Agenda item

Item 8 (i)

 

Dr Andrew Povey (Cranleigh & Ewhurst) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Given the number of residents volunteering during the current pandemic, Surrey County Council will build on this and the previous Government’s work on the Big Society.

 

It further recognises the importance of encouraging the ongoing volunteering by residents in a range of activities of benefit to our communities.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

1. Work with other public sector bodies to promote volunteering and its benefits.
2. Work with the voluntary, community and faith organisations and employers as an element of our ‘no-one left behind strategy’ to encourage volunteering.
3. Publicise the benefits of volunteering to the individual, society and our local communities.

 

Item 8 (ii)

 

Mr Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This Council notes that:

 

It formally places on record its sincere thanks to all those workers, directly and indirectly employed by Surrey for their extraordinary efforts during the current COVID-19 crisis.

 

From the Council’s own dedicated employees to the hard-working teachers and other staff in schools, Surrey recognises that many people have worked very long hours, not just to continue their existing role but to diversify and innovate.

 

Heath service staff are at the forefront of saving lives, but care home workers, the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and countless other people, including many community volunteers, are displaying remarkable courage in the face of great adversity and unforeseen challenges.

 

The Council resolves that:

 

I.              It hereby applauds and thanks each one for their remarkable contribution in this year of crisis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 8 (iii)

 

Mr Matt Furniss (Shalford) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Following the last Council meeting, I wrote to the Mayor of London on behalf of this Council to express our strong feelings against the proposed new Greater London Boundary Charge that would penalise Surrey and other counties’ residents bordering London.

 

London is not an island and must take into consideration the impact on its neighbours. Surrey County Council and the Mayor of London need to work together to tackle congestion, to move toward net zero carbon and to enhance the prosperity of the region by working together.

 

However, it is clear from the response that Transport for London (TfL) is initially looking at a £3.50 daily charge, with a possible higher charge (£5.50) for the most polluting vehicles.

 

This charge would impact between 57,000 and 61,000 residents on a typical working day based on 2011 and 2019 data. Whilst this levy, as the Mayor’s Office says, could be earmarked to support sustainable travel in boundary borough, there is no mention that this money would be invested in cross-border improvements.

 

Surrey residents and taxpayers have already bailed out London’s TfL for the second time through the Government’s generous settlements in 2020. Surrey and other bordering counties’ residents should not have to bear extra financial penalties for the London Mayor’s mismanagement of TfL’s finances.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

I.              Oppose any Greater London Boundary Charge or charge on entering London to work that targets non-London residents.

 

Item 8 (iv)

 

Mr Will Forster (Woking South) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This Council notes that:

The shift to Microsoft Teams meetings has enabled Council business to continue during the pandemic and that Members and staff have adapted admirably to this change in practice.

There are some definite advantages to holding remote meetings such as increased participation from the public and members and reduced road congestion and carbon emissions. It also saves the council money and enables those with caring responsibilities to attend when travelling a distance would have been an obstacle. It would therefore be beneficial to have the choice to continue to hold these remote meetings where appropriate, after the current temporary measures have lapsed.

Some Members may prefer meeting in person whilst acknowledging that remote meetings do have their place.

It is essential for Members to understand their obligations with regard to meeting attendance be it in person or online.

 The Council resolves to:

1. Write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) urging that the temporary change to the meeting rules set out in the Local Government Act 1972 be made permanent so that after May we have the flexibility to hold meetings remotely or in person or by using a combination of the two.
2. Write to Surrey’s Members of Parliament, as well as Surrey’s Borough, District, Town and Parish Councils asking for support for this flexible approach to council meetings.
3. Request that the members of the Audit and Governance Committee assess the pros and cons of holding remote/hybrid/in person meetings and make recommendations as appropriate to which Council/committee meetings must be held in person and which could continue to be held remotely.
4. Once our request is successful, to explore the use of technology to develop remote meetings in order to attract an even wider audience.

 

Item 8 (v)

 

Mr Chris Botten (Caterham Hill) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This Council notes that:

 

The economy of Surrey relies significantly on workers from the European Union (EU) in the care and health sectors, in construction and hospitality and other areas vital to our communities.

 

EU nationals from the 27 EU member states are part of our shared communities alongside United Kingdom (UK) citizens. They are our husbands, wives, partners, parents, friends, neighbours and colleagues.

This Council further notes that:

Since 2016 EU nationals have been promised again and again that "there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK and [they…] will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”.

Home Office figures (as of Dec 2020) reveal that 4,800 people in Surrey are still waiting for a decision on their Settled Status application.

27,320 people in Surrey have only been granted temporary ‘Pre-Settled Status’. That means a total of 32,120 applicants in Surrey have still not been given the permanent right to stay.

The Council resolves to:

I.              Recognise the valuable contribution EU citizens make to Surrey, acknowledging that they are an integral part of our community and without them the Council would struggle to deliver its services.

II.            Write to the Home Office and Surrey’s Members of Parliament urging them to grant EU citizens living locally the automatic right to stay in the UK.

Item 8 (i)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Dr Andrew Povey moved:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Given the number of residents volunteering during the current pandemic, Surrey County Council will build on this and the previous Government’s work on the Big Society.

 

It further recognises the importance of encouraging the ongoing volunteering by residents in a range of activities of benefit to our communities.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

             I.       Work with other public sector bodies to promote volunteering and its benefits.

            II.       Work with the voluntary, community and faith organisations and employers as an element of our ‘no-one left behind strategy’ to encourage volunteering.

