Agenda item

Motion for Time Limited Debate 1 – Disposable E-cigarettes

(1)       Jenni Hawkins proposed, and Mr Hood seconded the following motion for time-limited debate:

“County Council requests that the Executive write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request that disposable vapes are banned.”

(2)       Following the debate, Mr Hood proposed a recorded vote.

(3)       The Chairman put the motion set out in paragraph 2 to the vote.

Motion lost.

(4)       The Chairman put the substantive motion set out in paragraph 1 to the vote.

Substantive Motion carried.

(5)       RESOLVED that County Council requests that the Executive write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request that disposable vapes are banned.

Motion for Time Limited Debate 2 – ULEZ Expansion

(1)       Mr Cole proposed and Mr Kite seconded the following motion for time-limited debate:

“That County Council:

·       Notes the existing KCC commitment to air quality in Kent via the Kent and Medway Low Emissions Strategy;

·       Notes the disproportionate impact the ULEZ expansion will have on essential key workers and those on low incomes;

·       Requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Mayor of London, expressing this Council’s considerable concern about the impact of the expansion and calling on the Mayor, explicitly, to reverse the decision.

·       Requests that the Executive confirm that it will not permit any new ULEZ signs being erected on Kent County Council property nor any existing LEZ signs being changed.”

(2)       Mr Hook proposed and Mr Streatfeild seconded the following amendment:

“That County Council:

·       Notes the existing KCC commitment to air quality in Kent via the Kent and Medway Low Emissions Strategy;

·       Notes the disproportionate impact the ULEZ expansion will have on essential key workers and, those on low incomes and people without access to good public transport options; and

·       Requests that the Leader of the Council

o   write to the Mayor of London, expressing this Council’s considerable concern about the impact of the expansion and calling on the Mayor, explicitly, to reverse the decision; and

o   lobby Government to ensure that, should the expansion progress, a scrappage scheme similar to the scheme available to Greater London residents is made available to Kent residents who work in, or have close family in, the proposed extended ULEZ area.

·       Requests that the Executive confirm that it will not permit any new ULEZ signs being erected on Kent County Council property nor any existing LEZ signs being changed.”

(3)       Following the debate, the Chairman put the amendment set out in paragraph 2 to the vote.

Amendment lost.

(4)       Dr Sullivan proposed and Ms Grehan seconded the following amendment:

“That County Council:

·       Notes the existing KCC commitment to air quality in Kent via the Kent and Medway Low Emissions Strategy;

·       Notes the disproportionate impact the ULEZ expansion will have on essential key workers and those on low incomes;

·       Requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Mayor of London, expressing this Council’s considerable concern about the impact of the expansion and calling on the Mayor, explicitly, to reverse the decision.

·       Requests that the Executive confirm that it will not permit any new ULEZ signs being erected on Kent County Council property nor any existing LEZ signs being changed.”

·       Requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Government to call for investment into a national scrappage scheme, investment into electronic charging points and investment into more environmentally friendly public transport that will give an affordable, reliable choice for Kent residents and businesses.”

(5)       Following the debate, the Chairman put the amendment set out in paragraph 4 to the vote.

Amendment lost.

(6)       The Chairman put the substantive motion set out in paragraph 1 to the vote.

Substantive motion carried.

(7)       RESOLVED that the County Council;

·       Notes the existing KCC commitment to air quality in Kent via the Kent and Medway Low Emissions Strategy;

·       Notes the disproportionate impact the ULEZ expansion will have on essential key workers and those on low incomes;

·       Requests that the Leader of the Council write to the Mayor of London, expressing this Council’s considerable concern about the impact of the expansion and calling on the Mayor, explicitly, to reverse the decision.

·       Requests that the Executive confirm that it will not permit any new ULEZ signs being erected on Kent County Council property nor any existing LEZ signs being changed.

Mr Hood asked that his vote against the substantive motion be noted in the minutes.