Cllr O’Neill proposed and Cllr Hogan seconded the motion at the agenda.

Cllr O’Neill considered his motion friendly and explained that bus services were vital to young and old alike for purposes such as work, shopping and banking. Any reduction in subsidy would also affect local businesses. The county council’s consultation had been flawed in that it merely gave choices about which cuts to make, rather than whether to make any cuts. Additionally to ask for opinion regarding evenings, weekends and Sundays was meaningless, given that people used Sundays like any other day for shopping. He also mentioned that one suggestion would leave people 50 minutes to complete their business before the only bus returned them home. He informed members that the county council at its next but one meeting would make the final decision.

Cllr Molyneux commented that while sympathetic to the motion, the cuts had been necessary as a result of the previous Labour government’s actions. He repeated that it was easy to just spend money. The cut in bus subsidies was only one of many that the county council needed to make. It had already made its main decision and the motion simply condemned that decision without suggesting alternatives or arguing the case for the district on the grounds of it being rural or less well off. He believed that the council needed to send a stronger message for the county to take note of the district’s special circumstances. He had earlier circulated to all members an amendment to the motion.

Cllr Lawton agreed with the leader, commenting that the motion was combative in tone and that this authority needed to work together with other authorities.

Cllr Quaile stated that the proposed cuts were already in the county council’s budget. This council should be seeking bus services offering the best value for money, citing route 666, which averaged 150 passengers per year at an individual cost of £45.72 for a return trip. The county council review listed each route with options and all town and parish councils had been asked for their views. The door had not yet been closed, so he could not accept the motion at the agenda.

Cllr Robinson proposed and Cllr Molyneux seconded the following amendment.

That this council recognises the need to improve value for money from the subsidy provided for bus travel, but any move to reduce the buses in and around the Forest of Dean District will have a detrimental effect on many people and the provision of many facilities and services.  We urge Gloucestershire County Council to take this into consideration when introducing changes following the consultation that closed 27 June 2011.

Cllr Robinson explained that the reason for proposing an amendment was in the hope of sending a motion, which would make a difference. While the decision to reduce subsidies had already been made, there would still be subsidies to the value of £3 million. He had been active in his division (area) in seeking opinion and he wanted to send a strong message to the county council. He added that he had tried to keep as many words from the original motion as possible.

Cllr Gardiner believed that this important issue had been exacerbated by the economic climate. People needed buses for various reasons and the provision of a service was not always about value for money. Councillors needed to consider the human equation alongside the financial equation. He was saddened that the matter had become politicised.

Cllr Hogan pointed out that the lower the level of service the less it was used. Some bus services in the district were so infrequent and inconvenient that they were less well used. However he had welcomed the recent improvement to the route extending to Joys Green. He believed that the district councillors should work together to consider the impact of cuts in subsidies on specific routes.

Cllr Molyneux concurred with that view, but this meeting was not the appropriate arena. However the council could still make a strong representation as at the amendment. The district’s own county councillors would fight on behalf of forest residents. The amendment makes the case for the effect of cuts on the district and he hoped that the council could speak with one voice on the matter.

Cllr O’Neil was not prepared to accept the amendment.

Cllr Robinson summed up the amendment by saying that it offered the opportunity to the county council to make improvements by thinking harder about how to deliver services. It would send a strong message for consideration.

Cllr O’Neill confirmed that he did want to use the word condemn in his motion, as he did not see the need for such swingeing cuts and did not agree that they were the way out of the economic situation. He admitted that he could tidy up the amendment.

On being put to the vote the amendment was successful

The voting was as follows.

For (27) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (1) - Frank Baynham

Abstained (12) - Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart,

Cllr O’Neill believed that he could support a version that was not far off the amendment.

Cllr O’Neill proposed and Cllr Hogan seconded the following amendment to the first amendment.

To remove the words ‘the need to improve value for money from the subsidy provided for bus travel’

Cllr Robinson did not accept the suggestion.

The second amendment was put to the vote and was unsuccessful.

The voting was as follows.

For (17) –Ian Whitburn, Clive Elsmore, Andrew Gardiner, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Baynham, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart

Against (23) - Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Dave East, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Abstained (1) - Philip Burford

The original amendment became the substantive motion.

RESOLVED - That this council recognises the need to improve value for money from the subsidy provided for bus travel, but any move to reduce the buses in and around the Forest of Dean District will have a detrimental effect on many people and the provision of many facilities and services.  We urge Gloucestershire County Council to take this into consideration when introducing changes following the consultation that closed 27 June 2011.

Voting was as follows.

For (40) – Norman Stephens, Roger Yeates, Jim Connell, Gethyn Davies, Brian Jones, Brian Edwards, James Bevan, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Carole Allaway Martin, Marrilyn Smart, Len Lawton, Peter Ede, Arthur Thomas, Julia Gooch, Ian Whitburn, Dave East, Philip Burford, Clive Elsmore, Graham Morgan, Max Coborn, Frank Baynham, Paul McMahon, David Thomson, Bill Evans, Bernie O’Neill, Don Pugh, Bruce Hogan, Val Hobman, Lynn Sterry, Di Martin, Jackie Fraser, Helen Stewart, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Diana Edwards, Martin Quaile, Patrick Molyneux, Brian Robinson, Jane Horne

Against (0)

Abstained (0)