           III.       Publicise the benefits of volunteering to the individual, society and our local communities.

 

Dr Povey made the following points:

 

·         That throughout the last challenging year people had come together, noting the volunteers that helped to deliver food, visited the isolated and helped the vulnerable as well as providing assistance to the vaccination programme. 

·         It was a good opportunity to build upon the one million plus people who had signed up for more formal volunteering roles with the NHS and other public bodies.

·         The motion sought to recognise and thank Surrey’s residents for their efforts as volunteers and hard work over the last year.

·         That it was vital to retain the community spirit generated through the pandemic for the future. The Government could not do everything in terms of looking after its citizens so volunteers played a crucial role.

·         There had been previous attempts nationally to encourage volunteering such as the Big Society. In November 2010 the Surrey Strategic Partnership hosted a Big Society conference and the conclusion was that Surrey already had its own Big Society through the significant amount of volunteering and community activity that already took place.

·         That looking to the future it would be good for the Council to build on the momentum gained through the pandemic by continuing to encourage residents to volunteer, which brought benefits to communities as well to the individual as it was character-building and helped those less fortunate.

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

 

·      That over the past year people had discovered the joys and fulfilment of volunteering with many first time volunteers learning a lot about their local community and themselves, whether working alone, in a team, part-time or full-time.

·      That in helping others, volunteers benefitted themselves, their health wellbeing and happiness. Volunteers could make new friends to combat isolation, acquire new skills, develop and advance employment opportunities, build their confidence and a sense of purpose, strengthen ties with the community which would improve neighbourhoods, broaden their support network by working with others with common interests and gain a new outlook on life and enhance causes important to them. 

·      In addition to supporting people as seen through the pandemic, there were an array of volunteering opportunities such as supporting theatres and museums, in heritage conservation, sports, faith groups and across neighbourhoods teaching skills to others.

·      That children learnt from their parents the benefits of volunteering.

·      That research had shown that adults with disabilities, health conditions, learning disabilities and conditions such as autism had shown improvement after volunteering.

·      Highlighted the Old Moat Garden Centre in Epsom run by the Richmond Fellowship Charity, which offered bespoke support to those with mental health issues through work-based therapies.

·      That more employers needed to see the benefits of volunteering, highlighting Surrey Choices’ EmployAbility programme, in which individuals were carefully matched to an employer.

·      That with the increase in agile working, volunteering would be a good way to increase engagement and tackle the isolation of working from home.

·      The Council must assist in every possible way to help people to help others and in so doing to help themselves.

 

Nine Members made the following points:

 

·      Thanked all those volunteers across the county that had offered their help and services and would do so after hearing the motion. Volunteering was rewarding both for the individual’s mental wellbeing and to the benefit of communities.

·      Noted that in Guildford and Waverley in the first fifty-two minutes of the vaccination programme roll out being announced, eight hundred and fifty volunteers stepped forward and there was a waiting list of volunteers in Runnymede.

·      Hoped that the surge in volunteering would continue, noting that the work in customer services for communities in libraries was about empowering communities. The Council was working to solidify its partnerships to strengthen the community spirit and resident’s empowerment.

·      Noted that the promotion of volunteering was not consistent with the recent history as it was not long ago that approximately eighty volunteers in total from Elmbridge, and Epsom and Ewell were dismissed by the Council from running a previous contract for carers which they had been running successfully and were trained to do so, the contract was awarded to a company with little previous carers experience.

·      Supported the motion, noting a life of voluntary service and in the first lockdown along with two other residents a cross-party initiative was established to encourage voluntary work and that generated over three thousand volunteers.

·      That the lockdowns had changed the demographics of volunteers as many elderly residents had to shield and that befriending services were invaluable.

·      Regarding a previous Member comment on volunteers having to queue due to the high demand to help with the vaccination programme, noted that more work needed to be done behind the scenes through customer relationship management software to coordinate the effort.

·      That although there was no shortage of volunteers in Britain, welcomed the motion as it encouraged more volunteers and praised the effort of the local Knaphill St Johns Brookwood Volunteers Group stood up in response to the pandemic and thanked the Council’s leadership and support of volunteers. 

·      Thanked all the volunteers across the county and it was important to recognise their service and to support them.

·      Noted the huge volunteering effort throughout the pandemic, but that going forward there were many that did not appreciate what places there were for volunteering.

·      Highlighted Voluntary Action Elmbridge and Voluntary Action services across Surrey and the country which registered organisations looking for volunteers, so it was vital to signpost residents to available services. 

·      Highlighted the contribution made by the governing bodies at Surrey’s schools; 94% of schools in Surrey were rated Good or Outstanding by Ofsted and Surrey in a recent survey was rated as the second-best place to live in the UK. The role of school governors was voluntary, they had a responsibility for making sure that schools were performing, early interventions and education were vital for children particularly vulnerable learners and so commended the work of school governors.

·      Noted the deprivation in their local division with many residents who did not feel that they could engage, however the challenge of the pandemic had driven an increase in the local voluntary sector which had been a positive experience as it helped with wellbeing, education and employment opportunities.

·      Noted a personal experience of volunteering which had been life-changing, encouraged residents to volunteer and thanked the Council for welcoming her over the past four years.

·      Welcomed those organisations which had a well-organised use of volunteers, noted however some organisations which needed to have more of an open mind regarding volunteering such as the police. Regarding Surrey Police he noted the use of volunteers including Special Constables - however they needed to be relatively fit alongside regular Police Constables - and Community Speed Watch - however the work was not followed through; and so called on Surrey Police to make better use of volunteers.

