Agenda item

Item 8 (i)

 

Mrs Fiona White (Guildford West) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This Council notes:

 

That it recognises that child poverty, especially child food poverty, is a systemic problem, not a temporary one which can be solved with short term measures. 

  

It further recognises that the key objective that no-one is left behind must start with our youngest children. 

  

It recognises too that breakfast clubs and other on-site initiatives delivered through schools make a huge difference not just to pupil wellbeing but also to the quality of learning and other outcomes. 

  

Therefore resolves to: 

  

1. Encourage all schools to set up breakfast clubs by making a one-off capital allocation to those schools which require it to amend premises or provide equipment, to enable schools to make breakfast provision 
2. Ask officers to produce a report on child poverty in Surrey, so Council can fully understand the impact and scale of the problem 
3. Consider setting aside in the next revenue budget sums to enable an action plan falling out of that report which could meaningfully address the impact of child poverty on learning and wellbeing and 
4. Lobby government to consider reforms to the welfare system which address the fundamental causes of child poverty, such as the failures of the Universal Credit system and the inadequacy of the minimum wage.

  

 

 

Item 8 (i)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mrs Fiona White moved:

 

This Council notes:

 

That it recognises that child poverty, especially child food poverty, is a systemic problem, not a temporary one which can be solved with short term measures. 

  

It further recognises that the key objective that no-one is left behind must start with our youngest children. 

  

It recognises too that breakfast clubs and other on-site initiatives delivered through schools make a huge difference not just to pupil wellbeing but also to the quality of learning and other outcomes. 

  

Therefore resolves to: 

  

1.    Encourage all schools to set up breakfast clubs by making a one-off capital allocation to those schools which require it to amend premises or provide equipment, to enable schools to make breakfast provision 

2.    Ask officers to produce a report on child poverty in Surrey, so Council can fully understand the impact and scale of the problem 

3.    Consider setting aside in the next revenue budget sums to enable an action plan falling out of that report which could meaningfully address the impact of child poverty on learning and wellbeing and 

4.    Lobby government to consider reforms to the welfare system which address the fundamental causes of child poverty, such as the failures of the Universal Credit system and the inadequacy of the minimum wage.

  

Mrs White made the following points:

 

·         That the purpose of her motion was clear, it was for the Council to recognise the issue of child poverty in Surrey and resolve to do something about it.

·         That although Covid-19 had brought the issue of child poverty and free school meals into focus, child poverty had been a growing problem for a long time.

·         That the numbers of people in Surrey claiming Universal Credit was rising.

·         That the children’s vision for Surrey was to deliver better opportunities of outcome for children and young people. Hungry children could not make the most of their education, so targeted action was needed to address the matter through the provision of breakfast clubs.

·         That it was vital to accurately record the extent of child poverty in Surrey but to also provide action on the issue, unlike the amendment the motion was proactive through putting sums aside for an action plan before the next revenue budget was set.

·         Recognised that the Council could not solve the issue of child poverty alone, the motion proposed that it lobby the government to consider reforms to the welfare system which did not adequately support families, noting the failings of the Universal Credit system and insufficient minimum wage. 

·         Supported the addition in the amendment to lobby government to continue to fund local government appropriately to mitigate the social effects of Covid-19.

·         That overall, the amendment did not add much substance to the motion, it contained a lot of self-congratulatory wording and lost sight of the motion’s simplicity which resolved to take positive action to address the issue.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Will Forster, who made the following comments:

 

·         Noted that the motion was uncontroversial so he hoped that Members would support it.

·         That the principles and actions were self-evident, ending child poverty and feeding children were moral imperatives and must be a priority for the Council.

·         Stressed that by ensuring every child was well fed, children could get the most out of their education and school breakfast clubs were an important enabler.

·         That children had a multitude of stresses in their lives so called for the Council to take one of those worries away from them so they could fulfil their potential.

 

Mrs Mary Lewis moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda, which was formally seconded by Mrs Julie Iles.

 

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

 

This Council notes:

 

That it recognises that child poverty, especially child food poverty, including food, fuel, digital, housing and transport poverty which impact the whole family, is a systemic problem, not a temporary one which can be solved with short term measures. 

  

It further recognises that the key objective that no-one is left behind must start with our youngest children. 

