Councillors and committees

Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Minutes:

URGENT MOTION

 

Under Standing Order 11.8 the Chairman had accepted an urgent motion which the Council agreed to debate.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Hazel Watson moved the motion which was:

 

‘That this Council has no confidence in the Leader of the Council.’

 

Mrs Watson made the following points:

 

·         That the credibility of the Council had been undermined by the recent media leaks which was  a distraction for the Council.

·         That the Leader had not provided a well thought out budget.

·         That senior Members were puppets for supporting the Leader.

·         Opposition councillors had voted against the budget as full information was not available to make an informed decision.

·         That the Leader was working for partisan Conservative benefits and not for residents and should resign.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Forster who made the following points:

 

·         Lobbying for a better deal for Surrey should have been applauded but the way in which it was done has brought the Council into disrepute.

·         Other council leaders were also saying that the Leader should stand down from the LGA and the chairmanship of the LGA Conservative Group.

·         There was a need for a fresh start with a new Leader.

 

Fifteen Members spoke on the motion and made the following points:

 

  • The work that the Leader had undertaken in getting adult social care up the agenda was recognised and to ask him to step down now meant that what he had done was wrong – the vote of no confidence should take place on 4 May.
  • Several Members questioned the timing of this motion, as it was the last council meeting before the election, and thought that the vote should rest with the residents.
  • The referendum could not be won and therefore the Leader had caused weeks of concern for residents expecting a 15% rise in Council Tax.
  • There had been a lack of transparency.
  • There was a challenge to the Surrey Advertiser to print the Leaders’ letters, written to the Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, in full.
  • Several Members from all sides of the Council spoke of the hard work and good leadership of the Leader.
  • There was too much secrecy and a call for more openness and transparency was made.
  • The motion gained no benefit to residents.
  • The vote for Leader was unopposed at the recent Conservative group meeting.
  • That the motion should be aimed at the whole Cabinet and not just the Leader.

 

Under Standing Order 23.1 Mrs Hammond moved ‘that the question be now put’.  Under Standing Order 23.2 twenty Members stood in support for this procedural motion.

 

Under Standing Order 28.1 Mrs Watson requested a recorded vote, which was supported by seven of the required ten Members, and therefore was not carried.

 

The urgent motion was put to the vote, with 8 Members voting for and 47 voting against.  There were 12 abstentions.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.

 

 

Item 8a

 

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

 

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

 

‘This Council supports the introduction of a new and more open and transparent budget making process to be implemented following the Surrey County Election on 4th May including:

 

  • An earlier start to the engagement of Scrutiny Boards in scrutinising already identified savings and forward plans and future thinking
  • A set of budget proposals detailing draft service changes available in January for final scrutiny by Scrutiny Boards
  • A fully costed budget with details of service changes, to be the subject of a vote at the budget meeting every February’

 

Mr Kington made the following points:

 

·         The Council Overview Board involvement in the budget scrutiny worked well.

·         Other boards did not work so well as the information they received was either incomplete or not available and therefore added no value to the budget process.

·         The budget process should have started earlier and two budgets provided, one with a 5% increase in Council Tax and the other with a 15% increase.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Selleck who made the following points:

 

·         That the process should be re-worked for the new council.

·         That the boroughs also be taken into consideration when deciding the process.

 

Ten Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:

 

·         The budget process/timetable was not an easy one, 2017/18 had been particularly challenging, and the boroughs’ settlement was not known until the New Year.

·         The time between knowing the settlement and needing to make a decision was only a matter of weeks.

·         Budget seminars had been held for Members during the year and the process/budget was open to scrutiny to make recommendations.

·         That more was needed to be done to involve all Members in the budget process and that various scenarios should be drafted.

·         That as well as the final settlement there were also various grants awarded for specific areas which were announced after the budget grant and that this complicated the process further.

·         That expertise of Members had been under-utilised since the Local Government Act 2000 and formation of the Cabinet.

·         Several Members expressed sympathy with the motion but also recognised the difficulty with timing.

 

That there may be inadequate scrutiny in Surrey as there were monthly budget monitoring reports available.  One Member responded that much of the information was confidential and therefore scrutiny boards were not privy to the detail.

 

Under Standing Order 13.2 the mover of the motion replied that he was heartened by the show of sympathy for the motion, that other counties did not have these problems and that every year Members are asked to vote for Council Tax increases without knowing what residents would get for it.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 22 Members voting for and 42 Members voting against.  There were 3 abstentions.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.

 

 

Item 8b

 

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

 

‘This Council:

 

1.    recognises that the financial outlook for Surrey schools is likely to deteriorate as cost pressures increase;

 

2.    regrets the phasing out of the Education Services Grant and its impact on schools and the council;

 

3.    calls upon HM Government to increase the schools budget in order to prevent a serious detrimental impact on class sizes, support for pupils with special needs or valuable extra-curricular activities;

 

4.    asks the Leader of the Council to write to all Surrey MPs, urging them to raise the council's concerns with the Secretary of State for Education.’

 

Due to time constraints it was agreed by the Council to take this motion without debate:

 

The motion was put to the vote with a majority voting for and no Members voting against.  There were no abstentions.

 

Therefore, the motion was carried.

 

 

Item 8c

 

The time limit for debating motions had been used.  Therefore this motion was not debated.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.44pm and reconvened at 2pm with all those present who had been in attendance at the morning session except for Mrs Angell, Mrs Bramhall, Mr Carasco, Mr Ellwood, Ms Heath, Mr Hickman, Mrs Hicks, Mr Johnson, Mrs Moseley, Mrs Mountain, Mrs Saliagopoulos, Mr Selleck, Mr Sydney and Mr Young.