·      Echoed a previous Member comment on the greater use of software by the Council and support in terms of communications and advertising around the opportunities available.

·      Noted a personal volunteering experience over the past five years as an independent visitor with Croydon Council with a young person in care and had utilised social media to attract younger people to those roles.

·      That in order to keep the level of volunteers up, the Council needed a different approach, through utilising social media to attract younger people and more that could be done through the Surrey Youth Cabinet.

 

The Chairman asked Dr Povey, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·           Thanked all Members who had commented, noting the interesting suggestions and experiences of Members in terms of volunteering.

·           Welcomed the summary by the seconder on the benefits of volunteering.

·           Would look into the ideas raised in the discussion such as on the Surrey Youth Cabinet, on software and on Community Speed Watch - which he would take back to the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner as the Council’s representative on the Surrey Police and Crime Panel.

·           That there was always a role for volunteers, noting plenty of opportunities.

·           Hoped that the Council seized the opportunity with the momentum gained take the matter forward.

 

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

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Given the number of residents volunteering during the current pandemic, Surrey County Council will build on this and the previous Government’s work on the Big Society.

 

It further recognises the importance of encouraging the ongoing volunteering by residents in a range of activities of benefit to our communities.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

             I.       Work with other public sector bodies to promote volunteering and its benefits.

            II.       Work with the voluntary, community and faith organisations and employers as an element of our ‘no-one left behind strategy’ to encourage volunteering.

           III.       Publicise the benefits of volunteering to the individual, society and our local communities.

 

Item 8 (ii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Robert Evans moved:

 

This Council notes that:

 

It formally places on record its sincere thanks to all those workers, directly and indirectly employed by Surrey for their extraordinary efforts during the current COVID-19 crisis.

 

From the Council’s own dedicated employees to the hard-working teachers and other staff in schools, Surrey recognises that many people have worked very long hours, not just to continue their existing role but to diversify and innovate.

 

Health service staff are at the forefront of saving lives, but care home workers, the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and countless other people, including many communityvolunteers, are displaying remarkable courage in the face of great adversity and unforeseen challenges.

 

The Council resolves that:

 

I.   It hereby applauds and thanks each one for their remarkable contribution in this year of crisis.

 

Mr R Evans made the following points:

 

·         That the motion echoed the words of the Leader in his statement and built on the previous motion and Members’ comments.

·         That the motion was a formal statement from the Council that it sincerely appreciated and thanked all workers and public services in Surrey, including volunteers, for their extraordinary efforts during the Covid-19 crisis who kept the county and country going.

·         That the NHS had been saving lives daily so the 1% pay rise was disappointing.

·         Praised the community spirit witnessed in his division, noting the Local Conversation initiative which provided activities and support, faith and community groups, and Stanwell Events, the Stanwell Food Bank which had provided hundreds of meals with support from local companies.

·         That the motion thanked the scientists and the NHS which had excelled themselves with the vaccination programme.

·         That the motion thanked parents who had been home schooling and others who had simply looked in on their neighbours.

·         Hoped that the Council would be able to thank all workers in Surrey in some formal way once normality returned, in the meantime, that as a mark of the Council’s appreciation that the motion be passed. 

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Jonathan Essex, who made the following comments:

 

·         Was astounded from the start of the first lockdown by the increase in volunteering in Surrey’s communities, noting the surge in volunteers for a local volunteer centre with street support teams and food bank collection points set up, as well as the demand to crew vaccination centres and litter picking had become fashionable.

·         That just like the Big Society should not be a cover for austerity, those workers who put themselves at risk should be thanked highlighting a personal example. Staying local had highlighted those who we relied on the most such as teachers, recycling collectors, delivery drivers and the NHS.

·         That as local politicians, more than just declaring thanks was needed as Members were held accountable for their actions not just their words.

·         In supporting the motion, let the Council signal its desire for more than the 1% pay rise to NHS workers and signal its frustration in the repeated delays in putting social care on the stable footing that it deserved. To commit to change how the Council valued those whose jobs it was to care for Surrey’s most vulnerable in society going forward.

 

Ten Members made the following points:

 

·         Highlighted that Surrey Police and its officers were missed out so would like to add that group to the list, noting their continuous hard work.

·         Welcomed the proposer’s remarks particularly in relation to teachers, noting that the response of Surrey’s schools to the pandemic had been phenomenal and thanked Council officers for their support. Schools had stayed open to support the most vulnerable pupils, teachers and support staff had adapted to remote learning and had set up testing facilities to enable all pupils to return to their studies.

·         Thanked the proposer for highlighting the significant contribution made to Surrey's response to the pandemic by Surrey Fire and Rescue Service. Which as a key public protection service within the Community Protection Group it had been on the frontline ensuring that the impacts of the pandemic were lessened particularly for the most vulnerable.

·         Noted sincere thanks to SFRS for its outstanding work over the last year, its willingness to go above and beyond, and its unfailing commitment to protect and safeguard Surrey’s residents.

·         Added the Council’s thanks to the Surrey Local Resilience Forum (SLRF) chaired by SFRS’ Chief Fire Officer and led by the Chief Executive. The Forum brought together Council staff, the NHS, the Surrey Police, Surrey’s District and Borough Councils, SFRS, schools, volunteers, and the military who had collectively done a remarkable job in helping to protect residents.