  

It recognises too that breakfast clubs and other on-site initiatives delivered through schools make a huge difference not just to pupil wellbeing but also to the quality of learning and other outcomes. that system-wide initiatives delivered through early years settings, schools, health settings, family centres and elsewhere make a huge difference not just to child wellbeing but also to the quality of learning and other outcomes. 

  

Therefore resolves to: 

  

1.    Encourage all schools to set up breakfast clubs by making a one-off capital allocation to those schools which require it to amend premises or provide equipment, to enable schools to make breakfast provision 

 

2.    Ask officers to produce a report on child poverty in Surrey to assess data from the Community Impact Assessment and on-going work with the DWP, Citizens’ Advice Bureau, Surrey Welfare Rights Unit and the Community Foundation for Surrey to produce a report on poverty in Surrey, so Council can fully understand the complexity, scale and impact on children of poverty in Surrey, including the wider cohort of families now experiencing poverty.

 

3.    Consider setting aside in the next revenue budget sums to enable an action plan falling out of that report which could meaningfully address the impact of child poverty on learning and wellbeing and 

 

4.      Lobby government to consider reforms to the welfare system which address the fundamental causes of child poverty, such as the failures of the Universal Credit system and the inadequacy of the minimum wage to continue to fund local government appropriately to mitigate the social effects of Covid-19, especially those affecting children and families.

 

5.      Support the work of the One Surrey Growth Board in seeking to support post-Covid economic recovery and to provide the quality jobs and training that can offer a long- term solution to the issue. 

 

6.      Support the new Executive Director of Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture to lead a Council wide response to the report on child poverty in Surrey and to address the issue of poor outcomes for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, including working with schools to provide an Inclusive curriculum that supports the mostdisadvantaged and developing the Helping Families Early initiative with partners, built on the principle that ‘everyone can do something’.

 

7.      Support the Leader as Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board to continue its work in addressing and prioritising this issue.

 

8.      Support the First 1000 Days initiative with Health/County Council integrated commissioning to improve life chances of babies and young children (now in its second year).

 

9.      Welcome the £2.2 million winter package funding received by Surrey CC from central government and the work being done with partners to use it to target support to those in most immediate need, alleviating food and fuel poverty.

 

Mrs Lewis spoke to her amendment, making the following points:

 

·           That as Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families she welcomed the sentiments made by the proposer and seconder of the motion.

·           Noted deep concern on the effects of poverty on children and families in Surrey, agreeing with the proposer that the Council’s guiding principle of no-one is left behind, must start with our youngest children.

·           Noted the First 1000 Days initiative, emphasising that early development was a strong predictor of academic achievement - poverty affected babies in the womb through the mother’s health.

·           Stressed that the motion was too simplistic by only focussing on child food poverty and the quick fix of breakfast clubs. Child poverty was a complex issue not only composing of food poverty, but also fuel, housing, transport and digital poverty which all led to significant health inequalities in children which Covid-19 exacerbated. 

·           Explained that child poverty was a systemic issue which required a long-term system-wide partnership response, which the amendment outlined.

·           That one positive of Covid-19 was the collation of a large amount of data on struggling individuals, families and communities collated in the CIA. Such data provided a tool for the Council, borough and district councils and partners including health colleagues to provide targeted support.

·           Noted the vital work that the Deputy Chief Executive was leading with key partners to assess data from the CIA and key partners to provide a comprehensive report on child poverty.

·           That the C-SPA had been working to address child poverty by contacting struggling families through community connectors such as family centres.

·           That Covid-19 profoundly affected families’ finances with further difficulties ahead. The work of the One Surrey Growth Board (OSGB) on economic recovery was key, as economic growth, facilitating skills training towards higher paid jobs and stable employment, were the only long-term solutions to family poverty and as a result, child poverty.

·           That the amendment referenced many workstreams already underway in the county, to tackle systemic poverty.

·           Asked Members to support the new Executive Director of Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture to lead and promote a Council-wide partnership response to the report on child poverty, which links to the statutory duty under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 to improve the wellbeing of children.

·           Welcomed Surrey’s £2.2 million allocation of the Covid Winter Grant Scheme from government and the immediate support that offered.

 

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

 

·         Supported the proposer of the motion in raising awareness of child poverty but noted that the scope of that motion was too narrow, focussing solely on child food poverty and it did not recognise that a system-wide effort was required to address the issue.

·         That it was important that the amended motion included the need to lobby government to continue to fund local government appropriately to mitigate the social effects of Covid-19.

