Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Meeting of Council, Tuesday, 13 October 2015 10.00 am (Item 66/15)
Share this item

ITEM 9(i)

Mr Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

‘This Council views with sorrow the on-going migration crisis on mainland Europe and expresses its deep regret at the tragic loss of lives and deeply distressing images that have resulted.

Surrey County Council notes that the international community has failed to come up with credible policies to manage this humanitarian disaster, but recognises that the UK has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing from dangerous and desperate situations in other countries.

Notwithstanding the economic pressures that Surrey is facing, Council resolves to work with its eleven boroughs and districts to support initiatives to help migrants who may seek refuge in the United Kingdom, and for the County to take its fair share of refugees.

Surrey calls on the British Government to ensure adequate funding and resources are made available to all local authorities involved’

ITEM 9(ii)

Mr John Orrick (Caterham Hill) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

'This Council:

Notes:

1. that the consultation on the future of Recycling Centres ended on 30 September;

2. that the consultation sought views on four options - charging for non-household waste disposal, reducing opening hours, closing some centres for one or two days, and closing some centres altogether but failed to include an option to reject all four;

3. that consequently the consultation was flawed since its conclusion could only favour one of four unacceptable options.

Resolves:

to recommend to the Cabinet that all four options are rejected because the implementation of any one of them would lead to a significant reduction in service, adversely affect recycling rates and increase fly-tipping.'

ITEM 9(iii)

Mr Will Forster (Woking South) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

‘This Council notes with significant concern the most recently released road injury statistics for 2014 showing that:

(i) The number of people killed or seriously injured on Surrey’s roads increased by 23% from 2013 (up from 599 to 735) – the third worst performance of any police force area across England and Wales.

(ii) The number of casualties on Surrey's roads has increased in 2014 compared with 2013 as follows:

· Total road casualties increased by 3.5% from 5,223 to 5,408

· Fatal injuries more than doubled (111% increase) from 18 to 38

· Serious injuries increased by 20% from 581 to 697 - the highest number since at least 2005

· The number of children injured on Surrey's roads grew by 14% from 305 to 348

· The number of car occupants killed or seriously injured (KSIs) increased by 36% to 268 - the highest figure since 2008

· Cyclists KSIs increased for the sixth consecutive year by 14.5% to 166

· Pedestrians KSIs remained at 98 for a second year running - the highest number since at least 2005

· Motorcyclists KSIs increased by 32% to 185 to reach the highest recorded numbers since at least 2005

In the light of Surrey's adverse and worsening road safety record, this Council requests the Cabinet to give a much higher priority to improving road safety including more funding for services such as Drive SMART, road safety outside schools and highway improvements, and establish a Road Safety Task Group in order to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on Surrey's roads.'

Minutes:

ITEM 9(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 views with sorrow the on-going migration crisis on mainland Europe and expresses its deep regret at the tragic loss of lives and deeply distressing images that have resulted.

Surrey County Council notes that the international community has failed to come up with credible policies to manage this humanitarian disaster, but recognises that the UK has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing from dangerous and desperate situations in other countries.

Notwithstanding the economic pressures that Surrey is facing, Council resolves to work with its eleven boroughs and districts to support initiatives to help migrants who may seek refuge in the United Kingdom, and for the County to take its fair share of refugees.

Surrey calls on the British Government to ensure adequate funding and resources are made available to all local authorities involved."

Mr Robert Evans made the following points:

· That over 4 million people were now displaced and there was no end to this crisis and that each day, approximately 5000 people were still leaving Syria.

· Huge numbers of migrants were anticipated across the European Union this year, it could be up to 1 million people.

· The refugees were not just from Syria, they were coming from many countries including Iran and Afghanistan.

· Many people were fleeing from countries where the UK had some previous involvement.

· Britain / Surrey had a proud record of helping and some Surrey Boroughs and Districts were offering support to refugees.

· Reference to previous refugees crises where people had settled in Surrey and had played a part in life in the county.