·         That after sixteen years as a Member, paid tribute to the work of all the county’s officers during the last year and past years noted that enjoyment over the years as a Member had been made possible by the terrific effort of all officers.

·         Highlighted that it was World Social Work Day 2021 and so thanked all Surrey’s social workers who had continued to visit families face to face and provide personal care for older adults during the pandemic.

·         Noted that as Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families she and the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Public Health and Domestic Abuse had recorded a message for social workers online on Surrey Matters and that it would be good if Members could share that through social media channels as it would indicate the Council’s support.

·         Echoed the previous Member’s comments regarding World Social Work Day 2021, asking Members to join in celebrating the courage and resilience that many of Surrey’s frontline social workers had shown during the challenging time; thanking all frontline social workers and staff within Adult Social Care.

·         The Leader endorsed the motion noting that there was an endless list of people that deserved thanks and praise for their remarkable contributions.

·         That the motion as drafted should not be confused with the Member comments made in relation to the sensitive pay negotiations in relation to the 1% pay rise to NHS workers.

·         Highlighted that it was also Young Carers Action Day 2021, thanking the over 14,000 young carers in Surrey.

·         Urged all to visit the Action for Carers website: https://www.actionforcarers.org.uk, to see how Surrey’s young carers could be supported and how Members could get involved.

·         Noted no hesitation in supporting the motion, Members’ comments in support and thanked the proposer for the motion.

·         Welcomed the motion’s sentiment of paying tribute to the remarkable contribution made during the last year of crisis.

·         Noted the honour of being a Member for the last twelve years, and of being a Cabinet Member. Paid tribute to the actions of Chief Executive as well as the team of officers working behind her who were professional, had acted with alacrity and integrity, and worked in partnership with key services across the Council and the Surrey LRF to protect the most vulnerable in the county.

 

The Chairman asked Mr R Evans, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·         Thanked all the Members that had responded and welcomed the cross-party support and the Leader’s endorsement.

·         That although not explicitly mentioned in the motion he thanked Surrey Police and the Police Community Support Officers.

·         That as a school governor he recognised how all teachers had gone beyond the call of duty.

·         That he recognised the work of Surrey Fire and Rescue Service whose firefighters put themselves on the frontline.

·         Shared his thanks to the military and the SLRF.

·         Thanked the Cabinet Members for highlighting World Social Work Day and for the work done across Adult Social Care and Children’s Services.

·         Hoped that at some stage the Council could recognise the efforts undertaken in the last year during the pandemic.

·         That whether explicitly mentioned or not in the motion the thanks expressed encompassed all workers and volunteers at whatever level who helped during the last year and would continue to do so.

 

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

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes that:

 

It formally places on record its sincere thanks to all those workers, directly and indirectly employed by Surrey for their extraordinary efforts during the current COVID-19 crisis.

 

From the Council’s own dedicated employees to the hard-working teachers and other staff in schools, Surrey recognises that many people have worked very long hours, not just to continue their existing role but to diversify and innovate.

 

Health service staff are at the forefront of saving lives, but care home workers, the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and countless other people, including many community volunteers, are displaying remarkable courage in the face of great adversity and unforeseen challenges.

 

The Council resolves that:

 

I.   It hereby applauds and thanks each one for their remarkable contribution in this year of crisis.

 

Item 8 (iii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Matt Furniss moved:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Following the last Council meeting, I wrote to the Mayor of London on behalf of this Council to express our strong feelings against the proposed new Greater London Boundary Charge that would penalise Surrey and other counties’ residents bordering London.

 

London is not an island and must take into consideration the impact on its neighbours. Surrey County Council and the Mayor of London need to work together to tackle congestion, to move toward net zero carbon and to enhance the prosperity of the region by working together.

 

However, it is clear from the response that Transport for London (TfL) is initially looking at a £3.50 daily charge, with a possible higher charge (£5.50) for the most polluting vehicles.

 

This charge would impact between 57,000 and 61,000 residents on a typical working day based on 2011 and 2019 data. Whilst this levy, as the Mayor’s Office says, could be earmarked to support sustainable travel in boundary borough, there is no mention that this money would be invested in cross-border improvements.

 

Surrey residents and taxpayers have already bailed out London’s TfL for the second time through the Government’s generous settlements in 2020. Surrey and other bordering counties’ residents should not have to bear extra financial penalties for the London Mayor’s mismanagement of TfL’s finances.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

I.     Oppose any Greater London Boundary Charge or charge on entering London to work that targets non-London residents.

 

Mr Furniss made the following points:

 

·         Following February’s Council meeting, he wrote to the Mayor of London for confirmation on whether he was considering a Greater London Boundary Charge, following suggestions from several media reports.

·         That the correspondences with the Mayor's office were less than positive, highlighting the lack of cross-border working and the London-centric attitude.

·         That he had sought the Mayor’s reassurance to the Council that Surrey’s businesses and our residents that the boundary charge was not a serious or active proposition which would impact potentially more than 61,000 Surrey residents on the typical working day travelling across the border.

·         Called for greater cooperation by the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) to improve sustainable transport in and out of London, Surrey remained committed to working with TfL as a key partner to tackle congestion in the move forward to net zero carbon.

·         Opposed any Greater London Boundary Charge or any charge to enter London to work that targeted non-London residents as Surrey and other bordering counties’ residents should not have to bear extra financial penalties for the London Mayor’s mismanagement of TfL’s finances.

