Agenda item

Motions on Notice

Motion by Councillor F Tinsley

 

The Coronavirus (COVID-19): health, care and volunteer workers parking pass has been available to those at the forefront of our fight against the pandemic. This pass provides evidence of entitlement to free parking for those on duty as an NHS staff member, health or social care worker, or NHS Volunteer Responder. This is to enable them to access parking concessions in local authority-owned off-street car parks and on-street bays.

 

Following the publication of the government’s roadmap for lifting COVID-19 restrictions, a decision has been taken by government to withdraw the emergency parking pass guidance by 21 June 2021.

 

This Council resolves to continue and fund the Coronavirus (COVID-19): health, care and volunteer workers parking pass in County Durham for period of 1 year from 23 June 2021.  The fight against this terrible disease continues and those in our health and care sector deserve our continued support. Continuation of the pass will assist those who have worked so incredibly hard to save lives.  They do not deserve the financial burden of now having to pay for parking when their crucially important work continues against Coronavirus (COVID-19).

 

Motion by Councillor K Earley

 

This council undertakes to provide  (through the deployment of finance from reserves) support for an energy partnership to provide a clean and green energy solution, capable of servicing the new community hospital and other developments on the former Consett Steelworks; which following  consultation can demonstrate the support of the local community.

 

Motion by Councillor O Gunn

 

Durham County Council notes that:

 

On 2nd June the Government published its plans for education recovery after the pandemic. Sir Kevan Collins, appointed by the Prime Minister as the Government’s Education Recovery Commissioner had judged that some £15bn was needed to repair the damage done to the nation’s pupils because of Covid. The Government’s offer of £1.4bn falls far short and is inadequate. In his resignation letter Sir Kevan Collins stated, ‘I do not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size’.

 

The Education Policy Institute have calculated that £1.4b amounts to £50 per pupil per year. This contrasts with £1,600 per pupil in the USA and £2,500 per pupil in the Netherlands. It means that the total funding committed to education recovery so far amounts to £310 per pupil over 3 years. If Government is committed to a high standard of education for all children regardless of ability to pay then £50 per pupil is simply not enough. The promise of providing increased funds later is a promise too late.  Parents and school staff deserve an immediate strong financial commitment that supports high standards and strong mental health for all children and young people.

 

Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Education has allowed change to the census used to calculate Pupil Premium funding for the most disadvantaged pupils. This means that £150 million is being taken away from young people and schools most in need at a time when they most need it.

 

Durham County Council resolves:

 

To write to the Prime Minister and call on the Government to:

 

1.    demonstrate its ambition for our children and young people and give our education system the resources they need to ensure that no child is left behind;

 

2.    recognise that areas of the country with children who are most disadvantaged, like County Durham and the whole of the North East Region, should be given the highest priority and immediate increased financial investment.

 

Motion by Councillor R Yorke

 

This Council believes that the people of West Auckland, St Helen Auckland and Spring Gardens agree a new bypass would bring relief to the residents of Toft Hill, but will not accept the burden of a very significant increase in traffic through West Auckland and resolves that the A688 bypass must be completed from Oakley Service Station roundabout directly to beyond the Sportsmans Inn at Toft Hill. We call upon the County Council to ensure that a full and proper consultation is carried out and that our communities will not be adversely impacted.

 

Minutes:

Moved by Councillor Tinsley, Seconded by Councillor Boyes

 

The Coronavirus (COVID-19): health, care and volunteer workers parking pass has been available to those at the forefront of our fight against the pandemic. This pass provides evidence of entitlement to free parking for those on duty as an NHS staff member, health or social care worker, or NHS Volunteer Responder.  This is to enable them to access parking concessions in local authority owned off-street car parks and on-street bays.

 

Following the publication of the government’s roadmap for lifting COVID-19 restrictions, a decision has been taken by government to withdraw the emergency parking pass guidance by 21 June 2021.

 

This Council resolves to continue and fund the Coronavirus (COVID-19): health, care and volunteer workers parking pass in County Durham for period of 1 year from 23 June 2021. The fight against this terrible disease continues and those in our health and care sector deserve our continued support. Continuation of the pass will assist those who have worked so incredibly hard to save lives. They do not deserve the financial burden of now having to pay for parking when their crucially important work continues against Coronavirus (COVID-19).

