Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Meeting of Council, Tuesday, 19 March 2019 10.00 am (Item 20/18)
Share this item

Item 8 (i)

Mr Chris Botten (Caterham Hill) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

This Council:

- believes in the importance of equitable wage ratio;

- notes the 60+ consultants currently appointed on interim contracts;

- recognises that interim contracts are often far more costly than those of permanent staff, with the Programme Manager currently being recruited for with a potential salary of £98,000/year on a two year fixed term contract;

- acknowledges that many residents within Surrey are struggling to make ends meet and facing higher Council Tax bills;

- notes the ongoing cuts to essential Council services including children’s centres, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provisions and bus subsidies;

- notes that a number of senior appointments are not being approved by the People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC) where they ought to be;

This Council therefore resolves to:

- adopt a policy of recruiting to permanent positions where appropriate;

- impose a pay cap on its salary costs (allowing for incremental drift);

- work with the Surrey Boroughs and Districts to share talent and resource where possible to contain the overall Surrey payroll costs.

Item 8 (ii)

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

Full Council believes that:

Surrey County Council and all governments (national, regional and local) have a duty to limit the negative impacts of Climate Breakdown, and local governments that recognise this should not wait for their national governments to change their policies. It is important for the residents of Surrey to commit to carbon neutrality as quickly as possible. Bold climate action can deliver economic benefits to Surrey in terms of valuable new jobs, essential economic savings and much needed market opportunities (as well as improved well-being for people worldwide).

Full Council to:

Declare a ‘Climate Emergency’ in Surrey;

Pledge to make Surrey carbon neutral by 2030, and strive to work with Surrey’s borough and district Councils in taking a leadership role, taking into account both production and consumption emissions;

Call on the Government to provide the powers and resources to make the 2030 target possible;

Report to County Council within six months with the actions the Council will take to address this.

Minutes:

Item 8(i)

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

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

This Council:

· believes in the importance of equitable wage ratio;

· notes the 60+ consultants currently appointed on interim contracts;

· recognises that interim contracts are often far more costly than those of permanent staff, with the Programme Manager currently being recruited for with a potential salary of £98,000/year on a two year fixed term contract;

· acknowledges that many residents within Surrey are struggling to make ends meet and facing higher Council Tax bills;

· notes the ongoing cuts to essential Council services including children’s centres, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provisions and bus subsidies;

· notes that a number of senior appointments are not being approved by the People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC) where they ought to be.

This Council therefore resolves to:

· adopt a policy of recruiting to permanent positions where appropriate;

· work with the Surrey Boroughs and Districts to share talent and resource where possible to contain the overall Surrey payroll costs.

Mr Botten made the following points:

That the Council was providing high salary interim posts while parents and carers spent their time fighting for special needs packages for their children.
That the optics of high salary interim posts were damaging to the Council’s credibility.
That the Council needed to employ in a cost effective way.
Residents needed to have confidence in the employment process.
The Council needed to look into how it could share appointments with districts and boroughs.
That there was a need to maximise resource already available in the public sector.

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Forster, who reserved the right to speak.

Mr Kington moved an amendment, which was formally seconded by Mr Darby.

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

This Council:

· believes in the importance of equitable wage ratio;

· notes the 60+ consultants currently appointed on interim contracts;

· acknowledges that many residents within Surrey are struggling to make ends meet and facing higher Council Tax bills;

· notes the ongoing cuts to essential Council services including children’s centres, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provisions and bus subsidies;

· notes that a number of senior appointments are not being approved by the People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC) where they ought to be.

This Council therefore resolves to:

· adopt a policy of recruiting to permanent positions where appropriate;

· work with the Surrey Boroughs and Districts to share talent and resource where possible to contain the overall Surrey payroll costs.

· amend the Terms of Reference of the PPDC to provide for the monitoring of the costs of senior management salaries, interim appointments and redundancies.

Mr Kington made the following points on the amendment:

That residents had always taken an interest in the Council’s service spend.
That details of pay were not published on the website in any meaningful way.
That the cost of top paid staff was of interest to residents.
That Conservative Members had prevented PPDC from looking into all staffing pay.
The amendment did not prevent the Chief Executive from deciding staffing structures.
That Members had the right to look over the total costs of staffing.
That individual select committees had never scrutinised staffing budgets.
That the Council’s expenditure should be open and transparent.