 

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

 

·         Noted concern about the proposal for the Greater London Boundary Charge particularly for those Surrey boroughs that bordered London as a considerable portion of the working population and residents were reliant on services crossing into London.

·         That the proposed charge showed no cooperation between London and the counties impacted, there was no suggestion of any of potential funds being distributed to mitigate the negative impact faced by Surrey’s residents.

·         That business owners, professions and services that depended on road vehicles crossing the border would be adversely affected.

·         Noted that taxpayers had already bailed out TfL twice, to the tune of at least £3.4 billion, and the proposed Greater London Boundary Charge was an ill-conceived quick fix in the absence of a clear and workable strategy would never be justified.

·         That in the midst of the pandemic the Mayor of London was asking the residents of Surrey and the bordering counties for funding to mitigate the Mayor’s failed policies and mismanagement of TfL.

 

Mr Jonathan Essex moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda (15 March 2021), which was formally seconded by Mr Robert Evans.

 

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

This Council notes that:

Following the last Council meeting, I wrote to the Mayor of London on behalf of this Council to express our strong feelings against the proposed new Greater London Boundary Charge that would penalise Surrey and other counties’ residents bordering London.

There are many TfL bus routes serving parts of Surrey and the Government this week announced funding for bus lanes and measures to encourage the increased use of public transport.

 

Surrey County Council's Climate Change Strategy commits that greenhouse gas emissions from Surrey should be reduced by two thirds by 2030 and to zero by 2050.

London is not an island and must take into consideration the impact on its neighbours. Surrey County Council and the Mayor of London need to work together to tackle congestion, to move toward net zero carbon and to enhance the prosperity of the region by working together.

However, it is clear from the response that Transport for London (TfL) is initially looking at a £3.50 daily charge, with a possible higher charge (£5.50) for the most polluting vehicles.

This charge would impact between 57,000 and 61,000 residents on a typical working day based on 2011 and 2019 data. Whilst this levy, as the Mayor’s Office says, could be earmarked to support sustainable travel in boundary borough, there is no mention that this money would be invested in cross-border improvements.

Surrey residents and taxpayers have already bailed out London’s TfL for the second time through the Government’s generous settlements in 2020. Surrey and other bordering counties’ residents should not have to bear extra financial penalties for the London Mayor’s mismanagement of TfL’s finances.

The Council resolves to:

          I.       Oppose any Greater London Boundary Charge or charge on entering London to work that targets non-London residents.

 

I.       Urge the Government to provide long-term sustainable financial support to TfL and encourage whoever is elected Mayor in 2021 to work closely with Surrey County Council to make public transport a more economically viable option in Surrey, just as it is in London, and additionally, to ensure any new charges are mutually beneficial to London and Surrey.

 

Mr Essex spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

 

·         That the amendment ensured that the motion reflected the challenge of improving public transport between London and Surrey.

·         That the motion encouraged private car journeys, whilst the amendment ensured that the motion matched the Council’s commitment to addressing climate change in-keeping with Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy which was committed to a 67% reduction in transport emissions by 2030.

·         That the amendment included reference to TfL’s bus routes travelling into and out of Surrey, and such proposals by the Mayor of London would fund bus lanes and public transport in the absence of money during the pandemic or from Government.

·         That the amendment clarified that a new direction of travel was needed, including policies and incentives that reduced the need to travel and encouraged staying locally as well as electrifying public transport.

·         Emphasised that investment was needed to deliver such changes regarding reducing congestion, improving road safety and air quality, noting that air quality action areas still existed in many parts of Surrey.

·         That the amendment was intended to be constructive, calling on the future leadership of Surrey and London to work together.

 

The amendment was formally seconded by Mr R Evans, who made the following comments:

 

·         That the amendment both strengthened and updated the motion by removing inaccuracies and ambiguities in order to ensure honesty with Surrey’s residents.

·         Contrary to the wording of the motion, the Council had not taken a position on the Greater London Boundary Charge and asked whether the Cabinet Member for Highways could publish his correspondence with TfL and the Mayor of London’s office.

·         That TfL bus routes cross-border between Surrey and London benefitted passengers.

·         That Surrey taxpayers had not bailed out London, Surrey benefitted from London services and the subsidies were financed from the whole country via the Government as fare revenue made up 70% of TfL funding. 

·         Questioned whether the Cabinet Member for Highways or Members had read the Mayor of London and TfL’s Financial Sustainability Plan - 11 January 2021, which stated that passenger numbers were down 95% in the first lockdown, costs had risen as buses had to be adapted with more staff needed and Personal Protective Equipment. The Government had contributed over £3 billion in emergency funding for TfL, noting certain conditions such as the suspension of concessionary fares for schoolchildren and over 60s.

·         That the Leader noted earlier that no one should be left behind, but it was not the Mayor of London nor TfL who would make that decision, noting that a future motion on the issue be directed towards the Secretary of State for Transport and that all political parties write to the Government regarding fair funding.

·         That there were hundreds of stations in Surrey and many rail lines leading into London, the Prime Minister yesterday encouraged more people to use buses.

·         That the motion ignored the fact that there was an election for Mayor of London on 6 May 2021, it gave the impression that the result was a foregone conclusion, which the amendment rectified.

 

Mr Furniss did not accept the amendment and he made the following comments:

 

·           Noted that the London-centric attitude had been clear throughout the correspondence with the Mayor of London’s office which was also asking the Secretary of State for Transport to devolve vehicle Excise Duty to London.

