250514 Council Minute
North Ayrshire Council · 25 June 2025
Back to North Ayrshire Council — 25 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
North Ayrshire Council 14 May 2025 At a Meeting of North Ayrshire Council at 2.00 p.m. involving a combination of participation by remote electronic means and physical attendance within the Council Chambers, Irvine. Present (Physical Participation) Nairn Angus-McDonald, John Bell, Marie Burns, Eleanor Collier, Joe Cullinane, Charles Currie, Anthea Dickson, Stewart Ferguson, Todd Ferguson, Robert Foster, Scott Gallacher, Tony Gurney, Mary Hume, Cameron Inglis, Margaret Johnson, Christina Larsen, Shaun Macaulay, Tom Marshall, Jean McClung, Louise McLaughlan, Ian Murdoch, Donald Reid, Chloé Robertson, Ronnie Stalker and John Sweeney. Present (Remote Electronic Participation) Alan Hill, Amanda Kerr, Davina McTiernan, Donald L. Reid and Angela Stephen. In Attendance C. Hatton, Chief Executive; C. Cameron, Director (Health and Social Care Partnership); D. Hammond, Executive Director (Communities and Housing); S. Anson, Executive Director (Education), R. McCutcheon, Executive Director (Place); M. Boyd, Head of Service (Finance); F. Walker, Head of Service (People and ICT); A. Craig, Head of Service (Democratic), R. Lynch, Senior Manager (Legal Services); M. McColm, Senior Manager (Communications), C. Stewart and S. Wilson, Committee Services Officers, and H. Young, Senior Committee Services Officer (Democratic) (Corporate Services). Chair Provost Dickson in the Chair. Apologies Scott Davidson, Matthew McLean and Jim Montgomerie 1. Provost's Remarks The Provost welcomed those present to the meeting and dealt with preliminary matters, including intimation that the meeting, which was taking place on a hybrid basis, was being recorded. 2. Apologies The Provost invited intimation of apologies for absence, which were recorded. 3. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest in terms of Standing Order 11 and Section 5 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct. There were no declarations of the Party Whip.
Page 2
4. Previous Minutes The accuracy of the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 26 March 2025 was confirmed and the Minutes signed in accordance with Paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Councillor Donald Reid advised that in regard to Agenda Item 10 (Question 10) the assessments carried out on the current school crossing locations had not been circulated to members. Councillor Macaulay undertook to ensure the assessments were circulated to all members that day. 5. Provost’s Report Submitted report by the Provost for the period from 17 March – 4 May 2025. Noted. 6. Leader’s Report Submitted report by the Leader of the Council for the period for 17 March – 4 May 2025. Noted. 7. Council Minute Volume Submitted for noting the Minutes of meetings of committees of the Council held in the period 13 March – 23 April 2025. Noted. 8. Appointments to Outside Bodies The Council considered and agreed a proposal by Councillor D Reid, seconded by Councillor Cullinane to appoint Councillor Hume to serve on the West of Scotland European Forum. 9. Community Planning Partnership Board: Minutes of Meeting held in December 2024 Submitted report by the Executive Director (Communities and Housing) on the on the CPP Annual Report and overviews of the meetings of the North Ayrshire Community Planning Partnership Board held on 10 March 2025. Noted.
Page 3
10. Irvine: Plan for Neighbourhoods Submitted report by the Executive Director (Place) seeking approval to submit an update to UK Government on the Irvine Neighbourhood Board and the refreshed ‘Plan for Neighbourhoods’ programme. Councillor Macaulay, seconded by Councillor Robertson moved the approval of the Plan for Neighbourhoods report. There being no amendment, the motion was declared carried. Accordingly, the Council agreed to (a) note the update on the refreshed Plan for Neighbourhoods programme; (b) approve the appointment of the Irvine Neighbourhood Board Chair and Vice Chair; (c) approve the appointment of the three Elected Members, the Executive Director of Place and the Head of Service (Finance) to the Board as outlined at Appendix One; (d) note the membership and boundary of the Irvine Neighbourhood Board; and (e) provide delegated authority to the Executive Director (Place) to prepare the required information for submission to UK Government in consultation with the Irvine Neighbourhood Board. 11. Questions In terms of Standing Order 14, submitted: (1) a question by Councillor Sweeney to the Cabinet Member for Education in the following terms: Since being contacted by families of children who attend Lockhart Campus, whose school transport is either being removed or the mode of transport being changed, the Council has responded to me, and addressed the issue in the press, with different messages: • Initially, as part of a transport review, transport arrangements at Lockhart were being reviewed and we were told; ‘having an additional need does not in and of itself entitle you to school transport’ • Then it was that the internal guidance and process for school transport has been amended, as part of the review, but no child at Lockhart would be affected • Then the press were told that the transport policy hasn’t changed since 2021 • Then the Cabinet Member repeated the above, whilst also making the bold claim that NAC spends more per pupil on education than other local authorities, without evidence, to justify changes It’s clear there’s been a review. It’s been openly stated that the guidance and process has changed. And it’s clear from my casework, and others, that children with additional support needs are having their school transport cut. Will the administration take some responsibility and join us in opposing any cuts to school transport for kids with additional support needs?
