Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Meeting of Council, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10.00 am (Item 71/18)
Share this item

Item 8 (i)

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

This Council recognises Surrey residents’ concerns about the condition of the county’s roads and the need to ensure they are well-maintained and fit for purpose.

In order to draw Parliament’s attention to the unfair formula applied by Government to the funding of road maintenance and improvement, county councillor Edward Hawkins earlier this year launched the following petition:

“We call upon the Government to reform the Fairer Funding Formula to ensure there is enough money for road repair and up-keep. The current method for calculating the grant for such work unfairly penalises Surrey. The calculation should give more weight to traffic flow and level of usage.

Surrey has almost 3,500 miles of roads with over 4.8 million miles travelled on those roads per year. The grant received by Surrey from the Government is about £4,000 per million vehicle miles travelled. A Neighbouring county has a figure of £5,500 per million vehicle miles travelled.

The recent Pothole Fund announced by the Government which uses the same formula saw Surrey get £1.8m, whereas one of our neighbouring counties received £2.9m, and a quiet west country area was given £4.4m.”

I call upon all Members of this Council to support the petition and do all within their power to help it reach 100,000 signatures, thus enabling this vital issue to be debated in Parliament.

Item 8 (ii)

Mr Mike Goodman (Bagshot, Windlesham and Chobham) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

Government has set out – in the Airports National Policy Statement - the policy framework and specific principles that will be used to assess any application to construct a northwest runway at Heathrow. In the light of these developments it is timely for this Council to reaffirm its position on airport expansion set out in the resolution agreed in December 2016 and to make clear its position on Heathrow’s expansion.

This Council :

1. Recognises the crucial role of Heathrow in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment for the Surrey economy and attracting major businesses.

2. Urges that the environmental and infrastructure issues associated with expansion are satisfactorily addressed.

3. Continues to engage with Heathrow management, alongside other local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships and other organisations as part of the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, on its expansion plans in order to protect and promote the interests of Surrey, its residents and businesses.

4. Continues to press for proper compensation for residents who are affected by the expansion plans.

5. Emphasises that the necessary infrastructure should be in place before any new runway comes into operation together with appropriate mitigation measures and commitments to address environmental impacts.

6. Calls on the Government to prioritise a southern rail access scheme, which supports strategic transport and economic objectives and contributes to addressing environmental impacts, to be in operation before any new runway comes into service.

Item 8 (iii)

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

Since 1 November 2015, when the Conservative Government’s Modern Slavery Act came into force, Surrey County Council has a duty to notify the Secretary of State of any individual encountered in Surrey who they believe is a suspected victim of slavery or human trafficking.

The government states this duty is intended to gather statistics and help build a more comprehensive picture of the nature and scale of modern slavery.

Council welcomes the recent decision by Surrey Police to crack down on such offences and notes that the force secured their first modern slavery conviction in April 2018, with arrests in Elmbridge, Spelthorne and Tandridge amongst the 49 offences reported in 2017.

Modern Slavery occurs across Surrey’s towns and villages. From nail bars in our towns, to car washes, farms, factories and restaurants up and down the county, thousands of people in Surrey could be victims.

Council notes that the annual reports of the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board, considered and noted by the cabinet at their meetings in June 2017 and July 2018 both draw attention to this issue.

Surrey Adult Safeguarding Board observes that the term ‘modern slavery’ captures a whole range of types of exploitation, many of which could occur together in Surrey and elsewhere. These include:

Human trafficking
sexual exploitation
forced labour and domestic servitude
criminal exploitation
other forms of exploitation include: forced begging; forced benefit fraud; forced marriage and illegal adoption.

Mindful of its legal responsibilities and moral duties, Surrey County therefore agrees to:

Ensure its corporate procurement team have appropriate training to understand modern slavery.
Require its contractors to comply fully with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, wherever it applies, with contract termination as a potential sanction for non-compliance.
Highlight to its suppliers that contracted workers are free to join a trade union and are not to be treated unfairly for belonging to one.
Publicise its whistle-blowing system for staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.
Require its tendered contractors to adopt a whistle-blowing policy which enables their staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.
Review its contractual spending regularly to identify any potential issues with modern slavery.
Highlight for its suppliers any risks identified concerning modern slavery and refer them to the relevant agencies to be addressed.
Refer for investigation via the National Crime Agency’s national referral mechanism any of its contractors identified as a cause for concern regarding modern slavery.
Report publicly on the implementation of this policy annually.