· That there were 3000 empty homes in Surrey and this resource could help alleviate housing needs.

· The importance of Surrey making a statement on this issue and that the county would be willing to work with Government and Surrey’s Borough and Districts to offer help where possible but that he had no magic solutions to this crisis.

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Hodge who thanked Mr Essex for allowing him to second this motion. He also made the following points:

· That all Members were appalled with the on-going recent migrant crisis.

· Surrey residents had responded with generosity and he believed it was right for the County Council to work with Government to help migrants.

· He was pleased that Government had committed to extend funding for Syrian refugees beyond one year and he hoped that there would be long term sustainable funding.

· The importance of working together to have a co-ordinated multi-agency approach to helping with this crisis.

· That Members and the public would receive regular updates on the County’s response.

· Finally, he said that both he and the Conservative Group were happy to support this motion.

The Chairman informed Members that, as there appeared to be a general consensus that this motion would be agreed, there should only be a short debate on it and said that Mr Essex, as the original seconder of this motion, should be the only speaker. He made three points:

· The importance of being pro-active in dealing with the migrant crisis

· Reference to the detention centres near Heathrow and Gatwick and the unfair burden on the Councils in those areas

· Action was required and that he would like to see Surrey County Council joining with Kent County Council to assist them with the large number of refugee children coming to the UK.

Following Mr Essex’s comments, the motion was put to the vote.

It was:

RESOLVED (unanimously):

That this Council views with sorrow the on-going migration crisis on mainland Europe and expresses its deep regret at the tragic loss of lives and deeply distressing images that have resulted.

Surrey County Council notes that the international community has failed to come up with credible policies to manage this humanitarian disaster, but recognises that the UK has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing from dangerous and desperate situations in other countries.

Notwithstanding the economic pressures that Surrey is facing, Council resolves to work with its eleven boroughs and districts to support initiatives to help migrants who may seek refuge in the United Kingdom, and for the County to take its fair share of refugees.

Surrey calls on the British Government to ensure adequate funding and resources are made available to all local authorities involved.

ITEM 9(ii)

Under Standing order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr John Orrick moved the motion which was:

'This Council:

Notes:

1. that the consultation on the future of Recycling Centres ended on 30th September;

3. that consequently the consultation was flawed since its conclusion could only favour one of four unacceptable options.

Resolves:

Mr Orrick made the following points in support of his motion:

· That, as part of the consultation process on the future of Recycling Centres, he had spoken to many local residents

· A belief that the options presented were flawed and may result in increased costs, partly due to increased fly tipping

· Currently, recycling rates were increasing but this could change if Recycling Centres opened for fewer hours and started charging for non-household waste disposal

· That many residents who had responded to the consultation had praised the Recycling Centre staff

· Introducing charges would cause some issues for staff, with residents possibly haggling over any charge being made and also that providing a credit / debit service would incur costs.

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Cooksey, who reserved his right to speak.

Mr Goodman moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. This amendment was formally seconded by Mr Harmer.

The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):

'This Council:

Notes:

1. that the consultation on the future of Recycling Centres ended on 30 September;

3. that consequently the consultation was flawed since its conclusion could only favour one of four unacceptable options.

Resolves:

to recommend to the Cabinet that all four options ~~are rejected because the implementation of any one of them would lead to a significant reduction in service, adversely affect recycling rates and increase fly-tipping.'~~ plus any other options that the Cabinet considers to be relevant are considered, before arriving at its decision.

During the debate, this amendment was further amended, with the consent of Council and point 3 was deleted.