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Rural Communities and Highways Moved the following amendment, Seconded by Councillor J Rowlandson:

 

The Coronavirus (COVID-19): health, care and volunteer workers parking pass has been available to those at the forefront of our fight against the pandemic. This pass provides evidence of entitlement to free parking for those on duty as an NHS staff member, health or social care worker, or NHS Volunteer Responder.  This is to enable them to access parking concessions in local authority owned off-street car parks and on-street bays.

 

Following the publication of the government’s roadmap for lifting COVID-19 restrictions, a decision has been taken by government to withdraw the emergency parking pass guidance by 21 June 2021.

 

This Council resolves to continue and fund the Coronavirus (COVID-19): health, care and volunteer workers parking pass in County Durham for period of 1 year from 23 June 2021. The fight against this terrible disease continues and those in our health and care sector deserve our continued support. Continuation of the pass will assist those who have worked so incredibly hard to save lives. They do not deserve the financial burden of now having to pay for parking when their crucially important work continues against Coronavirus (COVID-19).

 

This Council resolves to:

1.    Write to Government and ask it to extend the scheme until Covid restrictions are lifted.

2.    Review parking arrangements for NHS staff in local authority-owned off-street car parks and on-street bays as part of the wider review into car park charging policy.

 

Upon a vote being taken the Amendment was carried and therefore became the Substantive Motion.

 

Upon a further vote being taken the Substantive Motion was carried.

 

 

 

 

 

Moved by Councillor Earley, Seconded by Councillor Mulholland

 

This Council undertakes to provide (through the deployment of finance from reserves) support for an energy partnership to provide a clean and green energy solution, capable of servicing the new community hospital and other developments on the former Consett Steelworks; which following consultation can demonstrate the support of the local community.

 

Councillor M McKeon requested a named vote

 

For the Motion

 

Councillors E Adam, R Adcock-Forster, V Andrews, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, K Batey, G Binney, D Boyes, J Chaplow, R Charlton-Lainé, R Crute, S Deinali, K Earley, J Elmer, L Fenwick, C Fletcher, J Griffiths, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, A Hanson, S Henig, J Higgins, M Johnson, C Kay, L Kennedy, R Manchester, D McKenna, M McKeon, I McLean, S McMahon, J Miller, D Mulholland, D Nicholls, P Pringle, J Purvis, S Quinn, I Roberts, K Shaw, T Smith, A Surtees, F Tinsley, S Townsend, C Varty, E Waldock, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood and R Yorke.

 

Against the Motion

 

Councillors B Avery, B Bainbridge, A Bell, C Bell, R Bell, J Blakey, D Brown, L Brown, J Cairns, J Charlton, I Cochrane, J Cosslett, M Currah, T Duffy, K Fantarrow, D Freeman, D Haney, K Hawley, P Heaviside, T Henderson, L Holmes, C Hood, A Hopgood, D Howarth, J Howey, C Hunt, G Hutchinson, A Jackson, N Jones, P Jopling, C Lines, L Maddison, C Martin, E Mavin, B McAloon, M McGaun, B Moist, J Nicholson, D Oliver, R Ormerod, E Peeke, R Potts, J Quinn, A Reed, M I Roberts, K Robson, K Rooney, J Rowlandson, A Savory, E Scott, P Sexton, A Shield, J Shuttleworth, M Simmons, A Simpson, M Stead, W Stelling, A Sterling, D Stoker, T Stubbs, D Sutton-Lloyd, M Walton, A Watson, M Wilkes and S Zair.

 

The Motion was lost.

 

 

Moved by Councillor Gunn, Seconded by Councillor Surtees

 

Durham County Council notes that:

 

On 2nd June the Government published its plans for education recovery after the pandemic. Sir Kevan Collins, appointed by the Prime Minister as the Government’s Education Recovery Commissioner had judged that some £15bn was needed to repair the damage done to the nation’s pupils because of Covid. The Government’s offer of £1.4bn falls far short and is inadequate. In his resignation letter Sir Kevan Collins stated, ‘I do not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size’.