Item 8 (iv)

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

This Council notes that the government is proposing, via a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) to allow the exploration phase of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to be allowed under Permitted Development (PD), therefore requiring no planning permission. They also propose to bring the production phase of fracking under Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), to be decided centrally by government and the planning inspectorate, thus taking decisions away from local councils. If approved, this could be extended to include other types of oil and gas exploration such as we have here in Surrey through secondary legislation.

This Council believes that local plans, local planning and local democratic decisions should retain control of all local mineral and fossil fuel development.

Therefore, this Council instructs our planning officers to respond to the government consultation accordingly, by rejecting the changes proposed for PD and NSIP as inappropriate and with the view that local Minerals Planning Authorities retain local control and primacy for all planning decisions at all stages for all types of oil and gas exploration.

Minutes:

Item 8(i)

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

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

‘This Council recognises Surrey residents’ concerns about the condition of the county’s roads and the need to ensure they are well-maintained and fit for purpose.

I call upon all Members of this Council to support the petition and do all within their power to help it reach 100,000 signatures, thus enabling this vital issue to be debated in Parliament.’

Mr Hodge made the following points:

· That it was time for Central Government to support Surrey.

· That Surrey had some of the busiest roads and traffic flows in the country.

· That it was important for parliament to debate and be aware of the current situation for roads in Surrey.

· That a message should be sent to all road and transportation users to sign the petition.

The motion was formally seconded by Edward Hawkins who reserved the right to speak.

Mr Cooksey moved an amendment which was formally seconded by Mrs White.

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

This Council recognises Surrey residents’ concerns about the condition of the county’s roads and the need to ensure they are well-maintained and fit for purpose.

The Council notes that:

1. In order to draw Parliament’s attention to the unfair formula applied by Government to the funding of road maintenance and improvement, county councillor Edward Hawkins earlier this year launched the following petition:

2. The petition, which has been circulating for some months, had collected only 7,256 signatures by 2^nd October 2018 but requires 100,000 to ensure a Parliamentary debate;

3. It seems unlikely that a Parliamentary debate would achieve any useful purpose given that it is the Conservative government, supported by Surrey’s Conservative Ministers and MPs, that is responsible for devising and implementing the funding formula that has created this situation.

This Council resolves:

1, To instruct the Leader of the Council to intensify pressure on his Conservative Parliamentary colleagues, particularly Surrey’s Conservative Ministers and MPs, to seek to provide a funding formula that would ensure that adequate resources are made available for essential county services including roads, social care, children and the environment;

2. To call upon all Conservative county councillors to campaign vigorously to change national Conservative policies on local government funding in order to protect Surrey residents from savage cuts in services.

~~I call upon all Members of this Council to support the petition and do all within their power to help it reach 100,000 signatures, thus enabling this vital issue to be debated in Parliament.~~

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

· That this was a desperate attempt by the Leader of the Council to try to influence the national Government

· The number of signatures needed was unrealistic for the timeframe.

· The petition had not received more support because it was irrelevant.

· That the issues were due to Conservative government policy.

· Asked if Members felt roads were more important than front line services.

· A parliamentary debate would not fix the issues on roads.

· That it was the responsibility of Conservative Members to speak to their colleagues in parliament.

Mrs White, as seconder to the amendment, reserved her right to speak.

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

· That the amendment turned the motion into a game of political football.

· That the original motion was to help the residents of Surrey.

· That the Liberal Democrat Party had previously opposed the budget which provided more funding to services.

· That it was the duty of every Member to contact Members of Parliament (MPs) to highlight the need for additional funding in Surrey.

· That the motion was specifically about funding for roads.

Mrs White, seconder of the amendment, made the following points:

· That she did contact her MP but felt she was not being listened to.

· That funding was needed for all services

· That more detail was needed in the budget

· Members need to accept that it is a Conservative Government who are underfunding the council

The amendment was put to the vote with 16 Members voting for, 51 voting against and 1 abstention.

Therefore, the amendment to the substantive motion was lost.

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

· Provided Members with statistics on the locations of those who had signed the petition.