·           That there should be cross-border working for the benefit of all, rather than putting up a wall around London and penalising anyone who crossed over whether it was for personal, business, or medical reasons; particularly during the pandemic. 

·           That more sustainable transport should be prioritised rather than introducing the Greater London Boundary Charge.

 

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

 

·         Was in favour of reducing emissions and greater cooperation between all interested parties but noted the unintended consequences of the amendment. 

·         Challenged the practicalities of calling for an increased use of public transport such as buses; noting the difficulties in distance travelling.

·         That the Greater London Boundary Charge was a threat to businesses which relied on cross-border travel, would redirect residents on the London border to further local recycling centres which may increase carbon emissions, and would penalise those residents attending Kingston Hospital.

·         Opposed the amendment so as not to support Surrey’s residents funding the Greater London strategy, whilst in relation to the original motion noted that their division bordered Greater London so many residents travelled into London daily for work, school pick-ups, shopping and going to the doctors and the Council must continue to put pressure on the Mayor of London’s office to object to the selfish proposition and to push for clarity for residents.

·         That it diluted the original motion by focussing on divergent issues around public transport and utilising bus lanes.

·         Supported the principle of the amendment which was about requesting long-term financial support for more sustainable transport.

·         Noted concern that in order for Surrey to reach its target of a 46% drop in CO₂ emissions by 2025, innovative thinking was vital, it was a good opportunity during Covid-19 recovery to assess how travel had changed.

·         Supported the amendment as stressed that the business as usual concept was not possible if the Council was ever going to address the declared climate emergency.

·         Opposed the amendment as the Mayor of London and TfL did not understand the amount of cross-border traffic into London, noting divisional examples of travel into London for medical, education, work purposes.

·         That TfL may run buses in Surrey but they have had a policy in recent years of demanding money from Surrey to fund them, TfL was in financial difficulty but some of its troubles were down to its mismanagement.

·         The proposed charge needed to be opposed and a pan-regional approach was needed rather than a London-first approach.

·         Noted a divisional example of a borough bordering Greater London and that local residents were opposed to the Mayor of London’s proposal. Whilst sharing the objectives to reduce emissions, that must be done in a planned manner, rather than a knee jerk reaction which would potentially impact those who could least afford it.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Essex, as proposer of the amendment to conclude the debate:

 

·       Noted that he had no further comments to add.

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 10 Members voting For, 61 voting Against and 2 Abstentions.

 

Therefore the amendment was lost.

 

Returning to the substantive motion, nine Members made the following comments:

 

·           Noted that TfL had many years to work more closely with Surrey but repeatedly had acted in an isolationist way, noting no consideration by TfL of the charge in relation to cross-border travel and discussions over the new Epsom and St Helier Hospital serving the residents of north Surrey and south London.

·           That a robust partnership was needed as well as the Council ensuring that it set out what was needed for Surrey’s residents.

·           Noted a divisional example highlighting the use of Kingston Hospital by Epsom and Ewell residents as well as the shopping facilities in Kingston. Suggested that the charge worked both ways, from London into Surrey noting the cross-border travel and use of Chessington Road.

·           That the charge was the wrong way to plug the gap in TfL's budget, noting divisional examples in which there was not an adequate supply of buses going into and out of it from London and that the new Epsom and St Helier Hospital at Sutton would be costly to Surrey’s residents if the charge would be brought in.

·           Noted that the proposed charge was absurd, due to the extensive cross-border travel and that the charge would impose a hard border.

·           That cross-border travel was a daily occurrence, highlighting the importance of opposing the charge which was potentially a forerunner of sweeping a large part of north Surrey into Greater London area by extending the London boroughs right out to the M25.

·           That the proposed charge was an idea stemming from the London Congestion Charge but was misleading to compare it as the Congestion Charge was intended to reduce the amount of traffic into London and was successful as it was served well by public transport links.

·           Whilst the proposed charge was a revenue raising exercise which would affect many thousands if not millions of people bordering or travelling into London for work, shopping and leisure facilities; and would backfire on London creating enormous chaos and inconvenience.

·           Noted surprise regarding contributions from Members who had not read the Mayor of London and TfL’s Financial Sustainability Plan - 11 January 2021 nor understood the amendment, reiterating the earlier point that if Surrey wanted to have an impact on what was decided by whoever would be Mayor of London following the elections, Surrey had to work with them.

·         That the proposed charge was not a decision for the Mayor of London but for the Secretary of State for Transport, noting pages 99-100 of the Mayor of London and TfL’s Financial Sustainability Plan - 11 January 2021 which detailed the exemptions and proposed charge.

·         Noted opposition to the proposed charge, which referred to daily cross-border traffic as opposed to occasional travel.

·         That the vehicle Excise Duty as an alternative system of funding was opposed by the proposer of the motion, but that was a proposal from the previous Mayor of London, now Prime Minister and was supported by all of Surrey’s political parties.

·         That the motion highlighted the ineptitude of the current Mayor of London, lack of collaborative working and financial mismanagement; opposed the proposed charge in order to protect Surrey’s residents and businesses.

·         That having written to the Cabinet Member for Highways in January highlighting the issues that would affect his local division noting several busy roads travelling between Surrey and London; the response was to wait and see, and his offer to work with the Cabinet Member on the issue had been ignored.

·         Welcomed the motion but noted that it did not go far enough, noting that in his correspondence to the Cabinet Member he indicated that if TfL was to introduce the proposed charge, then Surrey should do the same in order to compensate for the lack of funding for its highways.