Mr Darby, as seconder to the amendment, made the following comments:

That the Council supported transparency.
That the amendment was not suggesting becoming involved in operational issues.
The Council should not support a culture of secrecy.

Mr Botten accepted the amendment and therefore it became the substantive motion.

Four Members made the following comments:

That they could not agree the amendment to the original motion.
That the Council would be considering the Surrey Pay Policy at the current meeting.
It was the Chef Executive’s responsibility to organise the Council’s workforce.
That the Council should not be run on interim arrangements.
That the focus should be on ensuring the right people conducted the transformation exercise.
That the details of the Council’s top staffing wage structure were the subject of rumour.

Mr Forster, as seconder to the substantive motion, made the following comments:

That there was a need for more permanent staff in the Council.
It was a double standard that the Council was making cuts to services while offering high salaries to interim appointments.
There was an opportunity to share posts with districts and boroughs.

The Chairman invited Mr Botten to conclude the debate. He made the following comments:

That the Council should show pride in what it provides.

That he felt that many of the decisions had already been made before any meetings of the PPDC.
That it was always better to be transparent.

In accordance with Standing Order 28.1, Mr Kington requested a recorded vote to be taken on the third resolution of the motion. At least ten Members showed support for this request by standing. The Chairman agreed to call a vote on each resolution separately.

The first resolution was put to a vote and received unanimous support.

The second resolution was put to a vote and received unanimous support.

The third resolution was put to a recorded vote. The following Members voted for it:

Mr Beckett, Mr Botten, Mr Darby, Mr Essex, Mr Robert Evans, Mr Forster, Mrs Goodwin, Mr Harrison, Mr Kington, Mr Lee, Mr MacLeod, Mr Mallett, Mrs Mason, Mrs Rivers, Mr Townsend, Mrs Watson, Mrs White

And the following Members voted against it:

Mrs Angell, Ms Azad, Mrs Bramhall, Mr Brett-Warburton, Mr Chapman, Mrs Clack, Mrs Curran, Mr Ellwood, Mr Tim Evans, Mr Few, Mr Furey, Mr Furniss, Mr Gardner, Mr Goodman, Miss Griffiths, Dr Grant-Duff, Mr Gulati, Mrs Hammond, Mr Harmer, Mr Harris, Mr Hawkins, Miss Heath, Mr Hussain, M Iles, Mr Islam, Mr Knight, Rachael Lake, Mrs Lay, Mrs Lewis, Mr McIntosh, Mr Mansfield, Mr Martin, Mrs Mooney, Ms Morley, Mrs Mountain, Mrs Muir, Mr Nuti, Mr Oliver, Mr O’Reilly, Dr Povey, Mr Ramsdale, Mrs Rush, Mr Samuels, Mrs Steeds, Dr Szanto, Mr Taylor, Ms Thomson, Mrs Thorn, Ms Turner-Stewart, Mr Walsh, Mr Witham, Mrs Young.

There were no abstentions.

Therefore the third resolution of the motion was lost, with 17 votes for and 52 against.

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

This Council:

· believes in the importance of equitable wage ratio;

· notes the 60+ consultants currently appointed on interim contracts;

· acknowledges that many residents within Surrey are struggling to make ends meet and facing higher Council Tax bills;

· notes the ongoing cuts to essential Council services including children’s centres, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provisions and bus subsidies;

· notes that a number of senior appointments are not being approved by the People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC) where they ought to be.

This Council therefore resolves to:

· adopt a policy of recruiting to permanent positions where appropriate;

· work with the Surrey Boroughs and Districts to share talent and resource where possible to contain the overall Surrey payroll costs.

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:

Full Council believes that:

Surrey County Council and all governments (national, regional and local) have a duty to limit the negative impacts of Climate Breakdown, and local governments that recognise this should not wait for their national governments to change their policies. It is important for the residents of Surrey to commit to carbon neutrality as quickly as possible. Bold climate action can deliver economic benefits to Surrey in terms of valuable new jobs, essential economic savings and much needed market opportunities (as well as improved well-being for people worldwide).

