Agenda item

(i)      Mr David Hodge (Warlingham) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

Following the recent Ofsted Inspection of SCC's arrangements for the protection of children, this Council:

 

1.             Congratulates the Children’s Service on the result of the inspection that children at risk of harm in Surrey are responded to quickly and effectively;

 

2.             Welcomes this result against the backdrop of a tougher inspection regime and an increased level of public concern regarding the safety of vulnerable children;

 

3.             Recognises the Service’s good strategic leadership and the hard work of its staff, as acknowledged by the inspection; especially in the context of the ever- rising demands placed upon it;

 

4.             Celebrates the many valued aspects of the Service which impressed the inspectors, particularly in the context of the difficulty of recruiting qualified and experienced social workers;

 

5.             Accepts the need for a continued focus on improved partnership working, both internally and externally, and

 

6.             Urges Members to support the Service by working with it to establish “early-help” for children and communities in Surrey where prevention would be better than cure.

 

(ii)     Mr Stephen Cooksey (Dorking and the Holmwoods) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

This Council notes that:

i)       reducing speed limits on roads where appropriate reduces the number and severity of road traffic accidents

and

ii)      only three 20mph speed limit schemes have been implemented in Surrey since May 2006

Council requests the Cabinet to amend the Council’s speed limit policy to make it easier for local committees to introduce 20mph limits, using terminal and repeater signs (rather than physical traffic calming measures), where evidence says they are required and they are supported by local residents.

 

(iii)    Mr Peter Lambell (Reigate Central) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

This Council recognises the importance of providing respite care for families with disabled children to support them in carrying out their caring role.

Council requests that:

i)       the document “Shorts Breaks Statement for parents and carers of disabled children and young people in Surrey, October 2012” be amended to include clear eligibility criteria to clarify which families are entitled to different forms of respite care

and

ii)      that information provided by Surrey County Council  for parents about the availability of respite care services for disabled children, whether provided by the County Council or external providers, is more accessible and comprehensive

and

iii)     geographical coverage of residential respite care should, as far as is reasonable, be equitable to minimise journey times for children and parents.

Council calls on the Cabinet to provide respite care for more Surrey families of disabled children and to review its policy that “no child under 10 years of age should be accessing residential short break provision except in exceptional circumstances.”

 

(iv)   Mrs Fiona White (Guildford West) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

The UK Living Wage is an hourly rate, reviewed annually, that is calculated nationally (except for London, where the GLA sets a London Living Wage) by the Centre for Research in Social Policy in association with a charity known as ‘the Living Wage Foundation’.

The Living Wage ensures low paid workers earn enough to provide for themselves and their families.

Surrey County Council recognises the cost of living has risen significantly in the last few years, without an accompanying national wage increase for employees. This has hit those on the national minimum wage disproportionately.

Council agrees that:

Surrey County Council will commit to ensuring that no county council employee will be paid less than the UK Living Wage, which is currently £7.45 per hour. Those performing work on behalf of the council should likewise ensure that none of their employees are paid less than the living wage and future contracts will reflect this.

 

(v)    Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

Council notes that Surrey County Council is a party to the High Court proceedings by Europa Oil and Gas to quash the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal to allow oil and gas exploration at Bury Hill Wood in Coldharbour.

Council instructs the County Council’s officers and legal team to proactively defend the arguments raised by the Planning Inspector including protection of the Green Belt in support of the Planning Inspector and the Treasury Solicitors defence of the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal.

 

ITEM 9(i)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Mary Angell moved the motion which was:

 

‘Following the recent Ofsted Inspection of SCC's arrangements for the protection of children, this Council:

 

1.             Congratulates the Children’s Service on the result of the inspection that children at risk of harm in Surrey are responded to quickly and effectively;

 

2.             Welcomes this result against the backdrop of a tougher inspection regime and an increased level of public concern regarding the safety of vulnerable children;

 

3.             Recognises the Service’s good strategic leadership and the hard work of its staff, as acknowledged by the inspection; especially in the context of the ever- rising demands placed upon it;

 

4.             Celebrates the many valued aspects of the Service which impressed the inspectors, particularly in the context of the difficulty of recruiting qualified and experienced social workers;

 

5.             Accepts the need for a continued focus on improved partnership working, both internally and externally, and

 

6.             Urges Members to support the Service by working with it to establish “early-help” for children and communities in Surrey where prevention would be better than cure.’

 

Mrs Angell began by saying that a brand new methodology had been used by Ofsted and to date four authorities had been inspected under this tougher regime – Surrey had been judged as ‘adequate’ and the other three, ‘inadequate’. She said that the Inspectors had highlighted many good points but acknowledged that there was more work to be done. However, Surrey County Council already had an action plan in place for all the areas identified for improvements and the actions would be completed within three months.

