Item 13(i)
Mr Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This Council welcomes the initiatives by towns and local authorities across Surrey to encourage the use of fair trade goods by achieving Fairtrade status.
Furthermore this Council believes that Surrey County Council, as an important consumer and opinion leader, should research, develop and support a strategy to facilitate fair trade wherever appropriate.
Council therefore resolves, wherever possible:
· To promote awareness of fair trade issues and the opportunities for supporting fair trade across the County.
· To work with Surrey Fairtrade and those towns who already have Fairtrade Status to widely publicise the worldwide impact of unfair trade and the opportunities that fair trade provides to sustainable development.
· To encourage the use of fair trade goods, for example products carrying the Fairtrade Mark and products in vending machines.
· To request the Council's venues to stock Fairtrade products in addition to other brands.
· To concentrate on making Council employees, the Surrey public and local businesses aware of the Council's resolution on fair trade.’
Item 13(ii)
Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This Council notes the recent publication of the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee report More complaints please!
In the light of this report, Council agrees to fundamentally change its policy and the implementation of its approach to complaints in order to welcome complaints as a way of engaging with residents to improve services, making the complaints process more user friendly by making it simpler, more accessible and with speedier outcomes.’
Item 13(iii)
Mr Will Forster (Woking South) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘Council notes:
· Young Carers are children and young people in Surrey’s schools and colleges who provide regular and on-going care to a family member who is physically or mentally ill, disabled or misuses substances;
· the tasks and level of caring undertaken by Surrey’s Young Carers can vary according to the nature of the illness or disability, the level and frequency of care needed and the structure of the family as a whole;
Council further notes that:
· the support Surrey County Council currently offers is through school staff and governors;
· many schools have a designated member of staff for Young Carers;
· many governing bodies now include the performance and well-being of Young Carers as an agenda item at their meetings, which should be considered “best practice”.
· the Pupil Premium is an additional allowance to support certain groups of children and young people at risk of not achieving their potential;
· children entitled to free school meals are eligible for Pupil Premium of £1,300 a year for primary pupils and £935 a year for secondary pupils;
· whilst eligibility for free school meals is the main criteria for entitlement to Pupil Premium, other groups are also entitled to Pupil Premium including children in care, adopted children, children in hospital schools and service personnel children;
· including Young Carers within Pupil Premium eligibility would enable schools and colleges to provide additional support to these young people.
Given the challenges faced by Young Carers, Council resolves to ask the Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning to write to:
· the Secretary of State for Education, the Minister of State for Schools, and the national Pupil Premium Champion, noting the content of this motion and asking that consideration be given to widen the eligibility for Pupil Premium to include Young Carers;
· the Chair of the Local Government Association, asking his organisation to support this campaign;
· the Headteachers of all schools in Surrey, asking them to lend their support to this request and to consider how best to support Young Carers, including identifying a designated member of staff and regularly monitoring the performance and well-being of Young Carers through their Governing Body; providing additional support where needed; and to work with to ensure Young Carers are supported and not disadvantaged because of the voluntary work they undertake looking after others.’
Item 13(iv)
Mr George Johnson (Shalford) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘The Council believes that the true cost of Britain’s membership of the European Union affects all levels of trade, industry and government.
It is considered by many that up to 75% of UK laws now originate in Brussels although determining the full extent to which EU law has supplanted UK law is complicated by the fact that, in addition to the direct, and therefore immediately visible, implementation of EU regulations, EU directives are transposed into UK Statutory Instruments.
The House of Commons has estimated that, in 2009, 53% of UK law originated from Brussels and the LGA has estimated that around half of all new UK laws affecting local authorities in England have their origins in EU law. Thus it is inevitable that Surrey County Council has and will incur additional costs as a consequence of complying with EU derived laws. For example, whilst the Government predicted that the 2004 EU Public Procurement Directive would not add new costs or administrative burdens to the public sector, an LGA survey in 2010 revealed that 66% of local authority procurement managers felt that the directive had increased procurement costs and created a more complex procedure.
In common with other local councils, Surrey County Council has been and continues to be under severe budgetary restraint, but will still have to deliver new EU obligations across a broad range of functions and could be liable for hefty fines for failure to comply. While we continue to ask our residents to accept annual increases in their council tax whilst being unable to deliver the level of services and highway maintenance that they would like, it is important that they are kept fully informed of those costs that are beyond the control of their elected representatives.
Therefore this Council:
· calls for the publication of the administrative cost to Surrey County Council of complying with EU Regulations
· agrees, in the interests of the transparency to which it is committed, to publish the figures on its website and in its annual Council Tax Demand.
· agrees to publish any cost savings which accrue from complying with EU regulations.’