· That the petition was not political and was for the benefit of all Surrey residents.

· The Transport Select Committee in Central Government were aware of the petition.

· That there was still time to obtain the signatures required.

· All Members should support the petition.

The motion was put to a vote with 61 members voting for, 0 against and 9 abstentions.

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

This Council recognises Surrey residents’ concerns about the condition of the county’s roads and the need to ensure they are well-maintained and fit for purpose.

I call upon all Members of this Council to support the petition and do all within their power to help it reach 100,000 signatures, thus enabling this vital issue to be debated in Parliament.

Item 8(ii)

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

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

‘Government has set out – in the Airports National Policy Statement - the policy framework and specific principles that will be used to assess any application to construct a northwest runway at Heathrow. In the light of these developments it is timely for this Council to reaffirm its position on airport expansion set out in the resolution agreed in December 2016 and to make clear its position on Heathrow’s expansion.

This Council:

Recognises the crucial role of Heathrow in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment for the Surrey economy and attracting major businesses.
Urges that the environmental and infrastructure issues associated with expansion are satisfactorily addressed.
Continues to engage with Heathrow management, alongside other local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships and other organisations as part of the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, on its expansion plans in order to protect and promote the interests of Surrey, its residents and businesses.
Continues to press for proper compensation for residents who are affected by the expansion plans.
Emphasises that the necessary infrastructure should be in place before any new runway comes into operation together with appropriate mitigation measures and commitments to address environmental impacts.
Calls on the Government to prioritise a southern rail access scheme, which supports strategic transport and economic objectives and contributes to addressing environmental impacts, to be in operation before any new runway comes into service.’

Mr Goodman made the following points:

· That parliament have now supported the expansion of Heathrow Airport

· Listed various organisations who are based in Surrey and the benefits the expansion would bring to jobs and apprenticeships.

· That Surrey needed to have the right infrastructure in place to support the third runway at Heathrow Airport.

· Air pollution issues needed to be addressed with sustainable solutions.

· That it was essential for the Council to implement funding effectively and appropriately.

· The Council must continue to work in partnership with Heathrow Airport.

The motion was formally seconded by Nick Darby, who reserved the right to speak.

Seven Members made the following points:

· That they supported the expansion due to its economic impacts but acknowledged that it will impact residents’ lives.

· That Surrey needed to have the correct infrastructure.

· That the expansion and car parking area would have great an impact on Spelthorne.

· Highlighted a recently published report by climate scientists and raised air quality concerns relating to the expansion.

· Stressed that Surrey residents would be negatively affected by the expansion.

· That the appropriate Select Committee could explore further options for preparing for the expansion.

· Residents will suffer due to congestion on the M25.

· Asked that the County Council worked closely with the Spelthorne Joint Committee to find solutions.

· Highlighted the importance of Members understanding the impact of the expansion on Surrey.

Mr Darby, as seconder , made the following comments:

· Stated that Surrey needed to be fully prepared before the expansion.

· Raised concerns about the impact on air quality.

· Felt that a car park of 25,000 spaces was not sensible.

· Stressed the need for Members to be informed of what was happening.

The motion was put to a vote with 68 members voting for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

This Council:

Recognises the crucial role of Heathrow in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment for the Surrey economy and attracting major businesses.
Urges that the environmental and infrastructure issues associated with expansion are satisfactorily addressed.
Continues to engage with Heathrow management, alongside other local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships and other organisations as part of the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, on its expansion plans in order to protect and promote the interests of Surrey, its residents and businesses.
Continues to press for proper compensation for residents who are affected by the expansion plans.
Emphasises that the necessary infrastructure should be in place before any new runway comes into operation together with appropriate mitigation measures and commitments to address environmental impacts.
Calls on the Government to prioritise a southern rail access scheme, which supports strategic transport and economic objectives and contributes to addressing environmental impacts, to be in operation before any new runway comes into service.’

Item 8(iii)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Robert Evans moved

an amendment to the motion set out in the agenda for this meeting in his own name, as follows: (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):

The government states this duty is intended to gather statistics and help build a more comprehensive picture of the nature and scale of modern slavery.

Council notes that the annual reports of the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board, considered and noted by the cabinet at their meetings in June 2017 and July 2018 both draw attention to this issue.