Page 4
Councillor Macaulay thanked the Member for his question and for the opportunity to provide clarity on the matter. He advised that the school transport policy had not changed since the then Labour administration introduced it in 2021. He stated that the SNP administration continued to follow the same policy which determines entitlement based on the distance between the pupil’s home to school. If a pupil was not entitled to transport it was possible to apply for discretionary support which would be dealt with on a case by case basis. This had always been the practice since the policy was introduced. He further advised that discretionary contracts were reviewed regularly to ensure they remain appropriate and necessary as had always been part of operational guidance. Councillor Macaulay advised that he understands there had been some anxiety expressed by parents either because of how the process had been communicated or because of what had appeared in the press. The service has reflected on the engagement and had taken steps to improve future communication with parents and carers to reduce the potential for confusion or anxiety around the process in the future. Councillor Macaulay assured parents that pupils who had transport in place at Lockhart Campus now would still have transport in place for the 2025/26 school year and thanked the parent council for their ongoing engagement. He urged any parent with concerns to contact the Education Service. Councillor Macaulay advised that the recent Labour press release which suggested there would be a wholescale withdrawal of transport from Lockhart Campus was categorically not true and the Labour members suggesting that should take a great deal of personal responsibility for the extreme anxiety caused to parents. He reported that the SNP administration had increased the school transport budget by £1million since 2022/23 taking the total transport budget to around £5million and as a result of that, more transport was being provided to pupils now than in 2022/23. As a supplementary question, Councillor Sweeney asked to be made aware of any updates to the transport provision at Lockhart Campus. Councillor Macaulay responded by advising that Councillor Sweeney would be kept up to date and that the service had reflected on the communication and engagement that had taken place and would look to improve communication with parents in the future. (2) a question by Councillor Murdoch to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Housing and the Islands in the following terms: What has North Ayrshire Council done to create stronger links between Largs, North Ayrshire, and Brisbane Australia, since I presented our Provost with the message from Adrian Schrinner, Lord Mayor of Brisbane, during the Full Council Meeting held on Wednesday 13th September 2023?
Page 5
Councillor Hill thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms: “At the full Council meeting in September 2023, a letter from the Right Honourable Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Australia, was presented by Cllr Murdoch. The letter expressed the Lord Mayor’s desire, in the context of the planned Olympic Games in Brisbane in 2032, to promote the creation of stronger links between Largs and Brisbane. Since then, the Provost has written to the Lord Mayor thanking him for his message and wishing Brisbane every success with the 2032 Olympics. Subsequently, representatives of organisations involved in the planning of the Olympics have been in touch with Council officers and services have shared appropriate information and contact details as requested to assist.” As a supplementary question, Councillor Murdoch asked if the Cabinet Member and North Ayrshire Council would agree to create stronger links with Brisbane, Australia in general and not just for the 2032 Olympics Games. Councillor Hill responded by advising in terms of developing increased links between Largs and Brisbane, clarification of what the request was and the form the links might take would require to be established. Councillor Hill advised he would convene a meeting with officers to look at the options and what could be done to strengthen the links going forward as there may be opportunities to work with schools and other organisations. Councillor Stephen joined the meeting at this point. (3) a question by Councillor Hume to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Housing and the Islands in the following terms: Last December, elected members were assured that the clearance of the former battery recycling centre site at Byrehill, Kilwinning was nearing completion and the remaining structure would be demolished by the Spring. That clearly did not happen, with the second fire happening just a few weeks ago. Byrehill is no longer just an industrial estate, it is now also a residential area. It’s where people’s home are. It is unacceptable that my constituents have had to endure these two fires, with all the worry, and damage to personal property, that they have brought. Whilst SEPA is the licensing authority, and the company that operated the recycling facility has went into administration, what assurances can the Council, as part of our resilience responsibilities and our work with partners, give my constituents in Byrehill that all remaining materials will be removed from the site as soon as possible?
