, she had seen that the consequences of not having the right kit could be severe. Children may stay off school to avoid certain lessons. Bullying could occur and, in some schools, children were even excluded from lessons for not wearing the prescribed items. The cost of school uniforms could also be a barrier for families even applying to certain schools, as they realised the branded items for all kinds of school activities, were just a stretch too far. 

 

In 2021, the then School Standards Minister, Nick Gibb acknowledged the role that school uniforms had in establishing an ethos of a school and fostering a sense of belonging and identity but stated that they must be affordable for parents. The case for the legislation was well-made by ministers from across all parties and passed into law in April 2021. After a period for preparation, from September 2022, schools had been required to review their uniform policies, with an extension to September 2023 where contract issues needed to be ironed out. 

 

Schools would now have to carefully consider cost when developing their school uniform policies. Rather than requiring parents to buy lots of unusual and expensive items from one supplier, schools must look at whether generic high-street providers were more appropriate for most items. The legislation now formalised the requirement for access to second-hand uniform that many canny PTAs had always used as a source of income for the school. There should be no stigma in making use of pre-loved items. 

 

As a local authority the council had a role in the process to ensure that the borough’s excellent schools were following the letter of the law, just as it would with other important legislation. Councillor Tisi explained that she had spoken with officers and knew that the council had ensured that schools had been informed of the change in law, so her motion was a natural progression. It was not a punitive measure, rather the council should be providing school governors and senior leaders with support to make changes, by directing them to best practice guidance on how to design inclusive and sustainable uniform policies. 

 

In consultation with headteachers and parents, the council could be a trailblazing authority and formulate borough guidance or even a school uniform charter for borough schools to sign up to. This could give schools the confidence to go further with their policies, knowing that other schools were doing the same. 

 

School uniform sometimes changed with a change in leadership, so it was important to regularly check-in with schools to ensure that they were continuing to comply. It did not need to be a time-consuming or expensive process as schools must now display their current uniform policy on their websites and contacting those who had not would not be too onerous in terms of officer time, but could have a big impact.

 

Passing the motion alongside the legislation would also empower parents to speak up where they felt a school’s policy could be even more accessible to families. Councillor Tisi concluded that failure to do anything would be a dereliction of duty to borough schools and also residents, many of whom were finding the cost of living a huge burden. 

Councillor Del Campo commented that Councillor Tisi had already addressed one urgent crisis, that of the cost of living. However, at the same time, there was another crisis that was fast approaching a tipping point, and that was the climate emergency.

A report from the National Confederation of School Trusts stated that the “ongoing quest for environmental sustainability is clearly gathering momentum…” with over half currently developing an environmental strategy while just under a fifth already had a strategy to become carbon neutral.

An investigation by My Nametags had thrown up some interesting and concerning statistics: 1.4 million wearable school uniforms were thrown away each year, and most parents preferred to buy new uniform for their children. At the same time, research by Wrap showed that if the average life of clothes was extended by just three months of active use, it could reduce the carbon, water and waste footprints of those clothes by 5–10%.

The success of online vintage clothing sales, particularly amongst younger consumers, showed that the cultural change needed could be easier to achieve than thought. Under the new Act, schools were encouraged to embrace the use of iron-on and sew-on badges. This meant that not only could uniform be bought from a wider range of retailers, but also that they could be recycled more widely. Parents could choose environmentally friendly options, if they were able to do so including shirts made from responsibly sourced cotton, ties made from recycled plastic, and viscose sourced from wood pulp, for example. They were no longer tied to a single supplier and a single manufacturing method.

Setting up a uniform exchange or sale could help parents cut costs and reduce wastage and raise funds. Many schools did this already, often through over-stretched PTFAs, and the council needed to encourage more to follow suit.

Tracking which schools were doing what would help the council to understand where the gaps were and what additional support was needed. Supporting the motion would cost a negligible amount of officer time but could make a tangible difference to residents’ finances and to the planet.

Councillor Stimson explained for the last year and a half she had been working with someone who ran a schools PTA network reaching 15,000 schools in the UK, including a few hundred in Berkshire. The mission was to set up an education bank so schools could collect and redistribute not just uniforms but other items. The problem this gentleman encountered working with schools in the state sector and officers was the lack of officer time for it to work properly. There was a huge waste in the sector and if that was saved it could support the set-up of a network. He was keen to visit The Baby Bank and already had a commitment from the Children’s Society and Save the Children. Councillor Stimson would be happy to work on a project similar to that proposed.

 

Councillor Carroll stated that he agreed with the spirit of the proposal, however having sought officer advice, the motion as written was not congruent with the council’s powers. It was the Governing Body of schools that decided on the guidance. He therefore proposed an amendment so that the motion read:

 

The Council will:

 

i)               Audit School websites to ensure they comply with the Act and challenge if they are not compliant

ii)                   Make auditing of school websites a yearly task for uniform 

 

Through the Schools Forum or School Improvement Forum, he would also be happy to write to all schools to request the imperative be prioritised.

 

Councillor Stimson seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Tisi stated that she would be happy that the first word of recommendation i) be changed from ‘Require’ to ‘Request’. Councillor Carroll’s second suggestion was a suggested mechanism so she would be prepared to add this to her original motion. The motion would therefore read:

 

That this Council will:

 

i)           Request all schools governed by the Act to demonstrate evidence of its implementation

 

ii)              Create a mechanism to ensure continued compliance; make auditing of school websites a yearly task for uniform

 

Councillor Carroll requested an adjournment to enable him to discuss the proposal with officers.

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.35pm; reconvening at 10.40pm.

 

Councillor Tisi confirmed that agreement had been reached. The meeting indicated its consent to the amendment as proposed by Councillor Tisi.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Tisi, seconded by Councillor Del Campo, and:

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That this Council will:

 

i)               Request all schools governed by the Act to demonstrate evidence of its implementation

 

ii)                  Create a mechanism to ensure continued compliance; make auditing of school websites a yearly task for uniform