Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Meeting of Council, Tuesday, 13 July 2021 10.00 am (Item 50/21)
Share this item

Item 8 (i)

Eber Kington (Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

This Council notes that:

Following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard on the evening of 3 March 2021, ensuring the right to feel safe walking our streets at night has become a major requirement for political action across the country.

Women have made their voices heard, and too many of them express the view that they do not feel safe walking alone in public places.

Speaking in March, Dame Cressida Dick, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said, “Right now, 80% of women report being harassed in public spaces, but 90% of them don't bother reporting it because they don't think anything will happen if they do."

The immediate Government response to Sarah’s murder included an additional £25 million to councils around the country to help enhance street lighting in areas of poor illumination, as well as improving CCTV coverage.

The issue of feeling safe at night has also been raised by Surrey residents who are night-time workers, late night commuters out of London, those attending late night music venues, and those walking home after meeting family and friends.

This Council further notes that:

Surrey County Council has a policy that sees Surrey streetlights switched off at night, at a time when the political debate and majority opinion is clearly calling for streetlighting to be improved as one of the positive moves that can be taken towards residents feeling safe in our streets.

Surrey County Council is investing £19.9 million over a 3-year period to convert all Surrey’s streetlights to LED, with a target saving of £2 million a year.

In light of the factors listed above, this Council calls upon to the Cabinet:

I. To make a commitment to end the streetlight switch-off as soon as is practicable, but as a matter of urgency.

II. To fund the additional costs out of the £2 million saving on the switch to LED streetlights.

Item 8 (ii)

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

This Council notes that:

In Boris Johnson’s first speech as Prime Minister in July 2019, he promised to fix the crisis in social care once and for all “with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”

This Council also notes that:

In October 2019 it unanimously passed a motion proposed by Lib Democrat Members that spoke to the situation in Surrey:

“With concern that, owing to Government policy, Surrey residents who pay for their own elderly care significantly subsidise the residents who rely on County to pay for their care. This is a result of an unjust and inequitable funding regime which is itself a result?of inadequate government funding.”

With the corresponding resolution (I.):

“This council accordingly calls on the government to bring forward urgently a sustainable solution so that councils can restore equity and enable a sustainable market for social care provision in Surrey and across the country.”

This Council further notes that:

In the absence of the promised plan, leaders of social care organisations from across the country recently wrote to the Prime minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to urge the Government to act now on reform of England’s social care system and publish its proposals before the summer recess.

This Council resolves to:

Express its disappointment that despite repeated promises, no proposals have as yet been brought forward; and

II. To robustly renew its call for a sustainable solution to the funding of adult social care and write to the Government and Surrey’s Members of Parliament urging them to honour their promise to urgently tackle this long-term crisis, which leaves many vulnerable residents without the support they need whilst others face catastrophic costs.

Minutes:

Item 8 (i)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Eber Kington moved:

This Council notes that:

· Following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard on the evening of 3 March 2021, ensuring the right to feel safe walking our streets at night has become a major requirement for political action across the country.

· Women have made their voices heard, and too many of them express the view that they do not feel safe walking alone in public places.

· Speaking in March, Dame Cressida Dick, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said, “Right now, 80% of women report being harassed in public spaces, but 90% of them don't bother reporting it because they don't think anything will happen if they do."

This Council further notes that:

· Surrey County Council has a policy that sees Surrey streetlights switched off at night, at a time when the political debate and majority opinion is clearly calling for streetlighting to be improved as one of the positive moves that can be taken towards residents feeling safe in our streets.

· Surrey County Council is investing £19.9 million over a 3-year period to convert all Surrey’s streetlights to LED, with a target saving of £2 million a year.

In light of the factors listed above, this Council calls upon to the Cabinet:

I. To make a commitment to end the streetlight switch-off as soon as is practicable, but as a matter of urgency.

II. To fund the additional costs out of the £2 million saving on the switch to LED streetlights.

Eber Kington made the following points:

· Noted the failure by the Council’s administration to put forward a speaker to defend its part-night lighting policy on BBC Radio Surrey, instead providing a statement.