Page 6
Councillor Hill thanked the Member for her question and responded in the following terms: “The recent incident at West Byrehill was very upsetting and concerning, especially for local residents who experienced the impacts directly. We are thankful to emergency services colleagues who attended the site swiftly to bring the site back under control. In December 2024, members were provided with an update based on information from the landowner’s specialist adviser. This intimated that the landowner was ‘in the final stages of concluding contracts’ to have the site cleared. As members are aware, SEPA are responsible for licensing, regulation and enforcement of the site. Nonetheless, since the original incident in April 2024, Council officers have been involved in multi-agency discussions and formal and informal visits to the site to understand progress made by SEPA and the landowner regarding clearance of the material and to compel action. Following the second incident, in accordance with the Council’s Civil Contingencies Response and Recovery Plan, regular Ayrshire Local Resilience Partnership meetings have taken place, chaired by Police Scotland colleagues, and with attendance from senior Council officers, to seek assurances including: - ongoing security of the site - measures in place to ensure the future safety of the site - environmental testing - proposals and timescales for clearance of material from the site The incident remains in the ‘response’ phase with agreement within the Ayrshire Local Resilience Partnership that the incident will not progress to ‘recovery’ phase until proposals for removal of the material are further advanced. While the battery material is now under the ownership of the administrators of the previous site operator, Fenix Limited, it is understood that it remains the landowner’s intention to clear the site.” (4) a question by Councillor Murdoch to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Housing and the Islands in the following terms: What is the current position and intentions for the tennis courts in Douglas Park, Largs and is North Ayrshire Council happy with the decision made during the December 14th 2022 Full Council Meeting? Councillor Hill thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms: “There have been significant and ongoing developments at Douglas Park since the decision at full Council in December 2022.
Page 7
Officers have continued to engage with all interested stakeholders and our Locality Team is actively working to establish a ‘Friends of Douglas Park’ to ensure all parties are represented and to consider updated proposals for the Park. At present there is live CAT interest in the tennis courts which is working its way through the CAT process. Any requirements in relation to democratic decision making for the future of the site, including with reference to the Council decision in December 2022, will be considered at the appropriate stages in the process.” As a supplementary question, Councillor Murdoch asked if the Cabinet Member agreed that the proposed amendment during the December 2022 meeting would have resulted in a shared space 4/3 in favour of the tennis club and would have allowed the tennis club to receive £200,000 funding from the Lawn Tennis Association. The result of the decision made at the meeting was that nearly two and a half years later nothing had happened on that site. Councillor Hill responded by advising that the Council are working to implement the decisions made in 2022 and further advised that good progress was being made and that he expected positive results to be seen in the near future. (5) a question by Councillor McLaughlan to the Cabinet Member for Education in the following terms: Given that the Council assessed the wrong stretch of road in Largs, what faith does the Cabinet Member have in the safety assessments carried out to support the administrations cut to school crossing patrollers? Councillor Macaulay thanked the Member for her question and responded in the following terms: “The process to determine whether a site was justified or not followed national guidance through two separate stages. Firstly, all current crossings were assessed by an external provider who followed guidance provided by the Road Safety GB School Crossing Patrol Specialist Advisers Group. Subsequently, these outputs were further considered by the Council’s Roads team. We have shared outputs from that assessment process to ensure full transparency. In Largs the two current sites were both noted as Alexander Avenue and, regrettably, there was a miscommunication which resulted in one site being assessed at the wrong junction on Alexander Avenue. This was corrected as soon as it was brought to our attention. Following this, all sites have been reviewed and cross checked and I am therefore confident all sites have been accurately and robustly assessed.” As a supplementary question, Councillor McLaughlan provided her opinion on the process and further referred to an example of concern to her in the Irvine area. She asked if the Cabinet Member agreed with her assessment and looked for assurances going forward. Councillor Macaulay responded and advised that there was an issue which had been brought to attention through engagement with the community which had been rectified.
