Agenda item

ITEM 8(i)

 

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

‘This Council welcomes the principles outlined in the Bus Services Bill and the opportunity it could give local councils to improve services. These include powers that will allow authorities to set standards of service, incorporating branding, ticketing and frequency.

This Council remains concerned that powers to franchise services, similar to those of Transport for London, will only be made available to areas that have chosen to have a directly elected mayor, unless they get special permission from the Transport Secretary.

This Council believes that:

·                these powers should be accessible for all councils, including Surrey County Council which manages bus services which are of crucial importance for people who live in isolated and rural areas of the county, which are of crucial importance for countering traffic congestion in our towns, and which are of crucial importance for improving connectivity across the county;

·                these reforms, particularly over franchising, are a golden opportunity to halt the decline in bus usage and help ensure that services are sustainable and should be made available to all councils by default;

·                the Government should ensure that councils are given support to enable the costs of setting up a franchise to be met;

and calls upon the Cabinet to make representations to Surrey’s MPs and the Secretary of State for Transport for this Council to have the power to franchise without having to have a directly elected mayor.’

ITEM 8(ii)

 

Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

’This Council notes that whilst Surrey voted 52 - 48% to remain in the European Union, the UK as a whole voted the opposite way. We respect the fact that five of Surrey’s eleven districts voted to leave, with six to remain and that the younger generation voted far more heavily to remain.

This Council believes that following this referendum, there is a need for a listening exercise to repair the divisions, and with tolerance and respect, to try to re-unite the people of Surrey.

Therefore this Council resolves to:

 

·                explore ways of bridging divisions in our communities, through inter-generational dialogue and increased understanding.

·                seek reassurance from the Government that the four-year funding deal offer to local government is ring-fenced from any future budget changes following this referendum vote.

·                ask the Government to take steps to ensure that staff and students from EU countries can continue to work and study at our three universities, Surrey, Royal Holloway College and the University of the Creative Arts.

work with all the boroughs and districts to ensure that no racist or xenophobic behaviour is tolerated.’

ITEM 8(iii)

 

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

 

‘This Council congratulates Sadiq Khan on his election as Mayor of London and urges him to work closely with Surrey County Council on all cross-border issues of joint interest and mutual benefit to all our residents.’

 

ITEM 8(i)

 

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

 

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

 

‘This Council welcomes the principles outlined in the Bus Services Bill and the opportunity it could give local councils to improve services. These include powers that will allow authorities to set standards of service, incorporating branding, ticketing and frequency.  This Council remains concerned that powers to franchise services, similar to those of Transport for London, will only be made available to areas that have chosen to have a directly elected mayor, unless they get special permission from the Transport Secretary.

 

This Council believes that:

·                these powers should be accessible for all councils, including Surrey County Council which manages bus services which are of crucial importance for people who live in isolated and rural areas of the county, which are of crucial importance for countering traffic congestion in our towns, and which are of crucial importance for improving connectivity across the county;

·                these reforms, particularly over franchising, are a golden opportunity to halt the decline in bus usage and help ensure that services are sustainable and should be made available to all councils by default;

·                the Government should ensure that councils are given support to enable the costs of setting up a franchise to be met;

 

and calls upon the Cabinet to make representations to Surrey’s MPs and the Secretary of State for Transport for this Council to have the power to franchise without having to have a directly elected mayor.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Cooksey.

 

Mr Forster said that:

·         Surrey was the poor cousin to London with regard to bus services and received a second rate service. This was because bus services in London were regulated, unlike outside of London, and that led to inequalities.

·         Bus operators had no democratic accountability and cherry picked which services to provide, choosing services that suited them and not their customers.

·         London buses come into the fringes of Surrey along its border but only take those residents into London, therefore damaging the economy of Surrey’s town centres.

·         Whilst he looked forward to the Bus Bill as a good thing he was totally opposed to the requirement of a directly elected mayor in order to obtain devolution.

 

Mr Goodman moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. 

 

This was formally seconded by Mr Hall.

 

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

 

‘This Council welcomes the principles outlined in the Bus Services Bill and the opportunity it could give local councils to improve services. These include powers that will allow authorities to set standards of service, incorporating branding, ticketing and frequency.

 

This Council remains is concerned that powers to franchise services, similar to those of Transport for London, will only be made available to areas that have chosen to have a directly elected mayor, unless they get special permission from the Transport Secretary.

 

This Council notes the good working relationship between SCC and its bus providing partners, which means that SCC is unlikely to make use of additional powers proposed in the Bus Bill.