· That it had taken tragic events to highlight the injustices and fears faced by many and for their voices to be heard to inspire national and international action; noting the political and social movements following the sexual abuse cases brought against Harvey Weinstein - #MeToo - and murders of George Floyd - Black Lives Matter - and Sarah Everard - Reclaim These Streets.

· That the right to feel safe on the streets had become a major requirement for action by the Government providing an additional £25 million for councils to enhance street lighting and improve CCTV, the Metropolitan Police deployed twenty-five female neighbourhood officers in Lambeth and Southwark to hear the common concerns of women.

· Noted national action to address the issue of better street lighting and disappointment with the Council’s response to switch street lights back on if Surrey Police requested it, as opposed to residents’ requests.

· That 87% of women at some point in their lives did not feel safe at night and wanted those in power to respond and take action.

· Noted the Council’s outdated policy and inactive approach on street lighting launched in 2016 which did not address the fears of many, compared to national action through the Safer Streets Fund.

· That the Council was currently spending £3.5 million on energy use, by converting to light-emitting diode (LED) street lighting 60% less energy would be used so saving £2 million annually also reducing light pollution.

· That the cost of keeping all the street lights on all night in Surrey once converted to LED would be £113,000, a small sum towards safer streets.

· Recognised that improved street lighting alone would not result in safer streets, physical changes such as moving bus stops were also important, but such changes were worthless if men’s attitudes did not change.

· That whilst he could not speak on behalf of women’s direct experiences, such experiences were all too common to be ignored - it was vital to support policy decisions and actions that would lead to change.

· That support of the motion would signal the Council’s acknowledgement of the voices calling for safer streets and it would end the part-night lighting policy.

The motion was formally seconded by Catherine Powell, who made the following comments:

· Emphasised that all residents had the right to feel safe so that their emotions and behaviours led them to thrive rather than survive.

· Highlighted that not all incidents of sexual harassment were reported to the police, an investigation by UN Women UK found that 97% of women aged 18-24 years had been sexually harassed and a further 96% did not report those incidents because of the belief that nothing would change.

· That the Council was working towards empowering communities, to address inequalities and improve health and wellbeing; and so all had a right to feel safe when walking the streets, yet most women felt unsafe when walking home at night when street lights were switched off.

· That there had been little improvement to women’s feeling of safety in the last thirty years, noting sadness in needing to share advice on key holding for self-defence to her daughters.

· Reiterated the small cost to the Council of £113,000 to keep the street lights switched on all night - once converted to LED Surrey-wide.

· Recognised the need to address climate change and the issues caused by light pollution but noted that the mental and wellbeing of young women was paramount.

· Urged the Council to support the motion to stand up for the silent majority and to build thriving and unfearful communities.

Catherine Baart moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda (12 July 2021), which was formally seconded by Robert King.

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

This Council notes that:

· Wwomen have made their voices heard, and too many of them express the view that they do not feel safe walking alone in public places. Speaking in March, Dame Cressida Dick, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said, “Right now, 80% of women report being harassed in public spaces, but 90% of them don't bother reporting it because they don't think anything will happen if they do."

· The immediate Government response to Sarah’s murder included an additional £25 million to councils around the country to fund innovative and creative proposals to improve the safety of public spaces including improving ~~help enhance~~ street lighting ~~in areas of poor illumination, as well as improving~~ and CCTV coverage, education and awareness raising (Safer Streets Fund Round 3 – Protecting Public Spaces Guidance for Bidders, June 2021).

· The issue of feeling safe at night has also been raised by Surrey residents who are night-time workers, late night commuters out of London, those attending late night music venues, and those walking home after meeting family and friends. In contrast, light pollution is widely recognised as having impacts on both sleep patterns and on nature.

· Further investigation into what makes everyone safer in all streets at night as well as at specific locations is warranted.

· Surrey’s street lights can now be turned on and off individually, and as they are LED lights are now able to be dimmed to lower lighting levels than before, and could be activated using motion sensors, as successfully trialled elsewhere.