 

The Education Policy Institute have calculated that £1.4b amounts to £50 per pupil per year. This contrasts with £1,600 per pupil in the USA and £2,500 per pupil in the Netherlands. It means that the total funding committed to education recovery so far amounts to £310 per pupil over 3 years. If Government is committed to a high standard of education for all children regardless of ability to pay then £50 per pupil is simply not enough. The promise of providing increased funds later is a promise too late. Parents and school staff deserve an immediate strong financial commitment that supports high standards and strong mental health for all children and young people.

 

Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Education has allowed change to the census used to calculate Pupil Premium funding for the most disadvantaged pupils. This means that £150 million is being taken away from young people and schools most in need at a time when they most need it.

 

Durham County Council resolves:

 

To write to the Prime Minister and call on the Government to:

 

1.            demonstrate its ambition for our children and young people and give our education system the resources they need to ensure that no child is left behind;

 

2.           recognise that areas of the country with children who are most disadvantaged, like County Durham and the whole of the North East Region, should be given the highest priority and immediate increased financial investment.

 

Councillor T Henderson, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People’s Services Moved the following amendment, Seconded by Councillor P Sexton, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Adult and Health Services:

 

Durham County Council notes that:

 

On 2nd June the Government published its plans for education recovery after the pandemic. Sir Kevan Collins, appointed by the Prime Minister as the Government’s Education Recovery Commissioner had judged that some £15bn was needed to repair the damage done to the nation’s pupils because of Covid. The Government’s offer of £1.4bn falls far short and is inadequate. In his resignation letter Sir Kevan Collins stated, ‘I do not believe it is credible that a successful recovery can be achieved with a programme of support of this size’.

 

The Education Policy Institute have calculated that £1.4b amounts to £50 per pupil per year. This contrasts with £1,600 per pupil in the USA and £2,500 per pupil in the Netherlands. It means that the total funding committed to education recovery so far amounts to £310 per pupil over 3 years. If Government is committed to a high standard of education for all children regardless of ability to pay then £50 per pupil is simply not enough. The promise of providing increased funds later is a promise too late. Parents and school staff deserve an immediate strong financial commitment that supports high standards and strong mental health for all children and young people.

 

Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Education has allowed change to the census used to calculate Pupil Premium funding for the most disadvantaged pupils. This means that £150 million is being taken away from young people and schools most in need at a time when they most need it.

 

Durham County Council resolves:

 

To write to the Prime Minister and call on the Government to:

 

1.     demonstrate its ambition for our children and young people and give our education system the resources they need to ensure that no child is left behind;

 

2.     recognise that areas of the country with children who are most disadvantaged, like County Durham and the whole of the North East Region, should be given the highest priority and immediate increased financial investment.

 

Upon a vote being there was an equality of votes.  The Chair exercised his casting vote for the Amendment which was carried and therefore became the Substantive Motion.

 

Councillor E Scott, Portfolio Holder for Economy and Partnerships considered that sufficient time had been taken debating the Amendment and Moved that it be put to the vote.

 

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised Council that this was a Procedural Motion to put the Amendment to the vote.  Under the Council Procedure Rules the Chair needed to take a view as to whether or not the matter had been sufficiently debated.  If in the Chair’s view the matter had been sufficiently debated the Procedural Motion to put the Amendment to a vote would be voted on.

 

The Chair informed the Council it was his view the matter had been sufficiently debated and the Procedural Motion was put to a vote.

 

Upon a vote being taken the Procedural Motion was carried

 

Upon a vote being taken the Amendment was carried.

 

 

Moved by Councillor Yorke, Seconded by Councillor S Townsend:

 

This Council believes that the people of West Auckland, St Helen Auckland and Spring Gardens agree a new bypass would bring relief to the residents of Toft Hill, but will not accept the burden of a very significant increase in traffic through West Auckland and resolves that the A688 bypass must be completed from Oakley Service Station roundabout directly to beyond the Sportsmans Inn at Toft Hill. We call upon the County Council to ensure that a full and proper consultation is carried out and that our communities will not be adversely impacted.