 

However

 

This Council believes that:

·                these powers should be accessible for all councils, including Surrey County Council which manages bus services which are of crucial importance for people who live in isolated and rural areas of the county, which are of crucial importance for countering traffic congestion in our towns, and which are of crucial importance for improving connectivity across the county;

·                these reforms, particularly over franchising, are a golden opportunity to halt the decline in bus usage and help ensure that services are sustainable and should be made available to all councils by default;

·                the government should ensure that councils are given support to enable the costs of setting up a franchise to be met;

and supports any representations to calls upon the Cabinet to make representations to Surrey’s MPs and the Secretary of State for Transport for  this Councils to have the power to franchise without having to have a directly elected mayor.’

 

This amendment was not accepted by Mr Forster and therefore Mr Goodman spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

 

·         Whilst the benefit of good bus services was recognised, the Council was not in a position to be able fund bus services.  However, the Council was working with bus service providers and would continue to do so to improve services.

·         Officers have been working in partnership with bus providers and would continue to do so.  This relationship has enabled council to provide the service it does to its customers.  The economic and social benefits of bus services were recognised.

·         In terms of importance to bus users, information was second only  to reliability.  The Council was working with bus operators to improve the information to residents.

·         A number of amendments to the Bus Bill were proposed and they were to include authorities that do not have or want a directly elected mayor.

·         The LGA was also in support of the removal of Section 21 of the Bill which prevented local authorities from setting up their own bus company.

·         Whilst there may be changes to the Bill it was certain that councils would not be given any extra money.

 

Mr Hall as seconder to the amendment made the following points:

 

·         The Council’s transport team were a very good team with good working relationships with bus providers.

·         He had been recently involved in meetings where changes had been made to improve the resident experience. 

·         Recent changes included provision of better information on ticketing and services offered.  He stated that many people were reliant on paper timetables and hoped these would not be cut in future.

·         He commended the good work done by the transport team.

 

Two Members spoke on the amendment and made the following points:

 

·         That the third paragraph was sending a negative message to residents by completely shutting the door on the Council making use any additional powers proposed in the Bus Bill.

·         Not to lobby Surrey MPs was unthinkable.

·         The linking of having a franchise with a directly elected mayor was no longer relevant as this was originally a way of ensuring local government worked more in line with European counterparts.  Brexit meant that this would no longer be the case.

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 48 voting for and 8 voting against.

 

Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 55 voting for and 5 against.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

Resolved:

 

This Council is concerned that powers to franchise services, similar to those of Transport for London, will only be made available to areas that have chosen to have a directly elected mayor, unless they get special permission from the Transport Secretary.

 

This Council notes the good working relationship between Surrey County Council (SCC) and its bus providing partners, which means that SCC is unlikely to make use of additional powers proposed in the Bus Bill.

 

However,

 

This Council believes that:

 

·                these powers should be accessible for all councils which manage bus services which are of crucial importance for people who live in isolated and rural areas of the county, which are of crucial importance for countering traffic congestion in our towns, and which are of crucial importance for improving connectivity across the county;

·                these reforms, particularly over franchising, are a golden opportunity to halt the decline in bus usage and help ensure that services are sustainable and should be made available to all councils by default;

·                the government should ensure that councils are given support to enable the costs of setting up a franchise to be met;

 

and supports any representations to the Secretary of State for Transport for Councils to have the power to franchise without having to have a directly elected mayor.’

 

 

ITEM 8(ii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Jonathan Essex moved the motion, which was:

 

’This Council notes that whilst Surrey voted 52 - 48% to remain in the European Union, the UK as a whole voted the opposite way. We respect the fact that five of Surrey’s eleven districts voted to leave, with six to remain and that the younger generation voted far more heavily to remain.

This Council believes that following this referendum, there is a need for a listening exercise to repair the divisions, and with tolerance and respect, to try to re-unite the people of Surrey.

Therefore this Council resolves to:

 

·                explore ways of bridging divisions in our communities, through inter-generational dialogue and increased understanding.

·                seek reassurance from the Government that the four-year funding deal offer to local government is ring-fenced from any future budget changes following this referendum vote.

·                ask the Government to take steps to ensure that staff and students from EU countries can continue to work and study at our three universities, Surrey, Royal Holloway College and the University of the Creative Arts.

 

work with all the boroughs and districts to ensure that no racist or xenophobic behaviour is tolerated.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Robert Evans.

 

Mr Essex said that:

·         Following the Brexit vote it was now more important than ever to listen to people on both sides of the debate. 

·         Issues of affordable homes and immigration were some of the issues highlighted by Brexit.