·         Noted a divisional example in which Surrey residents down the road from Sutton in Greater London would face the proposed charge, which was sabre-rattling between the Mayor of London and Government with Surrey’s residents being caught in the middle.

·         Sought assurance from the Cabinet Member for Highways that in the absence of countermeasures to the proposed charge, that the Council was prepared to do whatever was necessary to protect Surrey residents and would call upon the eleven Surrey MP's to support their constituents.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Furniss, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·         Thanked Members for their contributions to the debate noting that it was vital to protect Surrey’s residents from unfair charges. 

·         That irrespective of the future Mayor of London and upcoming elections, the Council needed to make a firm stance that it did not support a charge that targeted non-London residents in order to bailout TfL’s failing finances and compensate for the lack of Government funding.

·         That Surrey’s MPs had been written to since February’s Council, he was happy to share the initial correspondence with the Mayor of London, response and subsequent letter with all Members.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 66 Members voting For, 2 voting Against and 4 Abstentions.

 

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Following the last Council meeting, I wrote to the Mayor of London on behalf of this Council to express our strong feelings against the proposed new Greater London Boundary Charge that would penalise Surrey and other counties’ residents bordering London.

 

London is not an island and must take into consideration the impact on its neighbours. Surrey County Council and the Mayor of London need to work together to tackle congestion, to move toward net zero carbon and to enhance the prosperity of the region by working together.

 

However, it is clear from the response that Transport for London (TfL) is initially looking at a £3.50 daily charge, with a possible higher charge (£5.50) for the most polluting vehicles.

 

This charge would impact between 57,000 and 61,000 residents on a typical working day based on 2011 and 2019 data. Whilst this levy, as the Mayor’s Office says, could be earmarked to support sustainable travel in boundary borough, there is no mention that this money would be invested in cross-border improvements.

 

Surrey residents and taxpayers have already bailed out London’s TfL for the second time through the Government’s generous settlements in 2020. Surrey and other bordering counties’ residents should not have to bear extra financial penalties for the London Mayor’s mismanagement of TfL’s finances.

 

The Council resolves to:

 

I.     Oppose any Greater London Boundary Charge or charge on entering London to work that targets non-London residents.

 

Item 8 (iv)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Will Forster moved:

 

This Council notes that:

The shift to Microsoft Teams meetings has enabled Council business to continue during the pandemic and that Members and staff have adapted admirably to this change in practice.

There are some definite advantages to holding remote meetings such as increased participation from the public and members and reduced road congestion and carbon emissions. It also saves the council money and enables those with caring responsibilities to attend when travelling a distance would have been an obstacle. It would therefore be beneficial to have the choice to continue to hold these remote meetings where appropriate, after the current temporary measures have lapsed.

Some Members may prefer meeting in person whilst acknowledging that remote meetings do have their place.

It is essential for Members to understand their obligations with regard to meeting attendance be it in person or online.

The Council resolves to:

          I.       Write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) urging that the temporary change to the meeting rules set out in the Local Government Act 1972 be made permanent so that after May we have the flexibility to hold meetings remotely or in person or by using a combination of the two.

         II.       Write to Surrey’s Members of Parliament, as well as Surrey’s Borough, District, Town and Parish Councils asking for support for this flexible approach to council meetings.

        III.       Request that the members of the Audit and Governance Committee assess the pros and cons of holding remote/hybrid/in person meetings and make recommendations as appropriate to which Council/committee meetings must be held in person and which could continue to be held remotely.

       IV.       Once our request is successful, to explore the use of technology to develop remote meetings in order to attract an even wider audience.

 

Mr Forster made the following points:

 

·         That the motion called on the Council to lobby the Government to extend local authorities’ powers to hold remote meetings both in the short-term post 7 May and also into the long-term after the pandemic.

·         That it was frustrating that the Government seemed reluctant to extend remote meetings often citing the lack of parliamentary and ministerial time; hoped that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would review the matter urgently. 

·         That the flexibility to hold remote meetings brought advantages such as the £2 million reduction in Member expenses over the last year, reducing travel also reduced congestion on Surrey’s roads and carbon emissions, Member and public engagement in meetings had increased.

·         That should there be an extension to the powers granted under legislation, the Audit and Governance Committee would lead on agreeing which meetings should be remote, in person, or hybrid.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Angela Goodwin, who reserved the right to speak.

 

Eight Members made the following points:

 

·         Noted that there was a huge loss in terms of getting a feel for a committee and for interactions with colleagues as well as officers; remote meetings were useful for smaller meetings such as working groups.

·         Noted the difficulties of remote meetings including technical limitations, that 200,000 residents in Surrey were digitally excluded and cost of IT equipment.

·         Supported the motion because it included a resolution for the Audit and Governance Committee making recommendations as to which Council or committee meetings could be held in person or remotely.

·         The Leader reassured the proposer noting that he along with many other council leaders across the country had raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government through the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network.

·         Highlighted support for resolution point I in that the Council would urge the Government to continue with the temporary change to the meeting rules, in order to have the flexibility to hold meetings remotely, in person, or using a combination of the two.

·         Urged that the Audit and Governance Committee take into account the work the Chief Executive and officers were doing in relation to the Remote Meetings Protocol as further guidance around virtual meetings would be useful - such as not setting up back to back meetings - and recognising  concerns expressed by staff around hybrid meetings which potentially disadvantaged those attending a meeting remotely. 