 

Councillor J Shuttleworth, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Rural Communities and Highways Moved the following amendment, Seconded by Councillor R Bell, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance:

 

This Council believes that the proposed new Toft Hill bypass (from near the Sportsmans Arms to the junction of the A68 Hartbrigg Lane), provision for which was made in the Levelling Up bid approved by Cabinet on 16 June 2021 people of West Auckland, St Helen Auckland and Spring Gardens agree a new bypass would will bring relief to the residents of Toft Hill, with no effect on traffic but will not accept the burden of a very significant increase in traffic through West Auckland and commits to working with the people, Parish Council and Councillors of West Auckland, St Helen Auckland and Spring Gardens to prepare the case for a resolves that the A688 bypass for these communities. must be completed from Oakley Service Station roundabout directly to beyond the Sportsmans Inn at Toft Hill. We call upon the County Council to ensure that a full and proper consultation is carried out and that our communities will not be adversely impacted.

 

The Char informed Council that the time limit of 2½ hours for the meeting had been reached.  The Amendment would be put to the vote.

 

Councillor R Yorke requested a named vote

 

For the Amendment

 

Councillors B Avery, B Bainbridge, A Bell, C Bell, R Bell, J Blakey, D Brown, L Brown, J Cairns, J Charlton, I Cochrane, J Cosslett, T Duffy, K Fantarrow, D Freeman, D Haney, K Hawley, P Heaviside, T Henderson, L Holmes, C Hood, A Hopgood, D Howarth, J Howey, C Hunt, G Hutchinson, A Jackson, N Jones, P Jopling, C Lines, L Maddison, C Martin, E Mavin, M McGaun, B Moist, J Nicholson, D Oliver, E Peeke, R Potts, J Quinn, A Reed, K Robson, K Rooney, J Rowlandson, A Savory, E Scott, P Sexton, A Shield, J Shuttleworth, M Simmons, A Simpson, M Stead, W Stelling, A Sterling, D Stoker, T Stubbs, D Sutton-Lloyd, M Walton, A Watson and M Wilkes.

 

Against the Amendment

 

Councillors E Adam, R Adcock-Forster, V Andrews, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, K Batey, G Binney, D Boyes, J Chaplow, R Charlton-Lainé, R Crute, S Deinali, K Earley, L Fenwick, C Fletcher, J Griffiths, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, A Hanson, S Henig, J Higgins, M Johnson, C Kay, L Kennedy, R Manchester, B McAloon, D McKenna, M McKeon, I McLean, S McMahon, J Miller, D Nicholls, P Pringle, J Purvis, S Quinn, I Roberts, K Shaw, T Smith, A Surtees, F Tinsley, S Townsend, C Varty, E Waldock, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood, R Yorke and S Zair.

Abstention

 

Councillor J Elmer.

 

The Amendment was carried and therefore became the Substantive Motion.

 

Councillor R Yorke requested a named vote

 

For the Motion

 

Councillors B Avery, B Bainbridge, A Bell, C Bell, R Bell, J Blakey, D Brown, L Brown, J Cairns, J Charlton, I Cochrane, J Cosslett, T Duffy, K Fantarrow, D Freeman, D Haney, K Hawley, P Heaviside, T Henderson, L Holmes, C Hood, A Hopgood, D Howarth, J Howey, C Hunt, G Hutchinson, A Jackson, N Jones, P Jopling, C Lines, L Maddison, C Martin, E Mavin, B McAloon, M McGaun, B Moist, J Nicholson, D Oliver, E Peeke, R Potts, J Quinn, A Reed, K Robson, K Rooney, J Rowlandson, A Savory, E Scott, P Sexton, A Shield, J Shuttleworth, M Simmons, A Simpson, M Stead, W Stelling, A Sterling, D Stoker, T Stubbs, D Sutton-Lloyd, F Tinsley, M Walton, A Watson and M Wilkes.

 

Against the Motion

 

Councillors E Adam, R Adcock-Forster, V Andrews, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, K Batey, G Binney, D Boyes, J Chaplow, R Charlton-Lainé, R Crute, S Deinali, K Earley, J Elmer, L Fenwick, C Fletcher, J Griffiths, O Gunn, D Hall, C Hampson, A Hanson, S Henig, J Higgins, M Johnson, C Kay, L Kennedy, R Manchester, D McKenna, M McKeon, I McLean, S McMahon, J Miller, D Nicholls, P Pringle, J Purvis, S Quinn, I Roberts, K Shaw, T Smith, A Surtees, S Townsend, C Varty, E Waldock, M Wilson, S Wilson, D Wood, R Yorke and S Zair.

 

The Substantive Motion was carried.