North Ayrshire Tory claims 20mph limit is part of 'climate change madness'
He said the policy was all about pleasing the Scottish Government.
Bold efforts by the North Ayrshire Tory Group to put the brakes on the Cabinet's support of the Scottish Government's National Strategy for 20mph in Urban areas and approve the implementation of 20mph speed limits stalled on Thursday.
At a fiery meeting of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee, the Conservative Group asked Cabinet to: Suspend the implementation of the 20mph speed limit across all roads, pending the outcome of a full review of cost effectiveness, enforceability, and public consultation and to commission an impact assessment as well as taking feedback from a public consultation.
Supporting the call-in, North Coast cllr Todd Ferguson said he had been contacted by local business and constituents concerned about the plans.
He said: 'As Conservatives we fully support efforts on road safety but believe they must be targeted, evidence-based and proportionate and what is being suggested for the blanket 20mph limit simply does not meet that criteria.
'In North Ayrshire road fatalities remain consistently low although one death is one death too many.
'UK wide we see that when you change signs it limits reduction of speed by only one mile per hour and that changes to 10mph if you include traffic calming but that is not being proposed.
'We had success in Burnhouse and Gateside in getting changes to speed but it did not change behaviour - you had a driver going at 90mph in Burnhouse. We need enforcement but resources are already stretched."
Tory Group Leader Cameron Inglis suggested the policy was "smoke and mirrors" and was all about pleasing the Scottish Government by persuading people to stop using their cars as "part of this climate change madness".
Tony Gurney, Cabinet member for the Environment and Green Economy said: 'This is more than a transport policy - it's an investment in public safety.
'This is not a blanket, it has been consulted throughout North Ayrshire. Implementation is recommended only where we see a clear safety benefit. We will implement 20mph zones and that is an opportunity for enforcement by police.
'It is not about flowing traffic, it is about safety. According to the Department of Transport the chances of pedestrians being killed more than halves when speed is reduced to 20mph from 30mph.
"A child hit by a car has a one in five chance of dying in 30mph in 20mph drops dramatically to one in 40.
'The British Medical Journal links 20mph to a 40 per cent reduction in road casualties.
"Lives are saved, injuries prevented, NHS costs reduced. Lower speeds give drivers time to react. That extra second can be different between a close call and a tragedy."
Independent cllr Donald L Reid said: "I was in office with the Police from 1967 to 1999 and this encompasses what it is all about, speed kills.
"Anything we can do to reduce speed must be a priority. If we can keep speed down to 20mph that is sensible and with a bit of hard work we can probably achieve this.
"We saw how drink driving became unacceptable, how wearing seatbelts became the norm and helmets for cyclists and motorcyclists helped save many lives, I don't see how we can't make our streets safer.'
A motion to reject the call-in, allowing the policy to stand, defeated an amendment by the Tory Group to accept the call-in and send the matter back to the cabinet for further consideration by six votes to three.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Two Middle East-related protests to be held in central London on Saturday
A protest organised by groups under the Palestine Coalition banner will gather in Russell Square from 12pm, before marching to Whitehall via Aldwych and the Strand for an assembly outside Downing Street. Former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and musician Paloma Faith are among those set to give speeches at the assembly. Meanwhile, a static counter-protest organised by pro-Israeli group Stop The Hate will be held at the same time just north of Waterloo Bridge at the junction with the Strand. The group said it would meet at the location from 12.30pm onwards. Police have set out conditions for the first protest under the Public Order Act which demands that any person taking part in the procession must remain within Russell Square ahead of the protest and must not deviate from its specified route. Demonstrators must then stay in a specified part of Whitehall for the assembly, which must finish by 5.30pm, the force said. The Palestine Coalition is comprised of a number of different groups, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Stop The War. Stop The War said in an advertisement for the event on its website: 'Israel's attacks on Gaza and the West Bank are intensifying. Their starvation policy continues. And now Israel attacks on Iran seem intended to lead us into a full-scale war in the Middle East. 'The UK Government has at last accepted that Israel's actions in Gaza are unconscionable. Now they must act – words are not enough.' Discussions are ongoing regarding possible conditions for the Stop The Hate protest, the Met said. In a post on X, Stop The Hate said: 'Our families in Israel are under attack: standing bravely in the face of threats and ballistic missiles, whilst the people of Iran are bravely facing down their totalitarian government — now it's our turn to stand proudly in solidarity with them.' The demonstrations come after reports on Friday that the Home Secretary will ban Palestine Action after the group vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action, after footage posted online showed two people inside the RAF base, with one appearing to spray paint into an aircraft's jet engine. PSC described the move on social media as 'outrageous', while the Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomed the news, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.'