Page 8
All other sites were reassessed, and he was confident the assessment process followed was accurate for all other sites. Councillor Macaulay suggested that Councillor McLaughlan speak to officers regarding the Irvine site so that this could be looked at. (6) a question by Councillor Foster to the Cabinet Member for Finance in the following terms: Can the cabinet member tell me when they expect to have achieved all of the savings for their VER scheme? Councillor Larsen thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms: “Savings in respect of the Council’s VER scheme totalling £2.484million were included in the 2024/25 Council Budget which was approved on 28 February 2024. These savings have been fully achieved.” As a supplementary question, Councillor Foster asked if the Cabinet Member would work with officers to bring a report to the next Council meeting detailing the VER process to ensure all elected members could be confident that the VER process had been executed in line with the NAC VER Policy and represented best value. Councillor Larsen responded and advised it would be inappropriate to comment on any individual cases. In terms of the payback, which is an accounting tool used, there were some cases where the payback period was more than 3 years however there were many cases under 3 years, and the Council programme was assessed on an overall basis. In terms of best value, payback periods of less than 3 years are deemed good. The payback period for the Council programme was 2.3 years which was comfortably within the Best Value threshold. Councillor Larsen advised that the VER Process was agreed by the Staffing and Recruitment Committee and members of the Committee, including the Leader and Depute Leader of the Labour Group were fully aware of the process. (7) a question by Councillor Hume to the Cabinet Member for Green Environment and Economy in the following terms: Can the Cabinet Member outline what proactive steps the Council takes to re-let high street properties when tenancies come to an end, to ensure they are not left empty to become a further blight on our town centres? Councillor Gurney thanked the Member for her question and responded in the following terms: “The Council have a managing agent (Graham and Sibbald) in place to undertake the day-to-day management of our commercial portfolio. The Council also offer a range of supports to businesses and provide a variety of assistance to people looking for premises.
Page 9
Graham and Sibbald undertake proactive marketing of vacant properties when they are suitable for progressing through this process. This marketing is carried out in accordance with industry best practice and leases are agreed in accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders. Prior to marketing however, it is often necessary to undertake a range of dilapidation works to return properties to a lettable standard. In some cases, for example where a property is abandoned by a tenant, it is also necessary to undertake due process to enable us to repossess. Unfortunately, this can extend the period units are vacant, however, is a necessary legal requirement.” (8) a question by Councillor Sweeney to the Green Environment and Economy in the following terms: Following storm Eowyn Harvies Leisure Centre experienced extensive damage. Communication is key and we need to keep stakeholders updated. I appreciate that there is a need to finalise details relating to the procurement process and insurance position. However, could you please advise when you expect all repairs at Auchenharvie Leisure Centre to be completed, including the swimming pool roof, and also advise when the swimming pool will re-open? Councillor Gurney thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms: “Unfortunately, due to the extensive damage, the works required are far greater than a simple repair would require and necessitate careful design and planning to ensure they are safely undertaken. The substantial work undertaken to date has involved inspections and surveys of the building, preparing design, specification and Health and Safety information and liaising with contractors to understand the scope of what is required. This information is guiding our insurance and procurement processes and the loss adjuster is liaising with the Council’s insurer as they are required to provide an indemnity position and approve spend. It is not currently possible to provide a specific timescale but the necessary actions are being progressed as quickly as possible. It is our intention to provide an update to all stakeholders, on the proposed timescales, when we have appointed a contractor and have certainty on when the construction works will commence. Further updates will also be communicated during the construction works and as KA Leisure finalise plans for re-opening the pool to the public.” As a supplementary question, Councillor Sweeney asked if ward members could be updated on proposed repairs including timelines? Councillor Gurney responded and advised he had indicative timelines and would be happy to meet with ward members on a private basis out with the meeting.