·         This was now a time to work together and heal together and the Council should have a say on how to take this forward.

·         The Council should not have to pay for any misinformation from the Brexit campaigns.

·         Hate crime had increased in Surrey since Brexit and their was a need to reconnect politics to people.

 

Mrs Helyn Clack moved an amendment which was tabled at the meeting.  This was formally seconded by Mrs Kay Hammond.

 

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

 

’This Council notes that whilst Surrey voted 52 - 48% to remain in the European Union, the UK as a whole voted the opposite way. We respect the fact that It also notes that five of Surrey’s eleven districts voted to leave, with six to remain and that the younger generation probably voted far more heavily to remain.

 

 

This Council believes that following this referendum, there is a need for a listening exercise to repair the divisions, and with tolerance and respect, to try to re-unite the people of Surrey.

 

Therefore this Council resolves to:

 

·                explore ways of bridging divisions in our communities, through inter-generational dialogue and increased understanding.

·                seek reassurance from the Government that the four-year funding deal offer to local government is ring-fenced from any future budget changes following this referendum vote.

·                ask the Government to take steps to ensure that staff and students from EU countries can continue to work and study at our three universities, Surrey, Royal Holloway College and the University of the Creative Arts.

work with all the boroughs and districts to ensure that no racist or xenophobic behaviour is tolerated.’

Following the referendum and as before it, this Council resolves to:

 

·         Continue to support efforts to bridge divisions in our communities

·         Continue its dialogue with Government regarding both short-term and long-term budget certainty

·         Support the view that our 4 universities should continue to attract staff and students from overseas including the EU

·         Agree that Surrey should continue to be a place of tolerance and respect, free of racist or xenophobic behaviour.

 

This amendment was not accepted by Mr Essex and therefore Mrs Clack spoke to the amendment, making the following points:

 

That the Council were already doing a great deal of what Mr Essex spoke of, including:

·         Working with the Equality Policy

·         The Leader of the Council continued to work with Government

·         Universities should still continue to attract people from overseas

·         Speaking of tolerance, respect and diversity in all we do

 

Five Members spoke on the amendment and made the following comments:

·         The Brexit vote had divided some families as well as communities and it was important for all agencies to work together and share information.

·         That immigration was the biggest issue raised on the doorstep and it was naive to think that we can still attract staff/people from outside of the UK.

·         That the amendment suggests that the Council will do no more than it is already doing.

·         Listen and respect are two values of Surrey County Council.

·         There had been a high turnout of young people in the vote and it was important to listen to them.

·         The new Prime Minister was once a councillor and this was an opportunity to seek benefits for the county.

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 57 voting for, 5 voting against and 4 abstentions.

 

Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

 

After which, under Standing Order 23.1, Mr Eber Kington moved:

 

‘That the question be now put’

 

The Chairman considered that there had been adequate debate, and the proposal was supported by a sufficient number of Members so the debate was wound up.

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 62 voting for and 3 voting against.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

Resolved:

 

’This Council notes that whilst Surrey voted 52 - 48% to remain in the European Union, the UK as a whole voted the opposite way. It also notes that five of Surrey’s eleven districts voted to leave; with six to remain and that the younger generation probably voted far more heavily to remain.

Following the referendum and as before it, this Council resolves to:

 

·         Continue to support efforts to bridge divisions in our communities

·         Continue its dialogue with Government regarding both short-term and long-term budget certainty

·         Support the view that our 4 universities should continue to attract staff and students from overseas including the EU

·         Agree that Surrey should continue to be a place of tolerance and respect, free of racist or xenophobic behaviour.

 

ITEM 8(iii)

 

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 congratulates Sadiq Khan on his election as Mayor of London and urges him to work closely with Surrey County Council on all cross-border issues of joint interest and mutual benefit to all our residents.’

 

Mr George Johnson formally seconded the motion.

 

Mr Evans said that:

·         Mr Khan has the largest mandate of any politician.

·         It should be celebrated that he is the first Muslim Mayor.

·         Surrey has many cross border issues with transport, fire and emergency services and the health service, which means the county council will have many opportunities where it will wish to work closely with the Mayor of London and vice versa.

 

Two Members spoke in favour of the motion and Mr Furey requested it be put to the vote.

 

Mr Johnson had nothing further to add.

 

The motion was put to the vote where a majority voted for and there was one abstention.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

Resolved:

 

‘This Council congratulates Sadiq Khan on his election as Mayor of London and urges him to work closely with Surrey County Council on all cross-border issues of joint interest and mutual benefit to all our residents.’