The amendment was not accepted by Mr Orrick and Mr Goodman spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

· That this consultation had followed a similar process to that used in the Transport Review earlier this year

· The consultation had received over 4500 responses

· The County Council had invested several million pounds in some of the Recycling Centres

· Officers were currently reviewing the consultation information and would compile recommendations which would be shared with the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board before going to Cabinet in November for discussion

· That there may be a need for further consultation in certain aspects of the changes, as happened in the Transport Review

· Where other authorities had introduced changes to Community Recycling Centres (CRCs), it had not resulted in an increase in fly tipping

· A Surrey wide strategy to reduce fly tipping was being worked on and would be introduced

· Surrey had excellent recycling rates at its CRCs – in 2014/15 it was 64.1% and its kerbside performance was 54%, the fifth best in England and landfill at 6%, the 6^th best in England

· Finally, he said that the County Council would never be complacent about this issue, would continue to work in partnership with Boroughs and Districts and urged Members to support this amendment.

Seven Members also spoke to the amendment and made the following comments:

· Discussion of the proposals at the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board would provide Members with ample opportunity to suggest changes

· Savings targets, as set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan, needed to be met

· There was greater choice for household recycling at CRCs and the County Council should provide more investment for them

· Recycling rates had stalled

· Disposal costs for fly tipping were twice as expensive as planned recycling

· That the amendment would now include any other options that Cabinet considered relevant

· The County Council had some very good CRCs but some in the county had proved difficult to upgrade so the Council needed to commit to upgrading all its CRCs, although it was acknowledged that this could be very challenging

· There had been a long and constructive debate at the last meeting of Surrey Waste Partnership. However, concerns about possible fly tipping issues had been raised by Boroughs and Districts.

· The amendment was counter-productive and there were concerns about less recycling and the ‘knock-on effect’ of increased costs for Boroughs and Districts

· The reason for the consultation was to make £1.8m savings

· Some CRCs may be closed but to date there had been no indication which ones were vulnerable.

The amendment was put to the vote with 48 Members voting for and 16 Members voting against it. There was one abstention.

Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

Two Members spoke on the substantive motion before it was put to the vote with 50 Members voting for it. 15 Members voted against it and there was 1 abstention.

Therefore, it was:

RESOLVED:

'This Council:

Notes:

1. that the consultation on the future of Recycling Centres ended on 30 September;

Resolves:

to recommend to the Cabinet that all four options plus any other options that the Cabinet considers to be relevant are considered, before arriving at its decision.

ITEM 9(iii)

Under Standing order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Will Forster moved the motion which was:

‘This Council notes with significant concern the most recently released road injury statistics for 2014 showing that:

(ii) The number of casualties on Surrey's roads has increased in 2014 compared with 2013 as follows:

· Total road casualties increased by 3.5% from 5,223 to 5,408.

· Fatal injuries more than doubled (111% increase) from 18 to 38.

· Serious injuries increased by 20% from 581 to 697 - the highest number since at least 2005.

· The number of children injured on Surrey's roads grew by 14% from 305 to 348.

· The number of car occupants killed or seriously injured (KSIs) increased by 36% to 268 - the highest figure since 2008.

· Cyclists KSIs increased for the sixth consecutive year by 14.5% to 166.

· Pedestrians KSIs remained at 98 for a second year running - the highest number since at least 2005.

· Motorcyclists KSIs increased by 32% to 185 to reach the highest recorded numbers since at least 2005.

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Beardsmore.

Mr Forster made the following points:

· Highlighted the statistics, as detailed in the motion

· The increase in the number of children injured on Surrey’s roads

· That many residents had contacted him since he had submitted this motion

· Surrey County Council was not doing enough to improve road safety on its roads

· The increased number of road casualties in 2014, in the South East

· Proposal of a Road Safety Task Group to enable a step change to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in Surrey

· Promotion of cycling and walking was important and therefore he considered that this motion was good for safety, health and the environment.

Mrs Hammond moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. This amendment was formally seconded by Mr Harmer.

The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):

‘This Council notes with significant concern the most recently released road injury statistics for 2014 showing that:

(i) The number of people killed or seriously injured on Surrey’s roads increased by 23% from 2013 (up from 599 to 735) – the third worst performance of any police force area across England and Wales.