Page 10
(9) a question by Councillor Foster to the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care in the following terms: A central part of keeping The Promise is removing the profit that is syphoned off by private care providers and reinvesting that money back into public services that support Care Experienced people, The Promise states “Scotland must make sure that its most vulnerable children are not profited from.” Can the cabinet member tell me how much has been spent with profit making providers relating to services for Care Experienced children and young people in the previous three financial years? Councillor Johnson thanked the Member for his question and responded in the following terms: “The table below details the spend with independent/profit making providers relating to external foster care and respite and for external residential care and respite for care experienced children and young people, including those with disabilities, for the last three financial years: 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 £4,544,999 £5,294,846 £6,057,654 There is an ambition for North Ayrshire to reduce the use of external placements for children and young people and to reduce the overall cost, this requires the development of alternative pathways within Children’s Services for North Ayrshire’s young people and ultimately a reduced need to access external care providers. The Brighter Pathways programme has been established specifically with this aim, ie to increase the number of young people able to be supported locally through the re- modelling of local care pathways. This programme of work is nearing conclusion with formal recommendations to be made before the Summer. The Promise Scotland acknowledge that it will take time in Scotland to shift away from reliance on profit making care providers – considering a significant proportion of the children’s residential care market in Scotland is made up of independent companies rather than local authority or third sector provision.” 12. Motions In terms of Standing Order 15, submitted: (1) a motion by Councillor T Ferguson, seconded by Councillor Marshall, in the following terms: “Council notes with serious concern the second fire that occurred at the former battery recycling site on Byrehill Place, Kilwinning.
Page 11
Council further notes that: • This is the second significant fire incident at the site, following a previous fire in 2024, which raised similar concerns about public safety and environmental risk. • The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has previously served two enforcement notices relating to the site. • SEPA has since removed the waste management licence from the operator, Fenix, due to ongoing non-compliance. • Despite these regulatory actions, hazardous materials remained on the site, posing an ongoing risk to the surrounding community. Council acknowledges the prompt and professional response by North Ayrshire Council officers, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Police Scotland, and other emergency services in mitigating the impact of the most recent incident. Council agrees that the Chief Executive should write to SEPA to: • Request an explanation as to why the site was not successfully remediated following the first fire and the enforcement notices. • Ask why hazardous materials were allowed to remain on-site for an extended period after Fenix’s licence was removed. • Seek a clear and detailed timeline for the full clearance and remediation of the site. • Request assurances on the general ongoing risk management of the site and an assessment of the likelihood of a third fire or other hazardous incident occurring in the future, and what steps are being taken to prevent this. Council further calls for ongoing updates to be provided to elected members and the community to ensure transparency and public reassurance.” There being no amendment, the motion was declared carried (2) a motion by Councillor T Ferguson, seconded by Councillor Marshall, in the following terms: “This Council recognises the growing concerns around the impact of mobile phone and digital device usage on pupil wellbeing, concentration, and the overall learning environment in schools. In light of these concerns and best practice observed in other local authorities, including Perth and Kinross, this Council agrees to develop and adopt a consistent, authority-wide approach to mobile phone and digital device use in all North Ayrshire schools. Accordingly, this Council instructs the Education Service to commence developing a policy to cover the use of mobile phones and digital devices in schools. It is suggested that the following parameters are considered as part of the development of policy: 1. The circumstances for any permitted use of mobile phones and digital devices in a classroom or exam room setting;
Page 12
2. Digital responsibility, safety and respectful use including any use in a recreational setting; 3. Policy exemptions to reflect the needs of pupils including medical and support needs and individual circumstances; 4. That pupils, parents, carers and staff are consulted in the development of the new policy for their views to be taken into account; and 5. That an appropriate ECRIA is undertaken as part of the process. Once the draft policy has been developed, a report should be brought to Council for consideration and approval. This motion seeks to ensure consistency across the authority, protect learning time, and promote pupil wellbeing in a rapidly changing digital world.” As an amendment Councillor Macaulay, seconded by Councillor Gurney, proposed the following: “Delete after "Education service commence" and replace with "review the current NAC policy, "Pupil use of mobile phones in schools" . It is suggested that the following parameters are considered as part of the review of the policy 1. The circumstances for any permitted use of mobile phones and digital devices in a classroom or exam room setting; 2. Digital responsibility, safety and respectful use including any use in a recreational setting; 3. Policy exemptions to reflect the needs of pupils including medical and support needs and individual circumstances; 4. That pupils, parents, carers and staff are consulted in the development of the new policy for their views to be taken into account; and 5. That an appropriate ECRIA is undertaken as part of the process. 6. Cost of any change in current policy Once the review of the policy has concluded, a report should be brought to Council for consideration and approval. This motion seeks to ensure consistency across the authority, protect learning time, and promote pupil wellbeing in a rapidly changing digital world. Council is asked to support this motion.”