Minutes:
Item 13(i)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Robert Evans moved the motion, which was:
‘This Council welcomes the initiatives by towns and local authorities across Surrey to encourage the use of fair trade goods by achieving Fairtrade status.
Furthermore this Council believes that Surrey County Council, as an important consumer and opinion leader, should research, develop and support a strategy to facilitate fair trade wherever appropriate.
Council therefore resolves, wherever possible:
· To promote awareness of fair trade issues and the opportunities for supporting fair trade across the County.
· To work with Surrey Fairtrade and those towns who already have Fairtrade Status to widely publicise the worldwide impact of unfair trade and the opportunities that fair trade provides to sustainable development.
· To encourage the use of fair trade goods, for example products carrying the Fairtrade Mark and products in vending machines.
· To request the Council's venues to stock Fairtrade products in addition to other brands.
· To concentrate on making Council employees, the Surrey public and local businesses aware of the Council's resolution on fair trade.’
Mr Robert Evans made the following points:
· Many towns in Surrey already have Fairtrade Status but there was a need to encourage others to take this step.
· A need to work towards everyone achieving a dignified livelihood.
· The Fairtrade Mark could make a real difference for some farmers, in distant parts of the world – it can ensure that they receive a fair price for their crops.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Essex who said that he was pleased that Members would be given a free vote on this motion, it was a non-party political motion. He also said that the Fairtrade mark was mostly about those products that could not be produced in the UK – the motion was not asking for exclusivity, it was seeking to promote fairtrade towns across Surrey.
Other Members spoke, making the following points:
· Statistics indicated that Fairtrade businesses were doing well.
· The importance of choice in shops.
· Fairtrade was an impressive organisation and its initiatives were strongly endorsed.
· Fairtrade needed to be encouraged but its exclusive use was not supported.
· If Fairtrade status enabled some overseas countries to become more stable, that was a good thing.
· The Fairtrade logo raised awareness and encouraged people to think about the origin of the produce / food.
After the debate, in which 8 Members spoke, the motion was put to the vote with 51 Members voting for and 8 Members voting against it. There were 4 abstentions.
RESOLVED:
This Council welcomes the initiatives by towns and local authorities across Surrey to encourage the use of fair trade goods by achieving Fairtrade status.
Furthermore this Council believes that Surrey County Council, as an important consumer and opinion leader, should research, develop and support a strategy to facilitate fair trade wherever appropriate.
Council therefore resolves, wherever possible:
· To promote awareness of fair trade issues and the opportunities for supporting fair trade across the County.
· To work with Surrey Fairtrade and those towns who already have Fairtrade Status to widely publicise the worldwide impact of unfair trade and the opportunities that fair trade provides to sustainable development.
· To encourage the use of fair trade goods, for example products carrying the Fairtrade Mark and products in vending machines.
· To request the Council's venues to stock Fairtrade products in addition to other brands.
· To concentrate on making Council employees, the Surrey public and local businesses aware of the Council's resolution on fair trade.
Item 13 (ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Hazel Watson moved the motion, which was:
‘This Council notes the recent publication of the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee report More complaints please!
In the light of this report, Council agrees to fundamentally change its policy and the implementation of its approach to complaints in order to welcome complaints as a way of engaging with residents to improve services, making the complaints process more user friendly by making it simpler, more accessible and with speedier outcomes.’
Mrs Watson made the following points:
· That the motion was asking for the County Council to make it easier for Surrey residents to complain and that they would receive a speedier outcome to their complaint.
· It was difficult to navigate the Surrey County Council website to find out how to complain.
· She alleged that many complaints re. Adult Social Care were valid.
· There was a low response to feedback.
· Complaints were currently buried in Council bureaucracy.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Beardsmore.
Seven Members spoke, making the following points:
· That the Communities Select Committee received regular updates in relation to complaints data.
· It was Council policy to listen and that the County Council had a complaints procedure which had been in place for many years.
· The Council had a key strategy to comply with Ombudsman guidance.
· Officers in the Contact Centre actively encouraged people to make complaints if they were dissatisfied – either on-line, by phone or in writing.
· Complaints were actively investigated and may be escalated if appropriate.
· The Council was always looking to improve the process and complaints procedures were regularly reviewed.
· In 2013, 91% (excluding Children Services and Adult Social Care complaints, which had separate procedures determined by Government) were responded to in 20 working days.
· The Audit and Government Committee receive reports re. complaints.
After the debate, the motion was put to the vote with 9 Members voting for it. 49 Members voted against it and there were 3 abstentions.
Therefore, the motion was lost.
Item 13(iii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council decided it wished to hear further before agreeing whether or not to debate this motion.
