Agenda item

Motions Process:

• No speeches may be made after the mover has moved a proposal and explained the purpose of it until the motion has been seconded.

• When seconding a motion or amendment, a councillor may reserve their speech until later in the debate.

• Speeches must be directed to the motion under discussion or to a personal explanation or point of order. No speech may exceed five minutes without the consent of the Chairman.

• A councillor who has spoken on a motion may not speak again whilst it is the subject of debate, except:

a)    To speak once on an amendment moved by another councillor;

b)    To move a further amendment if the motion has been amended since he/she last spoke;

c)    If his/her first speech was on an amendment moved by another councillor, to speak on the main issue (whether or not the amendment on which he/she spoke was carried);

d)    In exercise of a right of reply (see Rule 15.9 of the Constitution);

e)    On a point of order (see Rule 15.12 of the Constitution); and

f)      By way of personal explanation (see Rule 15.13 of the Constitution).

• For amendments, please refer to Rule 15.6 of the Constitution.

Two motions have been submitted for consideration. These are outlined at 11.1 and 11.2 on the agenda.

It was noted that two motions had been submitted for consideration. The first motion was as follows:

This district council supports the implementation of 20mph as the default speed limit for our district in all the urban and village streets where people live, work, shop, play and learn.  The Council will write to the Leader and Cabinet Member for the Highway Authority (currently North Yorkshire County Council) to implement 20mph as the default limit with higher limits only where the needs of vulnerable road users are fully taken into account.

Councillor Steve Shaw-Wright proposed the motion and outlined that there were many benefits of 20mph zones such as reducing congestion and reducing the number of accidents including outside schools. The motion was seconded by Councillor Packham who stated that surveys had shown that a high percentage of the public were in favour of 20mph zones and that it was cheaper to introduce than other initiatives such as traffic calming measures.

The Leader of the Council responded to the motion and stated that the evidence from North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) was that it did not prevent accidents and that it was difficult to enforce by the Police. The Deputy Leader of the Council stated the issue of 20mph zones had already been responded to by the portfolio holder for transport at NYCC. Council was informed that speed limits were set by NYCC in accordance with Department for Transport guidance and that their judgement was that 30mph was the appropriate speed limit for residential areas.

Additionally, it was explained that it would cost £12m to introduce 20mph speed limits as the default limit however NYCC’s Executive were looking at introducing 20mph in some areas in a targeted way.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was rejected.

RESOLVED:

                    To reject the motion.

The second motion was as follows:

This Council notes recent research by the Resolution Foundation think-tank, which reveals the number of UK households suffering from ‘fuel stress’ – those spending at least 10% of their family budgets on energy bills – is set to treble to 6.3m overnight when the new energy price cap comes in on 1 April 2022.

This Council notes and is concerned by the Government’s latest official data, which reveals nearly 5000 households (13.2%) in Selby District are in fuel poverty.

This Council agrees with the well-respected ‘Money Saving Expert’, Martin Lewis that ‘it is not an exaggeration to say there are people in the country who will be choosing between heating and eating come April.’

This Council calls on the UK Government to take immediate and substantive action to support families across Selby, and indeed the United Kingdom, who are struggling with the recent sharp increases in household energy costs and the increases to come in the weeks and months ahead.

This Council notes Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s public statement in May 2016 that ‘the least wealthy are hit particularly hard’ by VAT on household energy bills and that ‘when we vote Leave, we will be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax’.

This Council resolves to call on the UK Government to take immediate action to support families in Selby by as a minimum: removing VAT on energy bills for at least one year; increasing the Warm Home Discount from £140 to £400 per year and expanding the number of households eligible to 9.3 million; as well as introducing a year-long increase to corporation tax for North Sea oil and gas producers in order to secure £1.2 billion windfall from their increased price rise profits to help mitigate household energy bills.

This Council calls on the UK Government and our local Members of Parliament to end the dither and delay on tackling the cost-of-living crisis facing families and act now to support them with the escalating costs of household energy bills.

Councillor Packham moved the motion and explained that energy bills were increasing by £700 a year which was having a severe impact on residents alongside other increases such as inflation, national insurance and council tax.

Councillor Nichols seconded the motion and stated that there was an increase in the number of people having to use foodbanks and that this was an issue the Government should be helping with as the situation would only get worse.

The Leader of the Council responded to the motion and stated that he didn’t think it was for the Council to write to the Government on the issue and that the Prime Minister and Government were looking at the issues however did not have their own money other than that raised through taxation. Concern was raised that the situation in Ukraine would only worsen the situation.

Other comments on the motion included that the supply of energy was an issue however had not been mentioned in the motion and that if the corporation tax was created, as outlined in the motion this would have an impact on the supply issues.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was rejected.

RESOLVED:

                    To reject the motion.