 

She also referred to the large number of referrals from the Police that had been received by the contact centre. Finally, she said that Ofsted had highlighted a number of strengths, in particular, that Children were safe in Surrey and that the Council showed a real understanding of their needs. Overall, she was proud of the staff that worked in these challenging areas and commended the motion to Members.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr David Hodge.

 

Mrs Fiona White tabled an amendment at the meeting (formally seconded by Mrs Watson) which was:

 

‘Insert the following new 1 and 2 after “...for the protection of children, this Council:”

 

1.         Notes that Ofsted judged the overall effectiveness of Surrey County Council’s arrangements to be “Adequate”,

 

2.         Aspires to improve the service as soon as possible to attain a rating of “Good” as a first step to progressing to “Outstanding”,

 

Renumber existing paragraphs 1 – 6 so that the Motion as amended reads:

 

Following the recent Ofsted Inspection of SCC's arrangements for the protection of children, this Council:

 

1.            Notes that Ofsted judged the overall effectiveness of Surrey County Council’s arrangements to be “Adequate”,

 

2.            Aspires to improve the service as soon as possible to attain a rating of “Good” as a first step to progressing to “Outstanding”,

 

3.            Congratulates the Children’s Service on the result of the inspection that children at risk of harm in Surrey are responded to quickly and effectively,

 

4.            Welcomes this result against the backdrop of a tougher inspection regime and an increased level of public concern regarding the safety of vulnerable children,

 

5.            Recognises the Service’s good strategic leadership and the hard work of its staff, as acknowledged by the inspection; especially in the context of the ever- rising demands placed upon it,

 

6.            Celebrates the many valued aspects of the Service which impressed the inspectors, particularly in the context of the difficulty of recruiting qualified and experienced social workers,

 

7.            Accepts the need for a continued focus on improved partnership working, both internally and externally, and

 

8.            Urges Members to support the Service by working with it to establish “early-help” for children and communities in Surrey where prevention would be better than cure.

 

Mrs White made the following points:

 

·           That the original motion had many good points which she did not want to detract from, however, the Ofsted report did list areas for improvement which needed to be resolved before the next inspection.

·           She did acknowledge the difficulties of recruiting social workers.

·           The amendment was not a criticism of the services but she considered that clear timescales for the action plan were needed.

 

Ten Members spoke on the amendment, with the following points being made:

 

·         An over reliance on locum staff

·         A widespread lack of understanding of social care thresholds and performance management was inconsistent.

·         A desire that Members support the need to move from ‘adequate’ to ‘outstanding’.

·         A reminder that all Members were corporate parents and the care of children was an important issue.

·         A concern for those people not in the system, such as the homeless with babies/small children.

·         Congratulations to staff for their achievements.

·         A large number of staff, including those in partner organisations, were involved in working constructively with families, often in difficult circumstances.

 

The amendment was put to the vote, with 14 Members voting for and 40 Members voting against it. There was one abstention.

 

Therefore the amendment was lost.

 

Returning to the original motion, on which a further five Members spoke, making the following points:

 

·         A request to vote on each recommendation separately.

·         Improvements can only be achieved by stronger partnership working. There was already a cross party Member steering group set up to develop this.

·         Thanks to staff and the Cabinet Member for Children and Families for the achievements to date.

·         The increased caseload of social workers was noted. Also, reference was made in relation to locum staff, it was considered preferable to use them to fully meet the needs of the service.

·         Budgetary constraints.

·         That Ofsted may not award any local authority a ‘good’ rating due to the ‘baby P’ effect.

·         That this Administration was committed to doing the best it could for the children and the Inspection was only part of it.

·         That the Children Services team was highly motivated and staff went the extra mile.

·         An invitation for any Member to discuss the report further with the Cabinet Member for Children and Families.

 

Mrs Marks requested a recorded vote and ten Members stood in support of this request.

 

The following Members voted in support of the motion:

 

Mrs Angell, Mr Barker, Mr Butcher, Mrs Clack, Mrs Coleman,

Mr Cosser, Mrs Curran, Mr Few, Mrs Fraser, Mr Frost, Mrs Frost, Mr Fuller, Mr Furey, Mr Gimson, Mr Gosling, Dr Grant-Duff,

Dr Hack, Mr Hall, Mrs Hammond, Mr Harmer, Mr Harrison,

Ms Heath, Mr Hickman, Mrs Hicks, Mr Hodge, Mr Ivison,

Mrs Kemeny, Mr Kington, Mrs Lay, Ms Le Gal, Mr Mallett,

Mrs Marks, Mr Marlow, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Mrs Moseley,

Mr Munro, Mr Norman, Dr Povey, Mr Renshaw, Mrs Saliagopoulos, Mr Skellett, Mr Sydney, Mr Keith Taylor, Mr Townsend, Mrs Turner-Stewart, Mr Walsh, Mr Witham and Mr Young.