Surrey Adult Safeguarding Board observes that the term ‘modern slavery’ captures a whole range of types of exploitation, many of which could occur together in Surrey and elsewhere. These include:

Human trafficking
sexual exploitation
forced labour and domestic servitude
criminal exploitation
other forms of exploitation include: forced begging; forced benefit fraud; forced marriage and illegal adoption.

Mindful of its legal responsibilities and moral duties, Surrey County Council therefore agrees to

Ensure its corporate procurement team have appropriate training to understand modern slavery.
Require its contractors to comply fully with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, wherever it applies, with contract termination as a potential sanction for non-compliance.
~~Highlight to its suppliers~~Note that contracted workers are free to join a trade union and are not to be treated unfairly for belonging to one.
Publicise its whistle-blowing system for staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.
Require its tendered contractors to adopt a whistle-blowing policy which enables their staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.
Ensure that quality assurance safeguards are in place to protect its contractual spending and ~~Review its contractual spending regularly~~ to identify any potential issues with modern slavery.
Highlight for its suppliers any risks identified concerning modern slavery and refer them to the relevant agencies to be addressed.
Refer for investigation via the National Crime Agency’s national referral mechanism any of its contractors identified as a cause for concern regarding modern slavery.
Report publicly on the implementation of this policy annually.

Members agreed to accept the amendment and therefore it became a substantive motion.

Mr Evans made the following points:

· That slavery was not an issue of the past as more people were now in slavery than ever before.

· That there was no typical victim but it was prevalent in the most vulnerable.

· Many do not realise that modern slavery happens in Surrey.

· It is estimated there are 40 million people worldwide who are victims of modern slavery.

· It was important to report any possible victims

· Asked Members to support the motion to make Surrey better.

The motion was formally seconded by Jonathan Essex who reserved the right to speak.

Three Members made the following points:

· That they supported every part of the motion.

· That every individual deserved to be treated with dignity and be allowed to work in proper establishments.

· Paid tribute to the Government for the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

· Informed Members of examples where people have been used for modern slavery.

· Highlighted that vulnerable children in care have been used for modern slavery.

Mr Essex, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

· Highlighted that modern slavery was an issue throughout the country, including in Surrey.

· Urged Members to support the motion.

The motion was put to a vote and received unanimous support.

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

The government states this duty is intended to gather statistics and help build a more comprehensive picture of the nature and scale of modern slavery.

Council notes that the annual reports of the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board, considered and noted by the cabinet at their meetings in June 2017 and July 2018 both draw attention to this issue.

Surrey Adult Safeguarding Board observes that the term ‘modern slavery’ captures a whole range of types of exploitation, many of which could occur together in Surrey and elsewhere. These include:

Human trafficking
sexual exploitation
forced labour and domestic servitude
criminal exploitation
other forms of exploitation include: forced begging; forced benefit fraud; forced marriage and illegal adoption.

Mindful of its legal responsibilities and moral duties, Surrey County Council therefore agrees to

Ensure its corporate procurement team have appropriate training to understand modern slavery.
Require its contractors to comply fully with the Modern Slavery Act 2015, wherever it applies, with contract termination as a potential sanction for non-compliance.
Note that contracted workers are free to join a trade union and are not to be treated unfairly for belonging to one.
Publicise its whistle-blowing system for staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.
Require its tendered contractors to adopt a whistle-blowing policy which enables their staff to blow the whistle on any suspected examples of modern slavery.
Ensure that quality assurance safeguards are in place to protect its contractual spending andto identify any potential issues with modern slavery.
Highlight for its suppliers any risks identified concerning modern slavery and refer them to the relevant agencies to be addressed.
Refer for investigation via the National Crime Agency’s national referral mechanism any of its contractors identified as a cause for concern regarding modern slavery.
Report publicly on the implementation of this policy annually.

Item 8(iv)

The Leader of the Council proposed that this motion be referred to the Planning and Regulatory Committee as he felt it was not appropriate to discuss at the present meeting.

Mr Essex, as proposer of the original motion, was invited to speak to the Council on why it should not be referred. .

The proposal to refer the motion was put to the vote, with 62 voting in favour, 1 against and 5 abstentions.

Therefore it was:

RESOLVED

To refer the motion to the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 17 October 2018.