Mr Forster made a short statement giving reasons why the motion should not be referred. He referred to the invaluable role of young carers and the importance of helping them. He also said that young carers were twice as likely to be NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training) and lived in households where no adult was in work. He believed that changing the eligibility to Pupil Premium would give these children the best possible start in life.
The Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care made a short statement stating that whilst he agreed that the County Council needed to support young carers, he was not convinced that changing the eligibility for Pupil Premium was the best or the only way to help young carers. He considered that the motion should be referred to the Children and Education and Adult Social Care Select Committees so that it could be considered in more detail.
10 Members voted for debating the motion today but 42 Members voted against debating it today.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
That this motion be referred to the Children and Education and the Adult Social Care Select Committees. Under Standing Order 12.6, the committees must report back to County Council at the earliest appropriate meeting.
Item 13(iv)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr George Johnson moved the motion, which was:
‘The Council believes that the true cost of Britain’s membership of the European Union affects all levels of trade, industry and government.
It is considered by many that up to 75% of UK laws now originate in Brussels although determining the full extent to which EU law has supplanted UK law is complicated by the fact that, in addition to the direct, and therefore immediately visible, implementation of EU regulations, EU directives are transposed into UK Statutory Instruments.
The House of Commons has estimated that, in 2009, 53% of UK law originated from Brussels and the LGA has estimated that around half of all new UK laws affecting local authorities in England have their origins in EU law. Thus it is inevitable that Surrey County Council has and will incur additional costs as a consequence of complying with EU derived laws. For example, whilst the Government predicted that the 2004 EU Public Procurement Directive would not add new costs or administrative burdens to the public sector, an LGA survey in 2010 revealed that 66% of local authority procurement managers felt that the directive had increased procurement costs and created a more complex procedure.
In common with other local councils, Surrey County Council has been and continues to be under severe budgetary restraint, but will still have to deliver new EU obligations across a broad range of functions and could be liable for hefty fines for failure to comply. While we continue to ask our residents to accept annual increases in their council tax whilst being unable to deliver the level of services and highway maintenance that they would like, it is important that they are kept fully informed of those costs that are beyond the control of their elected representatives.
Therefore this Council:
· calls for the publication of the administrative cost to Surrey County Council of complying with EU Regulations
· agrees, in the interests of the transparency to which it is committed, to publish the figures on its website and in its annual Council Tax Demand.
· agrees to publish any cost savings which accrue from complying with EU regulations.’
Mr Johnson made the following points:
· That the County Council was legally bound to obey EU law.
· The public had a right to know the effect of EU legislation.
· Transparency was important, plus the need for Surrey residents to have an understanding of how their money was being spent.
The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Windsor who said that this motion was about trying to dispel the myths surrounding United Kingdom’s membership of the EU and promote transparency concerning the cost of complying with EU regulations.
The Deputy Leader made the following points:
· He disputed some of the facts set out in the motion.
· That EU legislation was an integral part of UK laws.
· He highlighted two areas – waste and procurement and the EU Directives relating to waste / landfill plus the implications for the UK if we left the EU.
· That the UK should re-negotiate its terms with the EU and then hold a referendum.
Mrs Watson moved an amendment at the meeting, which was formally seconded by Mr Beardsmore.
The motion, as amended, read:
‘This Council believes that the true benefit and cost of Britain’s membership of the European Union affects all levels of trade, industry and government.
Therefore this Council:
· calls for the publication of the administrative cost to Surrey County Council of complying with EU Regulations.
· agrees, in the interests of the transparency to which it is committed, to publish the figures on its website and in its annual Council Tax Demand.
· agrees to publish any cost savings which accrue from complying with EU regulations.
· calls for a report to the Cabinet highlighting the benefits to Surrey residents and businesses of EU membership including tourism, the financial sector, manufacturing, education, the environment and employment.’
Mrs Watson said:
· Bureaucracy should be reduced at all levels of Government.
· A reference to tourism had been included in the amendment because it formed the background to Surrey’s economy.
· Many global businesses, including McLaren, had based themselves in Surrey, thereby creating thousands of jobs.
· Surrey’s ‘success story’ was based on EU Membership.
· The EU could be a major contributor to the flooding recovery plans for the county.
After 2 Members spoke, the amendment was put to the vote with 9 Members voting for and 43 Members voting against it. There was one abstention.
Therefore the amendment was lost.
Returning to the original motion, Mr Hodge moved, under Standing Order 23.1:
‘That the question be now put’
20 Members stood in support of this request. The Chairman considered that there had been adequate debate and agreed to the request.
The motion was put to the vote with 3 Members voting for and 46 Members voting against it. There were three abstentions.
Therefore the motion was lost.