 

The following Members abstained:

 

Mr Cooksey, Mr Cooper, Mr Forster, Mr Lambell, Mrs Searle,

Mrs Smith, Mr Colin Taylor, Mrs Watson, Mrs White and Mr Wood.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That following the recent Ofsted Inspection of SCC's arrangements for the protection of children, this Council:

 

1.      Congratulates the Children’s Service on the result of the inspection that children at risk of harm in Surrey are responded to quickly and effectively;

 

2.      Welcomes this result against the backdrop of a tougher inspection regime and an increased level of public concern regarding the safety of vulnerable children;

 

3.      Recognises the Service’s good strategic leadership and the hard work of its staff, as acknowledged by the inspection; especially in the context of the ever- rising demands placed upon it;

 

4.      Celebrates the many valued aspects of the Service which impressed the inspectors, particularly in the context of the difficulty of recruiting qualified and experienced social workers;

 

5.      Accepts the need for a continued focus on improved partnership working, both internally and externally, and

 

6.      Urges Members to support the Service by working with it to establish “early-help” for children and communities in Surrey where prevention would be better than cure.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.50pm and resumed at 2.10pm, with all those present who had been in attendance in the morning except for Mr Barker, Mr Butcher, Mr Carasco, Ms Heath, Mrs Hicks, Mr Lake, Mrs Moseley, Mr Pitt, Mr Samuels, Mrs Saliagopoulos, Mr Walsh, Mr Wood and Mr Young.

 

 

 

ITEM 9(ii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Stephen Cooksey moved the motion which was:

 

‘This Council notes that:

i)       reducing speed limits on roads where appropriate reduces the number and severity of road traffic accidents

and

ii)      only three 20mph speed limit schemes have been implemented in Surrey since May 2006

Council requests the Cabinet to amend the Council’s speed limit policy to make it easier for local committees to introduce 20mph limits, using terminal and repeater signs (rather than physical traffic calming measures), where evidence says they are required and they are supported by local residents.’

 

In support of this motion, Mr Cooksey said that: (i) the County Council had approved a reduction in speed limits in May 2006 and further research had confirmed that reducing the speed limit from 30 to 20 mph reduced fatalities, (ii) that only three 20 mph speed limits had been introduced since 2006, (iii) over 40 local authorities now had a significant programme for introducing 20mph speed limit, including Kingston which had an extensive network, (iv) insurance premiums were less in 20 mph speed limit areas, (v) there was popular support from residents and many Members would like more 20 mph speed limits introduced, (vi) this motion was a genuine means to improve road safety.

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Will Forster who said that new rules and guidance had meant that it was now easier to introduce 20 mph speed limits. He said that there were an increasing number of these schemes throughout the UK and that high traffic speeds made pedestrians unsafe. He believed that local committees should have the discretion to implement the speed limits in their areas if it was the appropriate. He cited the figures for road traffic fatalities and injuries on UK roads.

Key points made during the debate, in which six Members spoke were:

 

·         Roads need to be safe for all road users – pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

·         The current speed limit policy was put in place after debate and agreed at full Council and the power had been delegated by the Leader to local committees.

·          Reducing speed limits doesn’t always work as people can lose concentration and multi-task when driving at 20mph.

·         Localism applies to Surrey and 20mph speed limits were within the remit of the local committee, in consultation with highways officers and police. They also needed the support of local residents.

·         To ensure any reduction in speed limit did not heighten the risk for road users.

·         A proliferation of signs and traffic calming measures could be confusing.

·         The main concern was the speed limits outside schools and the congestion at drop off and pick up times.

·         A reference to the large number of 20 mph speed limits in London Boroughs.

·         Concern that the 20mph speed limit could not be enforced by local police.

·         Casualty reduction had been reduced as a result of car design and also safety awareness such as Safe Drive, Stay Alive campaigns.

·         20mph speed limits could be divisive, contentious and the benefits not proven.

 

Mrs Fraser requested that ‘the question be now put’. Twenty Members stood in support of this request and this request was agreed by the Chairman.

 

Mr Cooksey responded to the points made in the debate and the motion was put to the vote, with 18 Members voting for and 30 Members voting against it. There were no abstentions.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.