·         That the wording in the amendment was not self-congratulatory as it recognised the huge work already underway by the Council and its partners on addressing poverty.

·         That the amendment’s reference of the CIA, OSGB, Health and Wellbeing Board and First 1000 Days initiative, provided information on what the issues were and where they were appearing.

·         That her earlier response to a Member question noting the Covid Winter Grant Scheme, demonstrated the power of a coordinated response with school leaders and partners.

·         That as part of the above Scheme, food vouchers were effective in providing targeted food support during the school holidays, alongside the targeted provision of Christmas hampers to families such as in Chertsey via the food bank.

·         That one workstream within the First 1000 Days initiative was the closing of the outcome gap to ensure that every child irrespective of background could reach their full potential. Poverty was a key driver of poorer development and outcomes in children on free school meals at the end of their reception year. 

·         Noted that she was proud of the work done to maintain early years funding and to support the supply chain especially those serving Surrey’s most disadvantaged population areas - with evidence provided to the parliamentary team investigating the issue.

·         That Cabinet received a report on 24 November 2020 on Surrey Schools and Early Years Funding 2021-22 which detailed an increase in all funding rates in the funding formulae and the increases in the funding rates of free school meals provision at early years.

·         That work was underway in Surrey’s Schools Alliance for Excellence network to address the outcome gap for the disadvantaged cohort and work was underway with sector leads and includes the Education Endowment Foundation to target outcomes at secondary school level, curriculum access and the rollout of an early literacy and language programme.

·         Welcomed the arrival of the new Executive Director of Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture to drive the system-wide focus on making sure that no-one is left behind and the tackling of economic and health inequalities.

 

Mrs White did not accept the amendment and she made the following comments:

 

·         That she could not accept the amendment as the additional wording referred to business as usual without any real action.

·         That the problem with the amendment was that it weakened the original motion - as resources were needed to address the issue - by deleting points one and three regarding a one-off capital allocation for breakfast clubs and setting aside sums for the next revenue budget.

·         Regarding the deletion of point four on reforms to the welfare system, she noted that the issue of child poverty would never be addressed unless the benefits system was reformed, and the national minimum wage reflected the real cost of living.

·         That it was vital to lobby the government to continue with the funding to mitigate the social effects of Covid-19, but there needed to be a permanent solution by providing adequate local government funding more generally.

·         Pointed out that the Council and government were ruled by a political majority, so they were in a strong position to lead on the issue.

·         That the Council should continue with its business as usual work, but she called on it to concentrate on the issue of child poverty.

 

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

 

·         That the amendment was a disingenuous attempt to deflect attention away from the real initiative of providing breakfast clubs, the motion was not narrow in focus but was specific and proposed change.

·         Whilst the motion noted the need for a one-off capital allocation to encourage all schools to set up breakfast clubs or to amend premises or provide new equipment; it did not take into account the ongoing costs required such as staffing so it was hoped that such funding would follow subsequently.

·         Noted that the motion and supporting speakers made good points on calling for action on child food poverty, but that those suggestions such as having breakfast clubs in all schools were short-term and were not targeted at children and areas with the most need.

·         That the amendment proposed long-term solutions to the systemic problem, a real solution to child food poverty was a thriving economy with more jobs. Covid-19 had significantly impacted the economy and it was an opportune time to support businesses to get back on their feet and to get people back into secure and high-quality employment by providing skills training. 

·         Agreed that the original motion was too narrow in its solutions to a complex issue, noting that there was a large amount of work going on by the Council and partners with long-term strategies.

·         That nutrition was important, but the issue of child poverty could only be solved by several different strategies as families all faced different problems.

·         Stressed that early intervention, driving high quality early education and supporting parents into higher paid employment via educational training had vital roles in addressing child poverty and breaking the cycle of inequality.

·         That the early years strategy helped to ensure that no-one would be left behind, the focus must be on inclusion to reach out to those families who had not come forward for support such as through encouraging deprived families to take up the funded early education for two-year-olds (FEET) entitlement. There was also a sustainability fund to support those early years settings to withstand the impact of Covid-19, targeted on settings serving population areas with the most disadvantaged families.

·         That barriers must be broken down to enable families to better support themselves which in turn would address child poverty. Empowerment and education were key and the broad focus of the amendment sought to tackle the systemic problems around the issue.  