Full Council to:

Declare a ‘Climate Emergency’ in Surrey;

Pledge to make Surrey carbon neutral by 2030, and strive to work with Surrey’s borough and district Councils in taking a leadership role, taking into account both production and consumption emissions;

Call on the Government to provide the powers and resources to make the 2030 target possible;

Report to County Council within six months with the actions the Council will take to address this.

Mr Essex made the following points:

That that the international panel on climate change had reported that there were only 12 years to change how people lived globally.
Shared recent environmental news, such as that January was the warmest month in Australia ever and that the polar vortex had destabilised.
The Council needed to recognise the seriousness of the climate emergency.
That everyone needed to come together to deal with the situation and that the motion called for a sufficient response from the Council.
That the motion called for Surrey to be carbon neutral by 2030.
The Council had an important role of being local leaders.
Some businesses in the county had already pledged to be carbon neutral by 2030.

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs White, who made the following comments:

· That the county had made progress towards increasing recycling but that more needed to be done.

· The country should lead in international efforts to combat climate change.

· That the county should lead by example by improving appropriate insulation in Council owned buildings.

· Climate change would lead to extreme weather events which would disproportionally effect those on lower income.

· That it would be the younger generation who face the repercussions.

Mr Goodman moved an amendment which was formally seconded by Mr Ellwood.

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

Full Council believes that:

Surrey County Council and all governments (national, regional and local) ~~have a duty~~ should seek to limit the negative impacts of Climate Breakdown, and local governments that recognise this should not wait for their national governments to change their policies.

The Council recognises the work that has already been done to tackle Surrey’s carbon footprint and it is important for the residents of Surrey to ~~commit to carbon neutrality~~ work towards reducing their carbon footprint as quickly as possible.

Bold climate change action can deliver economic benefits to Surrey in terms of valuable new jobs, essential economic savings and much needed market opportunities (as well as improved well-being for people worldwide).

The UK has a world-first Climate Change Act with a legally-binding target of an 80 per cent emissions cut by 2050, and shorter-term national carbon budgets ensuring year-on-year emissions cuts.

The Government has made a commitment to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it and we welcome the Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, the first in over twenty years, which will be an essential step towards this goal. The Government has pledged to support increased biodiversity and thriving plants and wildlife and to continue to clean up our air and our water, creating a healthier environment.

Full Council to therefore resolves that:

~~1. Declare a ‘Climate Emergency’ in Surrey~~;

~~2. Pledge to make Surrey carbon-neutral by 2030 and strive to work with Surrey’s borough and district Councils in taking~~ ~~a leadership role, taking into account both production and consumption emissions~~;

1. ~~It will continue to work~~ Surrey will continue to work with Boroughs and Districts to ~~reduce the Surrey-wide carbon footprint to meet the Government’s targets~~ work towards zero emissions;

~~3. Call on the Government to provide the powers and resources to~~

~~make the 2030 target possible~~;

2. It will continue to work with the Government on environmental issues and to agree any new powers to assist delivery of the carbon targets;

3. It will be proactive in contributing to the many consultations that have been launched on reducing carbon emissions.

~~4. Report to County Council within six months with the actions the~~

~~Council will take to address this.~~

Full Council also notes that the Cabinet will receive the updated SCC Carbon and Energy Policy for 2020-2025 in December 2019, replacing the current 2015/19 policy.

The amendment was not accepted by Mr Essex and therefore Mr Goodman

spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

That Surrey’s 2030 Vision stated that residents wanted to live in a clean, safe and green community.
That Surrey was one of the greenest counties in the country.
There was more work to be done with districts and boroughs and the government to achieve zero carbon emissions in the country.
The government’s target was a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
That the Council’s carbon and energy policy was due to be updated at the end of 2019.
Highlighted various Council policies which promoted energy efficiency.
Announced that the Council would be the first Council in the country to use exclusively paper straws.
That improving air quality was everyone’s responsibility.
That he would be writing to Mr Michael Gove MP on the contents of the motion and the issues that face Surrey County Council. It was agreed to circulate the letter to Members of the Council.