 

 

ITEM 9(iii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Peter Lambell moved the motion which was:

 

‘This Council recognises the importance of providing respite care for families with disabled children to support them in carrying out their caring role.

Council requests that:

i)       the document “Shorts Breaks Statement for parents and carers of disabled children and young people in Surrey, October 2012” be amended to include clear eligibility criteria to clarify which families are entitled to different forms of respite care

and

ii)      that information provided by Surrey County Council  for parents about the availability of respite care services for disabled children, whether provided by the County Council or external providers, is more accessible and comprehensive

and

iii)     geographical coverage of residential respite care should, as far as is reasonable, be equitable to minimise journey times for children and parents.

Council calls on the Cabinet to provide respite care for more Surrey families of disabled children and to review its policy that “no child under 10 years of age should be accessing residential short break provision except in exceptional circumstances.’

 

Mr Lambell began by stating that his motion had been prompted by the proposed closure of The Beeches respite centre in Surrey, which provided respite for complex cases. He said that this centre provided much needed care and cited the difficulties, including transport issues, that the proposed closure would cause. He mentioned the eligibility criteria and requested that the Cabinet reconsider its policy on respite care for children under 10 years old.

 

Mrs Hazel Watson formally seconded the motion.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families responded, and made the following points:

 

·         That Surrey County Council had a commitment to support families with disabled children and referred to the funding in last year’s Budget package, which had been protected.

·         A reference to Section 17 of the Children’s Act 1989 and confirmation that the Council fully complied with the guidance.

·         That every child and their needs was unique and that each child went through a full assessment to ensure that their needs and those of the wider family were understood. It was not possible to have a simple tick list.

·         Referring to the geographical coverage of residential respite care, she said that there were 7 facilities, that had all been inspected by Ofsted and these were graded ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’.

·         She  said that it was easy to request respite care for more Surrey families and disabled children. The number of child protection cases had increased by 47% but she gave an assurance that if any family who had been assessed as needing the support would receive it because the welfare of the child was paramount.

·         The provision of respite care for under 10 year olds was good practice not a policy and she believed most children’s needs were best met within their family environment with support.

·         Finally, she thanked Children’s Services officers for their excellent work.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 9 Members voting for and 33 Members voting against it. There was one absention.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.

 

 

ITEM 9(iv)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Fiona White moved the motion which was:

 

‘The UK Living Wage is an hourly rate, reviewed annually, that is calculated nationally (except for London, where the GLA sets a London Living Wage) by the Centre for Research in Social Policy in association with a charity known as ‘the Living Wage Foundation’.

The Living Wage ensures low paid workers earn enough to provide for themselves and their families.

Surrey County Council recognises the cost of living has risen significantly in the last few years, without an accompanying national wage increase for employees. This has hit those on the national minimum wage disproportionately.

Council agrees that:

Surrey County Council will commit to ensuring that no county council employee will be paid less than the UK Living Wage, which is currently £7.45 per hour. Those performing work on behalf of the council should likewise ensure that none of their employees are paid less than the living wage and future contracts will reflect this.’

 

Mrs White defined what is meant by a living wage and made the following points in support of her motion: (i) that the County Council should be paying workers enough to live on, (ii) this made good business sense and would assist with staff retention rates, (iii) the motion didn’t request making London’s Living Wage, (iv) that the council should pay all contractors enough to live on.

 

Mr Will Forster formally seconded the motion and reaffirmed the points made by Mrs White.

 

During the debate in which 4 Members spoke, the following points were made:

 

·         A reference to People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC) where this would be discussed at their next meeting.

·         With effect from April 2013, 25,970 out of 26,000 staff would be on the living wage.

·         This motion would restrict the ability of the County Council to appoint to apprenticeships and internships.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 11 Members voting for and 26 Members voting against it. There was one absention.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.

 

 

ITEM 9(v)

 

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:

 

‘Council notes that Surrey County Council is a party to the High Court proceedings by Europa Oil and Gas to quash the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal to allow oil and gas exploration at Bury Hill Wood in Coldharbour.

Council instructs the County Council’s officers and legal team to proactively defend the arguments raised by the Planning Inspector including protection of the Green Belt in support of the Planning Inspector and the Treasury Solicitors defence of the Planning Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal.’

 

Mrs Watson provided Members with the background to the 2009 planning application to allow oil and gas exploration at Bury Hill Wood in Coldharbour. She considered that the County Council should support the views of the Planning Inspector and be supportive of local residents.

 

Mr Stephen Cooksey formally seconded the motion.

 

The Leader of the Council made a statement in which he stated that the Conservative Group would not be supporting the motion.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 8 Members voting for and 29 Members voting against it. There were no absentions.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.