This Council further notes that:

· Surrey County Council is investing £19.9 million over a 3-year period to convert all Surrey’s streetlights to LED, with a target saving of £2 million and 7,700 tonnes of carbon emissions ayear,as agreed in the 2021/22 budget and medium term financial strategy.

In light of the factors listed above, this Council calls upon to the Cabinet:

I. To make a commitment to end the streetlight switch-off as soon as is practicable, but as a matter of urgency,by making full use of the LED street light technology available to have selected lights back on, with a range of brightness settings.

~~II. To fund the additional costs out of the £2 million saving on the switch to LED streetlights.~~

II. To set out how changes to streetlight settings can be targeted in areas with higher of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and areas of higher public safety need, in line with the guidance for the Safer Streets Fund, through engagement with residents and the police.

Catherine Baart spoke to her amendment, making the following points:

· That in her direct experience men who decide to harass women do not wait to night-time or darkness, instead they were influenced by others around them likely to intervene.

· Stressed that solely switching all street lights back on all the time would not make both women and men feel safe, awareness raising and education about behaviours to help others feel safe on the streets at night was vital.

· That it was important to acknowledge the disadvantages to having street lights on all night including light pollution, harming sleep and nocturnal wildlife.

· That when deciding to alter levels of illumination the Council should listen to its residents and acknowledge that crime data held by Surrey Police did not always reflect residents’ feelings of safety, often harassment incidents were not reported.

· That active travel at night would help people’s feeling of safety and the new LED street light technology should be used intelligently and flexibly.

The amendment was formally seconded by Robert King, who reserved his right to speak.

Mark Nuti left the meeting at 12.00 pm

Eber Kington did not accept the amendment and therefore the amendment was open for debate.

Four Members made the following comments on the amendment:

· Expressed concern on the fourth bullet point concerning light pollution as a counter to the motion, noting a past experience where conventional street lighting was shown to be adjustable in its direction and voltage; and questioned whether that was the case with LED street lighting.

· Noted that not feeling safe walking the streets at night-time was applicable also to children.

· Stressed that crucial to the debate was both the feeling and perception of safety. Referring to LED street lights, queried whether they would ‘be activated using motion sensors’ in the additional sixth bullet point.

· That in the second resolution, noted the omission of the word ‘levels’ in the sentence ‘higher […] of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG)’ and that it was wrong to suggest that there could be a justifiable level of violence.

· That in the second resolution it was incorrect to target ‘areas of higher public safety need’, referred again to the feeling and perception of safety.

· Agreed with the proposer of the original motion that street lighting was not the sole action to remedy public safety at night, a culture was needed in which people felt safe and able to report incidents to the police.

· Stressed that continuing to work closely with Surrey Police was crucial and the original motion and first amendment did not go far enough in its collaboration, it was vital to ensure that the Surrey Police and Crime Panel was raising the issue of public safety with the PCC.

· Had sympathy with the amendment which recognised the importance of education in schools on personal safety for all, rather than instilling fear such as holding keys as a weapon.

· That it was crucial to stop the inherited fear of the dark.

· That when the Council first implemented its policy on switching off some street lights between 1am - 5am back in 2016, Members were asked on which roads street lights should remain on and noted that all twenty-eight requests in her division from residents were upheld and that option remained available.

Eber Kington noted the following comments in response to not accepting the amendment:

· That it was not possible to agree a compromise between the motion and amendment as the national debate was centred on both the feeling and perception of safety particularly by women on the streets at night-time.

· That the amendment ran a risk inherent in the current policy which allowed the politicians and police to determine what was right for residents regardless of their own perceptions.

· That it was important that people expressed their own experiences.

· Reiterated the call for change by the motion by recognising the 80% of women who did not feel safe at night or at some point in their lives in public spaces and the 96% of women who did not report such incidents.

· That the focus must not be on educating women not to fear, questioning why men could not be educated so their actions do not lead to women feeling unsafe.

· Questioned the deletion in the first bullet point on ‘ensuring the right to feel safe walking our streets at night has become a major requirement for political action across the country’.