Twelve Members made the following points on the amendment:

They felt the motion negated the original motion.
The original motion should have had cross party support.
Climate change was one of the biggest issues of the age.
That more needed to be done to mitigate the risk.
That the Council had committed to a single-use plastic policy.
The amendment was not in the interests of Surrey.
It was the Council’s duty to respond to climate change and that more ambition was needed.
That the Environment Agency had reported that there would be a water crisis due to population increase and climate change.
The original motion would fail due to its extreme language.
That it was not for politicians to debate if climate science is true.
That they wanted to commit to realistic outcomes.

Mr Ellwood, as seconder of the amendment, made the following comments:

That the Council had introduced electric buses for park and ride services.
The Council encouraged employees to use shared transport.
That he was introducing a scheme that would allow children to monitor the air quality at pick up and drop off times.
That targets should be manageable.

The Chairman asked Mr Goodman to conclude the debate. He made the following comments:

That everyone agreed that something needed to be done to improve the climate situation.
That he would discuss the benefits of an Environment Select Committee Task Group on the Council’s carbon policy.
The time was not right to commit to a 2030 deadline for neutral carbon emissions.
That he accepts that there is still more to be done.

In accordance with Standing Order 28.1, Mr Essex requested a recorded vote to be taken on the amendment to the motion. At least ten Members showed support for this request by standing.

The following Members voted for it:

Mrs Angell, Ms Azad, Mr Beckett, Mr Bennison, Mrs Bramhall, Mr Brett-Warburton, Mr Chapman, Mrs Clack, Mrs Curran, Mr Ellwood, Mr Tim Evans, Mr Few, Mr Furey, Mr Furniss, Mr Gardner, Mr Goodman, Miss Griffiths, Dr Grant-Duff, Mr Gulati, Mrs Hammond, Mr Harmer, Mr Harris, Mr Harrison, Mr Hawkins, Miss Heath, Mr Hussain, Mrs Iles, Mr Islam, Mr Kington, Rachael Lake, Mrs Lay, Mrs Lewis, Mr McIntosh, Mr Mansfield, Mr Martin, Mrs Mooney, Ms Morley, Mrs Mountain, Mr Nuti, Mr Oliver, Mr O’Reilly, Dr Povey, Mrs Rush, Mr Samuels, Dr Szanto, Mr Taylor, Ms Thomson, Mrs Thorn, Ms Turner-Stewart, Mr Walsh, Mr Witham, Mrs Young

And the following Members voted against it:

Mr Botten, Mr Darby, Mr Essex, Mr Robert Evans, Mr Forster, Mrs Goodwin, Mr Lee, Mr MacLeod, Mr Mallett, Mrs Mason, Mrs Rivers, Mrs Watson, Mrs White

The following Members abstained:

Mr Townsend

Therefore the amendment was carried by 52 votes to 13 and the amended motion became the substantive motion.

The motion was put to a vote with 49 members voting for, 10 against and 3 abstentions.

Therefore, it was:

RESOLVED:

Full Council believes that:

Surrey County Council and all governments (national, regional and local) should seek to limit the negative impacts of Climate Breakdown, and local governments that recognise this should not wait for their national governments to change their policies.

The Council recognises the work that has already been done to tackle Surrey’s carbon footprint and it is important for the residents of Surrey to work towards reducing their carbon footprint as quickly as possible.

The UK has a world-first Climate Change Act with a legally-binding target of an 80 per cent emissions cut by 2050, and shorter-term national carbon budgets ensuring year-on-year emissions cuts.

Full Council therefore resolves that:

1. Surrey will continue to work with Boroughs and Districts to work towards zero emissions;

2. It will continue to work with the Government on environmental issues and to agree any new powers to assist delivery of the carbon targets;

3. It will be proactive in contributing to the many consultations that have been launched on reducing carbon emissions.

Full Council also notes that the Cabinet will receive the updated SCC Carbon and Energy Policy for 2020-2025 in December 2019, replacing the current 2015/19 policy.