Page 13
In terms of Standing Order 16.5, and with the agreement of his seconder, Councillor Todd Ferguson agreed to amend his motion in accordance with the amendment which became the substantive motion. There being no further amendment, the motion, as amended, was declared carried. Accordingly, the Council agreed as follows: “This Council recognises the growing concerns around the impact of mobile phone and digital device usage on pupil wellbeing, concentration, and the overall learning environment in schools. In light of these concerns and best practice observed in other local authorities, including Perth and Kinross, this Council agrees to develop and adopt a consistent, authority-wide approach to mobile phone and digital device use in all North Ayrshire schools. Accordingly, this Council instructs the Education Service to review the current NAC policy, "Pupil use of mobile phones in schools". It is suggested that the following parameters are considered as part of the review of the policy: 1. The circumstances for any permitted use of mobile phones and digital devices in a classroom or exam room setting; 2. Digital responsibility, safety and respectful use including any use in a recreational setting; 3. Policy exemptions to reflect the needs of pupils including medical and support needs and individual circumstances; 4. That pupils, parents, carers and staff are consulted in the development of the new policy for their views to be taken into account; 5. That an appropriate ECRIA is undertaken as part of the process: and 6. Cost of any change in current policy. Once the review of the policy has concluded, a report should be brought to Council for consideration and approval. This motion seeks to ensure consistency across the authority, protect learning time, and promote pupil wellbeing in a rapidly changing digital world. Council is asked to support this motion.”
Page 14
(3) a motion by Councillor T Ferguson, seconded by Councillor Inglis, in the following terms: “This Council acknowledges the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, issued on 15th April 2025, which affirms that the legal definition of “woman” refers to biological sex. Considering this landmark judgment, this Council recognises the need to ensure that all its policies, guidance, and practices are in full compliance with the law. The ruling has significant implications for the interpretation and implementation of equality law, particularly in relation to the provision of single-sex spaces and the teaching of gender-related topics. Therefore, this Council agrees to the following actions: 1. Undertake a comprehensive review of all Council policies and guidance to ensure that they align with the legal definition of “woman” as determined by the Supreme Court. 2. Conduct a full review of guidance around single-sex spaces in all Council-run facilities, including but not limited to schools, libraries, and community buildings, to ensure the lawful and appropriate provision of single-sex services. 3. Instruct the Education Service to carry out a review of gender-related content in school curricula, including Health & Wellbeing and equalities education, to ensure that teaching materials and approaches are in line with the Supreme Court’s definition and comply with relevant legislation. 4. Ask KA leisure to carry out a full review of guidance around single-sex spaces in their facilities to ensure the lawful and appropriate provision of single-sex services. This Council reaffirms its commitment to upholding the law, promoting clarity in public service provision, and ensuring the protection and inclusion of all residents in a manner that respects legal definitions and human rights. Council is asked to support this motion and instruct officers to begin this review process with immediate effect.” As an amendment Councillor Robertson, seconded by Councillor Burns, proposed the following: “Council acknowledges the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, issued on the 16th of April 2025, and will ensure that all its policies, guidance, and practices are in full compliance with the law including taking into account the EHRC guidance on the Court’s decision which is due to be issued in the coming Summer.”
