This Council supports the principle of extending the franchise to vote in key national and local elections to 16 year olds.

Proposer – Roger Truelove

Seconder – Ghlin Whelan

A – Motion re Voting Age

Councillor Roger Truelove proposed the following Motion:

“This Council supports the principle of extending the franchise to vote in key national and local elections to 16 year olds.”

In proposing the motion, Councillor Roger Truelove referred to the history of democracy in the 19^th century, which had first focussed on property and wealth before health, poverty and education.  He emphasised the importance for 16 and 17 year olds to have a vote so that their interests were protected, and anticipated that others might say that young people were not sufficiently well informed or interested or mature enough to have a vote.  He considered that liberal democracy was at risk and there was a need for proper information and for more education about democracy in schools.  He believed that it would help democracy if young people could vote.

This was seconded by Councillor Ghlin Whelan.

A debate ensued, which centred on the following themes:

That young people’s opinions should be trusted and valued; the positive experience of changing the voting age in Scotland for the Scottish Independence Referendum; that it was wrong that 16 and 17 year olds could join the army, get married, reproduce and pay tax but could not vote; that it would be a leap forward and a key milestone in history to lower the voting age; the impact of social media on democracy and results of social medial polls undertaken by a Member; that 16 and 17 year olds did not have a separate legal status from their parents; that young people were keen to be involved; that there were opportunities for young people to be involved in political organisations from a young age, such as animal rights groups and trade unions; that young people were affected by decisions made by the Council; that there was a need for better education in schools, colleges, further education and universities about democracy; and that the voting age should not be lowered referring to the fact that the voting age had been 21.

In summing up, Councillor Roger Truelove welcomed comments from Members in support of the Motion.

During the debate, a recorded vote was requested and voting was as follows:

For = Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, Monique Bonney, Richard Darby, Mark Ellen, June Garrad, James Hall, Nicholas Hampshire, Harrison, Mike Henderson, Roger Truelove, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.  Total = 13.

Against = Councillors George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Tina Booth, Lloyd Bowen, Bowles, Roger Clark, Mike Cosgrove, Mike Dendor, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Paul Fleming, Sue Gent, Alan Horton, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Gerry Lewin, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Mini Nissanga, Prescott, Ken Pugh, David Simmons, Ben Stokes, Anita Walker and Ted Wilcox.  Total = 26.

Abstain = Councillors Mike Whiting and John Wright.  Total = 2.

The Mayor advised that the Motion was lost.

B – Urgent Motion re Acute Stroke Services

The Mayor drew attention to the tabled paper, that set out amended wording for the Motion.

Councillor John Wright proposed the following Motion:

“That this Council supports and urges that Medway hospital is chosen as one of the 4 hospitals for provision of acute stroke services in Kent.  Swale Borough Council has looked at the consultation options and concluded that Medway Hospital and additionally Kent and Canterbury Hospital and their provision of acute services are critical for the health and wellbeing of ALL Swale’s residents.”

This was seconded by Councillor Ken Pugh, who reserved his right to speak.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor John Wright referred to the amended wording of the consultation to that previously circulated.  He explained that the wording had been revised to include Canterbury Hospital, to reflect that it had just been announced that Canterbury had won a bid for a nursing centre and medical school. He spoke of the need for patients to have quick access to high quality acute stroke services, which was why the preferred option was Medway Hospital; and that it would make sense to have a facility in Canterbury which could be accessed quickly by residents of Faversham.  Whilst the Canterbury option had been discounted at stage 2 of the consultation, he considered that things had moved on since that time, with the announcement referred to earlier.  He encouraged Members to support the Motion, and to respond to the consultation.

A debate ensued, during which Members referred to the original Motion (that did not include reference to Canterbury Hospital) and their support for it, but questioned the revised wording as Medway Hospital should be the priority and they would not want Medway Hospital to lose out to the Kent and Canterbury Hospital. Comments were also made about the need to have regard to all residents of the Borough, not just those in Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey;  the need for a facility for Faversham residents; that the Kent and Canterbury Hospital should not be over-looked; tribute was paid to first class service provided by acute stroke services and their staff; the need for a ‘world class’ service for all in Kent; flaws in the public consultation; and the need to acknowledge that there could be four and not three hospitals in Kent for acute stroke services.

Councillor Mike Henderson proposed an amendment to the Motion (amendments shown in bold).

“That this Council supports and urges that Medway hospital is chosen as one of what should be 4 hospitals for provision of acute stroke services in Kent.  Swale Borough Council has looked at the consultation options and concluded that Medway Hospital and additionally Kent and Canterbury Hospital and their provision of acute services including stroke services are critical for the health and wellbeing of ALL Swale’s residents.”

This was seconded by Councillor Monique Bonney who considered the amendment clarified the position and made it clearer that the consultation referred to three hospitals; and that there was a clear need for two hospitals to serve Swale residents.

The amendment was put to the vote, but was lost.

Councillor Ken Pugh, as seconder of the original motion, advised that the NHS would only sanction three hospitals in Kent based on the population; that the announcement regarding a medical school in Canterbury could mean that it would be possible for acute services in Canterbury in future years; and he emphasised the need for acute services to be operational now and spread across Kent.

In summing up, Councillor John Wright encouraged Members to support the Motion.

A recorded vote was requested, and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Mike Baldock, Cameron Beart, George Bobbin, Andy Booth, Lloyd Bowen, Bowles, Roger Clark, Mike Cosgrove, Richard Darby, Mike Dendor, Duncan Dewar-Whalley, Mark Ellen, Paul Fleming, June Garrad, Sue Gent, James Hall, Nicholas Hampshire, Mike Henderson, Alan Horton, James Hunt, Ken Ingleton, Nigel Kay, Samuel Koffie-Williams, Gerry Lewin, Peter Marchington, Bryan Mulhern, Mini Nissanga, Prescott, Ken Pugh, David Simmons, Ben Stokes, Roger Truelove, Anita Walker, Ghlin Whelan, Mike Whiting, Ted Wilcox, Tony Winckless and John Wright.  Total = 38.

Against: 0

Abstain: Councillors Monique Bonney, Tina Booth and Harrison.  Total = 3.

The Mayor advised that the Motion was agreed.

Resolved:

(1) That this Council supports and urges that Medway hospital is chosen as one of the 4 hospitals for provision of acute stroke services in Kent.  Swale Borough Council has looked at the consultation options and concluded that Medway Hospital and additionally Kent and Canterbury Hospital and their provision of acute services are critical for the health and wellbeing of ALL Swale’s residents.