·         That although the motion called for greater flexibility, noted unease against the blanket use of remote meetings going forward.

·         That although remote meetings saved time and travel, the key disadvantage regarded the difficulty in interacting with Members and officers.

·         Noted actions already underway by the Council for example regarding flexibility, that was reflected in the Council’s agile working principles. 

·         That emerging from lockdown, it was a good opportunity for the Council’s refinement of the Remote Meetings Protocol and that it was important that Council refer future considerations directly to Members via the Audit and Governance Committee.

·         That in a short space of time over the course of the pandemic, the Council had progressed for the better, noting the ease of public participation and increase as well as Member participation.

·         That it was vital to have the flexibility of hybrid meetings, noting the importance of inclusivity for both Members and residents. Adding that it would enable more prospective councillors to step forward who were previously prevented from being Members.

·         Supported greater flexibility through remote and hybrid meetings as it allowed the continued participation for those Members elsewhere in the country or abroad, or with health problems noting the increased attendance at remote meetings. 

·         Welcomed the flexibility to hold meetings remotely, in person or a hybrid between the two and that a downside of remote meetings was the lengthy voting system compared to voting in person.

·         Echoed the importance of inclusivity as hybrid meetings enabled a whole new portfolio of prospective councillors to become Members including those working or who were parents.

 

Mrs Goodwin, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

 

·         Noted the variety of Member comments most of which had been in favour of the motion and commended the motion.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Forster, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·           Thanked Members for the broadly supportive comments and experiences shared.

·           Concerning meetings with perspective councillors, noted that remote meetings enabled greater inclusivity as Members could engage fully whilst undertaking caring responsibilities, looking after children and working.

·           That following agreement and continued flexibility granted by the Government, the Audit and Governance Committee’s monitoring of the Remote Meetings Protocol would be useful.

 

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

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes that:

The shift to Microsoft Teams meetings has enabled Council business to continue during the pandemic and that Members and staff have adapted admirably to this change in practice.

There are some definite advantages to holding remote meetings such as increased participation from the public and members and reduced road congestion and carbon emissions. It also saves the council money and enables those with caring responsibilities to attend when travelling a distance would have been an obstacle. It would therefore be beneficial to have the choice to continue to hold these remote meetings where appropriate, after the current temporary measures have lapsed.

Some Members may prefer meeting in person whilst acknowledging that remote meetings do have their place.

It is essential for Members to understand their obligations with regard to meeting attendance be it in person or online.

The Council resolves to:

          I.       Write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) urging that the temporary change to the meeting rules set out in the Local Government Act 1972 be made permanent so that after May we have the flexibility to hold meetings remotely or in person or by using a combination of the two.

         II.       Write to Surrey’s Members of Parliament, as well as Surrey’s Borough, District, Town and Parish Councils asking for support for this flexible approach to council meetings.

        III.       Request that the members of the Audit and Governance Committee assess the pros and cons of holding remote/hybrid/in person meetings and make recommendations as appropriate to which Council/committee meetings must be held in person and which could continue to be held remotely.

       IV.       Once our request is successful, to explore the use of technology to develop remote meetings in order to attract an even wider audience.

 

Item 8 (v)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Leader of the Council, Mr Tim Oliver, moved a proposal. The proposal was as follows: 

 

That the motion below by Mr Chris Botten be referred to the Cabinet for more detailed consideration.

 

This Council notes that:

 

The economy of Surrey relies significantly on workers from the European Union (EU) in the care and health sectors, in construction and hospitality and other areas vital to our communities.

 

EU nationals from the 27 EU member states are part of our shared communities alongside United Kingdom (UK) citizens. They are our husbands, wives, partners, parents, friends, neighbours and colleagues.

 

This Council further notes that:

Since 2016 EU nationals have been promised again and again that "there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK and [they…] will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”.

Home Office figures (as of Dec 2020) reveal that 4,800 people in Surrey are still waiting for a decision on their Settled Status application.

27,320 people in Surrey have only been granted temporary ‘Pre-Settled Status’. That means a total of 32,120 applicants in Surrey have still not been given the permanent right to stay.

The Council resolves to:

I.    Recognise the valuable contribution EU citizens make to Surrey, acknowledging that they are an integral part of our community and without them the Council would struggle to deliver its services.

II.   Write to the Home Office and Surrey’s Members of Parliament urging them to grant EU citizens living locally the automatic right to stay in the UK.

 

In speaking to his proposal the Leader of the Council:

 

·           Noted that the Council recognised the valuable contribution that European Union (EU) citizens made to the United Kingdom and Surrey.

·           Noted that there were approximately 4.6 million people who had been granted the right to remain in the UK post Brexit under the EU Settlement Scheme and those applications were being progressed.

·           Noted that of those 4.6 million people, 2.5 million people had been being granted permanent leave to remain, 2 million had been granted pre-settled status and only 3% were refused, withdrawn, voided or invalid.

·           Noted that it would be helpful for Members to have more detail on the matter to understand whether there were difficulties for Surrey residents on their settled status applications.

·           That the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration recently urged people to apply to receive the status they deserved in UK law; the Government was supportive of EU citizens seeking settled status with support available seven days a week on the phone and by email, as well as seventy-two grant funded organisations across the UK to help EU citizens with their applications.

·           Noted that applications for settled status must be submitted by 30 June 2021.

 

Mr Chris Botten agreed to the referral of the motion.

 

The proposal to refer the motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.

 

Therefore it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the motion be referred to the Cabinet.