ITEM 9(i)
Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister to give the support of Surrey County Council to achieving his objective of remaining within the European Union as:
(i) jobs in Surrey are more secure with Britain remaining part of Europe – the biggest trading market in the world,
(ii) prices are lower than they would be if we were outside Europe – meaning households in Surrey save on average £450 a year; and
(iii) our police can make our streets safer by being part of a wider European force that tackles cross border crime.’
ITEM 9(ii)
Mrs Fiona White (Guildford West) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This Council requests the Cabinet to change its property investment strategy to discontinue investing in properties outside Surrey for solely investment purposes and to divert the money saved to invest in much needed capital schemes such as pedestrian crossings to enable Surrey residents including school children to cross the road safely.’
Minutes:
ITEM 9(i)
Under Standing order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Watson moved the motion which was:
‘This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister to give the support of Surrey County Council to achieving his objective of remaining within the European Union as:
(i) jobs in Surrey are more secure with Britain remaining part of Europe – the biggest trading market in the world,
(ii) prices are lower than they would be if we were outside Europe – meaning households in Surrey save on average £450 a year; and
(iii) our police can make our streets safer by being part of a wider European force that tackles cross border crime.’
Mrs Watson made the following points:
· She requested that the Leader wrote to the Prime Minister to support the UK remaining in the European Union (EU) because she considered that an exit would profoundly impact on Surrey and the UK.
· That remaining in the EU would protect jobs, including those jobs in tourism.
· That prices would be lower if the UK remained in EU.
· That Surrey University received EU funding and also the EU helped to protect the environment i.e. setting emission limits.
· That remaining in the EU made Surrey safer because information was shared in the fight against terrorism.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Orrick who reserved his right to speak.
Mr Hodge moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. This amendment was formally seconded by Mr Hall.
The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):
‘This Council requests the Leader of the
Council to write to the Prime Minister to give the support of
Surrey County Council to achieving his objective of remaining
within the European Union as:
(i) jobs in Surrey
are more secure with Britain remaining part of Europe – the
biggest trading market in the world,
(ii) prices are lower
than they would be if we were outside Europe – meaning
households in Surrey save on average £450 a year;
and
(iii) our police can make our
streets safer by being part of a wider European force that tackles
cross border crime.’
thanking him for keeping his election promise to establish a process that affords the residents of this County the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the key question of this Country’s membership of the EU.
The amendment was not accepted by Mrs Watson and therefore Mr Hodge spoke to his amendment, making the following points:
· That it was improper to tell Surrey residents how to vote in the referendum.
· It was also inappropriate for Surrey County Council Members to politicise this issue because it was for individuals to decide.
Mr Hall seconded the amendment and reserved his right to speak.
Eleven Members also spoke to the amendment and made the following comments:
· That whatever the outcome of the referendum, there would be an impact on Surrey residents.
· That the Residents’ Association / Independents had been elected to represent their constituents on local issues and therefore they would not participate in a debate on national issues and could not give a public view on this issue.
· The decision by the Prime Minister to have a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU was welcomed but it was a personal decision for Surrey residents.
· That Surrey’s economy would be OK whatever the outcome of the referendum.
· That EU law was still supreme, if the UK remained in Europe and this new deal offered very little.
· Surrey’s economy would benefit from less bureaucracy if the UK left the EU.
· That this was a political issue which divided all parties, however the elected representatives of Surrey had a duty to explain the issues and the implications to Surrey residents.
· That the EU comprised 28 countries (approximately 550 million people) and if the UK left the EU, this country would be isolated.
· A request to ask Surrey MPs Michael Gove and Philip Hammond to participate in a referendum debate at County Hall.
· That in the forthcoming local elections in May, Members would be asked for their views on this topic.
· That 23 June 2016 would be a historic date, it was a free vote and the people of the UK would decide whether or not to remain in the EU.
The amendment was put to the vote with 55 Members voting for and nine Members voting against it. There were six abstentions.
Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.
Under Standing Order 23.1, Mr Kington moved:
‘That the question be now put’
Despite objections from Mr Robert Evans who had wished to table a second amendment, the Chairman considered that there had been adequate debate and agreed to the request and the debate was wound up.
The substantive motion was put to the vote with 55 Members voting for it. Five Members voted against it and there were seven abstentions.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister thanking him for keeping his election promise to establish a process that affords the residents of this County the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the key question of this Country’s membership of the EU.
ITEM 9(ii)
Under Standing order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs White moved the motion which was:
‘This Council requests the Cabinet to change its property investment strategy to discontinue investing in properties outside Surrey for solely investment purposes and to divert the money saved to invest in much needed capital schemes such as pedestrian crossings to enable Surrey residents including school children to cross the road safely.’
Mrs White made the following points in support of her motion:
· That her motion was about the Council’s priorities.
· She referred to the Budget Monitoring report which was considered at the Cabinet meeting on 24 November 2015 that set out the Council’s equity investment outside Surrey. She questioned whether the County Council should be investing in property outside the county rather than in capital schemes such as pedestrian crossings outside Surrey schools.
· That parents would continue to drive their children to school, if they considered that the highways were not safe.
· The budget was a balancing exercise, she was not against the principle of buying investment properties but it was about priorities.
· Safety outside schools was an issue for all Members and she referred to a petition received at Guildford Local Committee about the crossing in Aldershot Road.
The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Watson, who reserved her right to speak.
Twelve Members spoke on the motion, with the following points being made:
· The importance of differentiating between capital and revenue funding – it was revenue that the County Council needed and it didn’t matter whether the investment was in or outside Surrey, providing it was a good investment and the Council received a good income.
· That a full report of the accident in Aldershot Road would be considered at Guildford Local Committee next week.
· That the County Council had a sound investment strategy and was planning for the future.
· The importance of sustainability, however it was important to look at social sustainability such as investing in local transport schemes, Surrey Wildlife Trust or affordable housing.
· A request for a seminar to provide Members with information on where the County Council was investing.
· That the County Council was borrowing significant sums of money for these investments and was the rate of return sufficient – these projects needed to be considered within the total overall budget envelope.
· That the County Council had been looking for revenue opportunities since 2013, with the aim to look countrywide for an income stream in order to deliver the best possible outcome for the Surrey taxpayer so that there was less reliance on Government grants.
· Support for property investment in Surrey and that funding should be prioritised for the benefit of Surrey residents.
After the debate, the motion was put to the vote, with ten Members voting for it.
59 Members voted against it and there were no abstentions.
Therefore the motion was lost.