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Major update on benefit claimed by thousands of Scots
The consultation carried out after the move was announced last December received 260 responses CHECK IT OUT Major update on benefit claimed by thousands of Scots Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NATS ministers ploughed on with plans to scrap the two-child cap despite finding overwhelming opposition among Scots. Three-quarters of responses to a Scottish Government consultation on the move were against axing the limit. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Three-quarters of responses to a Scottish Gov consultation on the move were against axing the limit Credit: Alamy And ministers were repeatedly told parents should not have more kids than they can afford. But despite the findings, SNP ministers this week said they would press ahead with the £155million-a-year plan from next March. Scottish Conservative social security spokesman Alexander Stewart said the consultation responses 'show how out of touch the SNP are with the ordinary Scots who pick up the tab for the Nationalists' ballooning benefits bill'. He said: 'The vast majority of the public back the two-child cap because it strikes the right balance. 'Social security payments must be fair both to people who are struggling and to taxpayers who have to weigh up their own finances when deciding how many children to have.' The consultation carried out after the move was announced last December received 260 responses. Of these, 190 said the SNP should keep the cap. They were predominantly individuals, while the minority who backed the plan were mostly charities and anti-poverty organisations. One said: 'Having children is a financial choice - it is not for the taxpayer to pay for people's choice to have more children.' Another said 'taxpayers should not be responsible for bringing up children' and 'if you can't afford them, don't have them'. Angela Rayner says lifting 2-child benefit cap not 'silver bullet' for ending poverty after demanding cuts for millions One respondent said the policy was not about helping children but 'about the SNP helping themselves in next year's election', while another said the Nats were 'addicted to benefits' and saw them as 'a great vote booster'. An 'easy read' summary of the consulation, published today, added that 'some people said mitigating the two-child cap might encourage people to have bigger families' or 'make people rely more on benefits and not work'. The Scottish Government is currently spending around £1.3 billion more on benefits than would have been spent in Scotland if devolution of welfare hadn't taken place, due to additional spending decisions, and is forecast to be spending £2.1 billion more by 2029-30. The minority that supported scrapping the cap mostly worked in organisations that work with impoverished families. They highlighted the plight of families struggling to fee their children and the traumatic impact of the 'rape clause' the allows women to claim for addtional children if they were impregnated without consent. Lifting the two-child cap is forecast to cost £155million next year, rising to £194million in 2029-30. Polling in 2023 suggested just one in three Scots think the two-child benefits cap should be axed. The rule was backed by 50 per cent of over-16s, according to YouGov. Only 32 per cent said it should be abolished, with 19 per cent of people unsure. The policy applies to benefits including Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit, and stops parents from claiming for a third or additional child born after April 2017. It does not apply to Child Benefit. Scottish Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville told MSPs this week that the two-child cap 'punishes people for having children'. She said: 'The Scottish Government will deliver the effective scrapping of the two-child cap when Labour has failed to do so.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
A dozen ministers could quit over Starmer's disability welfare cuts
As many as a dozen members of government are prepared to resign rather than support Sir Keir Starmer's controversial welfare reforms, it has been claimed, as backbench critics accused ministers of betraying Labour values. A senior government figure told The Times that about 12 of their colleagues had privately indicated they would find it impossible to support the measures that are due to be voted on a week on Wednesday. Another leading opponent said that as many as 80 Labour MPs were 'holding firm' in opposition to the plans and believed the government would ultimately have to pull the vote. • No concessions on benefits reform, Starmer tells rebels 'If this goes through this will be our version of tuition fees,' they said. 'The optics of taking away money from people who find it difficult to go to the toilet are terrible.' The government has a working majority of 165, meaning that 83 Labour MPs would have to rebel for Starmer to lose a vote. Whips are warning potential rebels that they will be blacklisted for any future government job for as long as Starmer is prime minister — even if they simply abstain. Anyone openly opposing the plans faces a threat of having the whip suspended entirely amid growing concern in No 10 that the vote could slip away from the government. But one government source suggested that contingency plans to pull the vote altogether were being prepared, in case Starmer's team concluded that they did not have the numbers. Any move to back down would have implications for the government's finances as the £5 billion of savings from the changes have already been 'banked' by Rachel Reeves in the government's spending plans. Those prepared to walk away from their jobs are understood to be a mixture of junior ministers and parliamentary private secretaries — the MPs who act as the eyes and ears of cabinet ministers in Westminster. A few are said to be new MPs only elected last year. On Thursday Vicky Foxcroft, the MP for Lewisham North, resigned as a government whip and said she could not vote for the reforms. 'I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the government and fight for change from within,' she told Starmer. 'Sadly it now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see.' • Three months' grace for claimants about to lose disability benefits MPs are due to debate changes to welfare on July 1, which include a tightening of the criteria for the personal independence payment (PIP), the main disability payment in England and Wales. Ministers also want to cut the sickness-related element of universal credit, and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim. The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were 'impossible to support'. A number of MPs spoke out in support of Foxcroft after her resignation. Jonathan Brash, the MP for Hartlepool, said he had 'utmost respect for her and her principled stand here', adding: 'She's right. Our welfare system does need change, but the cuts proposed are not the right way to do it.' Connor Naismith, the MP for Crewe & Nantwich, added: 'This must have been an incredibly difficult decision but she should be commended for standing by her principles. I agree with her that reducing the welfare bill is the right ambition, but cuts to universal credit and PIP should not be part of the solution.' Asked about the resignation on Times Radio, Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary said that it was 'up to every MP to look to their conscience and vote the way that they believe is right'. 'If you can't stick with collective responsibility in government, you have to resign,' she said. 'She's done the honourable thing. It will enable her to have a voice.'