Page 15
In terms of Standing Order 16.5, and with the agreement of his seconder, Councillor Todd Ferguson agreed to withdraw his motion in favour of Councillor Robertson’s amendment. The amendment by Councillor Robertson, seconded by Councillor Burns, became the substantive motion. Accordingly, the Council agreed as follows: “Council acknowledges the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, issued on the 16th of April 2025, and will ensure that all its policies, guidance, and practices are in full compliance with the law including taking into account the EHRC guidance on the Court’s decision which is due to be issued in the coming Summer.” (4) a motion by Councillor Sweeney, seconded by Councillor Currie, in the following terms: “Council opposes cuts to school transport for pupils with additional support needs and agrees to reinstate current transport entitlement to pupils who have been informed of changes to their entitlement for 2025/26.” As an amendment Councillor Macaulay, seconded by Councillor Burns, moved the direct negative on the basis that the motion was not required. There followed debate and summing up. On a division and roll call vote, there voted for the amendment, Councillors Burns, Collier, Dickson, T. Ferguson, Gurney, Hill, Johnson, Larsen, Macaulay, Larsen, McClung, McTiernan, Murdoch, D.L. Reid, Robertson (15) and for the motion, Councillors Angus-McDonald, Bell, Cullinane, Currie, S. Ferguson, Foster, Hume, Inglis, Kerr, McLaughlan, D. Reid, Stalker, Stephen and Sweeney (14) Councillor Gallacher abstaining and the amendment was declared carried. Accordingly, the Council agreed not to proceed with the motion. (5) a motion by Councillor Hume, seconded by Councillor Angus-McDonald, in the following terms: “With the rise of toxic masculinity as a societal issue, Council agrees to consider adoption of a policy to reduce misogyny in schools. Council notes that any policy will be subject to engagement with schools and trade unions and appropriately equalities impact assessed. Council agrees that, following this period of engagement, a paper will come to a future meeting of full council to consider the adoption of a formal policy on reducing misogyny in schools.”
Page 16
As an amendment Councillor Robertson, seconded by Councillor Larsen, proposed the following: “Council agrees to consider the adoption of a policy to reduce misogyny in schools. Council notes that any policy will be subject to engagement with schools and trade unions and appropriately equalities impact assessed. Council agrees that, following this period of engagement, a paper will come to a future meeting of full council to consider the adoption of a formal policy on reducing misogyny in schools. Council also acknowledges the influence politics may have in the rise of toxic masculinity as a societal issue. Once any policy has been agreed, Council commits itself to leading by example, by considering including any relevant sections of that policy in the conduct sections of Standing Orders Relating to Meetings and Proceedings of the Council and its Committees at a future meeting of Council.” In terms of Standing Order 16.5, and with the agreement of her seconder, Councillor Hume agreed to amend her motion in accordance with the amendment which became the substantive motion. There being no further amendment, the motion, as amended, was declared carried. Accordingly, the Council agreed as follows: “Council agrees to consider the adoption of a policy to reduce misogyny in schools. Council notes that any policy will be subject to engagement with schools and trade unions and appropriately equalities impact assessed. Council agrees that, following this period of engagement, a paper will come to a future meeting of full council to consider the adoption of a formal policy on reducing misogyny in schools. Council also acknowledges the influence politics may have in the rise of toxic masculinity as a societal issue. Once any policy has been agreed, Council commits itself to leading by example, by considering including any relevant sections of that policy in the conduct sections of Standing Orders Relating to Meetings and Proceedings of the Council and its Committees at a future meeting of Council.” (6) a motion by Councillor Cullinane, seconded by Councillor Foster, in the following terms: In terms of Standing Order 23.1, Councillor Cullinane, seconded by Councillor Foster intimated that they wished to move a suspension of Standing Orders to allow consideration of a proposal to reverse the budget decision to cut school crossing patrollers. Councillor Burns, seconded by Councillor Macaulay, moved the direct negative to the motion to suspend Standing Orders.
Page 17
On a division and roll call vote, there voted “not proceed” with suspension of Standing Orders, Councillors Burns, Collier, Dickson, Gallacher, Gurney, Hill, Inglis, Johnson, Larsen, Macaulay, Marshall, McClung, McTiernan, Robertson and Stephen (15) and “to proceed” with suspension of Standing Orders, Councillors Angus-McDonald, Bell, Cullinane, Currie, S. Ferguson, T. Ferguson, Foster, Hume, Kerr, McLaughlan, Murdoch, D. Reid, D.L. Reid, Stalker and Sweeney (15). The Monitoring Officer provided clarification that the threshold of 17 members had not been met for Council to proceed with the suspension of Standing Orders. Accordingly, the Council agreed not to proceed with suspension of Standing Orders to allow consideration of the motion. The meeting ended at 3:15 p.m.