· That the addition in the first resolution on switching on ‘selected lights’ fell into the trap of current policy making decisions before looking at the evidence.

· Questioned how the second resolution could be supported regarding targeting changes to street light settings in areas of higher violence levels.

Robert King, the seconder of the amendment, made the following comments:

· Noted that due to his on gender and age he had different experiences to women and other individuals of a different age.

· Noted that whilst the concerns by women, shift workers and NHS workers in his division who did not feel safe on the streets at night were not solely related to street lighting, it played an important role in relation to CCTV cameras.

· That the Council must not shirk its responsibility over public safety, recognising that police resources were stretched proving it challenging for Members to get street lights turned on, the amendment sought greater engagement.

· That the original motion was based on the study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in 2015 which tried to link street lights being turned off to crime rises, but there was no conclusive link found.

· That crime prevention was as much about public awareness and the perception of crime so actions must be taken including but not limited to turning street lights on in affected areas.

The Chair asked Catherine Baart, as proposer of the amendment to conclude the debate:

· Noted that she had no further comments to add.

The amendment was put to the vote with 16 Members voting For, 51 voting Against and 1 Abstention.

Therefore the amendment was lost.

Returning to the substantive motion, Matt Furniss moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda (12 July 2021), which was formally seconded by Tim Hall.

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

This Council notes that:

· Following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard on the evening of 3 March 2021, ~~ensuring the right to feel safe walking our streets at night has become a major requirement for political action across the country.~~ by an officer of the Police has left the public and everyone in policing feeling betrayed. It is never right for, talented young woman who had her whole life ahead of her to have it snatched away.

· Women have made their voices heard, and too many of them express the view that they do not feel safe walking alone in public places.

· The immediate Government response to Sarah’s murder included an additional £25 million to councils around the country to help enhance street lighting in areas of poor illumination, as well as improving CCTV coverage. And that Surrey County Council welcomed the new round of the Safer Streets Fund announced by the Government this week.

This Council further notes that:

· Surrey County Council is investing £19.9 million over a 3-year period to convert all Surrey’s streetlights to LED, with a target saving of £2 million a year.

· As of 2021 Surrey has converted in excess of 26,000 lights to LED.

· Surrey’s Street lights are currently only switched off between 1am and 5am and those on main roads and town centres remain on all night. Lights on pedestrian routes at train stations, hospitals and Universities etc. go off an hour after the last train or 1am if later.

· The requests this Council has received regarding Part Night-time Lighting from members of the public and Surrey Police are as follows:

Calendar Year	Total Streetlight Enquiries recorded	Police Requests	Comments
2017	377	2	Commencement of Part Night-time Lighting, most enquiries relate to appeals or initial objection/support
2018	82	1
2019	54	3
2020	45	2
2021	18	0

· That any crime or safety concerns received, this Council always refers them to Surrey Police to log.

· That if Surrey Police formally ask this Council to turn lights back on (either permanently or for a defined period of time), we do so. These requests need to come from the Borough Commander, and they will provide reasoning and rationale.

· Surrey County Council takes safety and crime prevention very seriously. We always want to listen to residents and work together to provide the safest environment possible.

· If Councillors have concerns about high pedestrian traffic areas they can raise this with Highways Team and the Cabinet Member to make the case for lights to remain on longer. This has happened with routes at train stations, hospitals and Universities etc routes will need clear reasoning, rationale with a majority resident support and consideration of local environmental impact to extend lighting over Police views.

In light of the factors listed above, this Council calls upon to the Cabinet:

I. ~~To make a commitment to end the streetlight switch-off as soon as is practicable, but as a matter of urgency.~~To raise the concerns of public safety at night with the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable of Surrey Police in order to continue to support the Police in their role in keeping Surrey residents safe; and to see if there are any areas disproportionately affected by neighbourhood and acquisitive crime in which we can support a Surrey Police or a joint Surrey Police and SCC bid for prevention interventions such as home security new and street lighting.

