Issue - meetings

To receive any questions or petitions.

Notes:

1.  The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (05/09/2022).

2.  The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (02/09/2022).

3.  The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.

There were five questions from five members of the public.  These and the responses were published as a supplement to the agenda.  Supplementary questions and responses included:

1.    Jennifer Condit asked on behalf of Lucianna Cole: was it the council’s intention to publish all of the replies, including replies that were supplemental to filling out the questionnaire.

The Chairman responded that it was normal practice to publish the replies received including the supplementary replies provided in the free-format box and additional letters or emails. The LGPS Senior Officer stated that detail would be confirmed on how the responses could be accessed. 

In regard to the consultation questionnaire, Cllr Williams stated that various points of concern had been raised on the consultation process during discussion at the previous meeting on the timing, nature of the consultation and the possibility of one of more public consultation events. When reading the consultation questions, Cllr Williams stated that he had come to the view that the consultation was a sham and should be restarted. There were also two questions that had been raised and discussed at committee which were not included on the consultation form. This included 1. Do you believe that the Surrey Pension Fund should take immediate steps to divest from fossil fuels? And 2. At what point should the Surrey Pension Fund aim to become a net-zero carbon fund. Should it be 2030, 2035, 2040 or 2050. Cllr Williams stressed that these questions should be included and that the consultation process should be stopped and restarted.

The Chairman confirmed that, following comments made by members of the committee, and as the consultation had already begun, item 16 would be discussed in public. Cllr Potter was concerned that the item was originally due to be held in private, and stressed that he did not agreed with the decision to launch the consultation prior to approval from the Committee, and furthermore, that the consultation was not delayed due to the death of Her Majesty The Queen.

2.    Jennifer Condit asked on behalf of Kevin Clarke: Mole Valley was not any employee but rather one of the 11 district and borough councils and as an employer it contributed over £2 million to the scheme last year and employees contributed over £600,000 and therefore the district council’s view should have some weight, rather than just referring them to the public consultation on the policy. Furthermore, the fact that the policy did not specify a net-zero carbon date would mean that they would not find an answer within the consultation that aligned with their view.

The Chairman responded that they were asking all employers for input and that all feedback was important. All feedback would be taken into account and a response would be provided following the end of the consultation.

Cllr Williams reiterated the need to restart the consultation and also stated that there could be a need for a specific consultation between the district and boroughs within Surrey.

Cllr Potter raised concern that an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45