 

Mr MacLeod left the meeting at 11.58 am

 

·         That although the amendment provided a more systematic approach, he supported the motion as there was nothing wrong with it. He called for cross-party cooperation on the issue of child poverty, whilst continuing with the work underway by the Council on the different strands of poverty.

·         That a systemic approach needed focus as well as vision with action on the ground, agreeing with the focus on early intervention but noted that the Council had shut many Sure Start children’s centres and therefore breakfast clubs could be an alternative initiative that could make a difference by maximising the educational potential of all children in Surrey.

·         Noted caution on the previous comments that a strong economy was a solution to poverty, due to the uncertainty around Brexit.

·         That it appeared as though there was a lack of information for families and individuals needing help and requested that a summary of contact details for key organisations and partners which offered support be provided.

·         That the amendment recognised that struggling families often did not have one crisis such as child food poverty, but also faced fuel, digital, housing and transport poverty affecting the whole family.  

·         That breakfast clubs only worked during school hours and for those aged five and upwards, they were one initiative within a patchwork of multi-agency approaches to the systemic issue of poverty.

 

Mr MacLeod re-joined the meeting at 12.07 pm

 

·         Supported the amendment as the motion was too narrow in focus, it did not take into account the efforts being made to address the wider problem of poverty, poor nutrition for children was one symptom of that overall problem.

·         That the amendment would strengthen the motion if it did not delete the elements that were key to making a difference through immediate action, such as setting aside sums in the next revenue budget to enable an action plan from the report requested on child poverty, lobbying the government to consider reforming the welfare system, or the provision of breakfast clubs.

·         Noted concern that while many elements of the amendment were commendable and should be pursued by the Council, the longer term and broader objectives lost sight of the motion’s simplicity and immediate call for action that was achievable in a reasonable time frame.

·         Noted the condescending comments made by some Members against the motion with arguments deflecting from the issue of child poverty by noting that a thriving economy was the solution to poverty. 

 

The Chairman asked Mrs Lewis, as proposer of the amendment to conclude the debate:

 

·         She noted that a system-wide patchwork approach with partners was key to address the systemic issue of poverty, noting narrow past failed initiatives such as Every Child Matters which was well-funded and supported but the attainment gap did not change, and the initiative to boost the uptake of free schools meals which was underclaimed due to the fear of stigmatisation.

·         Similarly the focus on providing breakfast clubs and child poverty was too narrow and so the focus must be on the wide-ranging practical measures already underway with partners.

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 54 Members voting For, 20 voting Against and 1 Abstention.

 

Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 71 Members voting For, 0 voting Against and 4 Abstentions.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes:

 

That it recognises that child poverty, including food, fuel, digital, housing and transport poverty which impact the whole family, is a systemic problem, not a temporary one which can be solved with short term measures. 

  

It further recognises that the key objective that no-one is left behind must start with our youngest children. 

  

It recognises that system-wide initiatives delivered through early years settings, schools, health settings, family centres and elsewhere make a huge difference not just to child wellbeing but also to the quality of learning and other outcomes. 

  

Therefore resolves to: 

  

1.    Ask officers to assess data from the Community Impact Assessment and on-going work with the DWP, Citizens’ Advice Bureau, Surrey Welfare Rights Unit and the Community Foundation for Surrey to produce a report on poverty in Surrey, so Council can fully understand the complexity, scale and impact on children of poverty in Surrey, including the wider cohort of families now experiencing poverty.

 

2.      Lobby government to continue to fund local government appropriately to mitigate the social effects of Covid-19, especially those affecting children and families.

 

3.      Support the work of the One Surrey Growth Board in seeking to support post-Covid economic recovery and to provide the quality jobs and training that can offer a long- term solution to the issue. 

 

4.      Support the new Executive Director of Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture to lead a Council wide response to the report on child poverty in Surrey and to address the issue of poor outcomes for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, including working with schools to provide an Inclusive curriculum that supports the most disadvantaged and developing the Helping Families Early initiative with partners, built on the principle that ‘everyone can do something’.

 

5.      Support the Leader as Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board to continue its work in addressing and prioritising this issue.

 

6.      Support the First 1000 Days initiative with Health/County Council integrated commissioning to improve life chances of babies and young children (now in its second year).

 

7.      Welcome the £2.2 million winter package funding received by Surrey CC from central government and the work being done with partners to use it to target support to those in most immediate need, alleviating food and fuel poverty.