II. ~~To fund the additional costs out of the £2 million saving on the switch to LED streetlights~~. To review Part Night-time Lighting once the LED rollout has been completed and factor in environmental and safety grounds in addition to financial benefits.

III. To inform Divisional Councillors of locations where a Part Night-time Lighting safety request is made by a Surrey resident so they too can raise any points with Surrey Police.

Matt Furniss moved an amendment to his amendment to the above, which was formally seconded by Tim Hall.

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

This Council notes that:

· Following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard on the evening of 3 March 2021, ~~ensuring the right to feel safe walking our streets at night has become a major requirement for political action across the country.~~it is important to ensure that people feel safe walking our streets. Women have made their voices heard about feeling unsafe walking alone in public places.

· ~~Women have made their voices heard, and too many of them express the view that they do not feel safe walking alone in public places.~~

· The immediate Government response to Sarah’s murder included an additional £25 million to Safer Streets Fund to fund innovative and creative proposals to improve the safety of public spaces including improving street lighting,~~councils around the country to help enhance street lighting in areas of poor illumination, as well as improving~~ CCTV coverage., education and awareness raising all of which is welcomed by Surrey County Council.

· In contrast, light pollution is widely recognised as having impacts on both sleep patterns and on nature.

· Further investigation into what makes everyone safer in all streets at night, as well as at specific locations is warranted, in partnership with Surrey Police.

· Surrey’s streetlights can now be turned on and off individually, and as they are LED lights are now able to be dimmed to lower lighting levels than before.

This Council further notes that:

· Surrey County Council is investing £19.9 million over a 3-year period to convert all Surrey’s streetlights to LED, with a target saving of £2 million a year, and 7,700 tonnes of carbon emissions a year, as agreed in the 2021/22 budget and medium term financial strategy.

· As of June 2021 Surrey, has converted 37,546 street lights to LED with a 70.73% energy cost saving.

· The requests this Council has received regarding Part Night-time Lighting from members of the public and Surrey Police are as follows:

Calendar Year	Total Streetlight Enquiries recorded	Police Requests	Comments
2017	377	2	Commencement of Part Night-time Lighting, most enquiries relate to appeals or initial objection/support
2018	82	1
2019	54	3
2020	45	2
2021	18	0

· Surrey County Council always refers crime or safety concerns, that it receives, to Surrey Police to log.

· Surrey County Council takes safety and crime prevention very seriously. and always wants to listen to residents and work together to provide the safest environment possible.

· If Councillors have concerns about public safety in pedestrian traffic areas they can raise this with Highways Team and the Cabinet Member to make the case for lights to remain on longer.
This has happened with routes at train stations, hospitals, Universities etc. Routes need clear reasoning and rationale with a majority strong resident support and plus consideration of local environmental impact, to extend lighting over Police views.

In light of the factors listed above, this Council calls upon to the Cabinet:

I. To make a commitment to ~~end~~ review the streetlight switch-off as soon as is practicable and factor in environmental and safety grounds in addition to financial benefits., ~~but as a matter of urgency.~~

II. To engage the public and raise the concerns of public safety at night with the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable of Surrey Police in order to continue to support the Police in their role in keeping Surrey residents safe.

III. ~~To fund the additional costs out of the £2 million saving on the switch to LED streetlights~~. To see with Surrey Police, if there are any areas with higher rates of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and areas of higher public safety need, plus areas disproportionately affected by neighbourhood and acquisitive crime in which we can support a Surrey Police or a joint Surrey Police and SCC bid for prevention interventions such as home security and new street lighting.

IV. To inform Divisional Councillors of locations where a Part Night-time Lighting safety request is made by a Surrey resident so they too can raise any points with Surrey Police.

Matt Furniss spoke to his amended amendment, making the following points:

· Re-emphasised the need to improve public safety which must be done in partnership with Surrey Police and through resident engagement.

· Noted the need to look at the number of requests regarding the part-night lighting policy received by the Council from residents and Surrey Police over the past few years.

· That the Council referred any crime or safety concerns received to Surrey Police and the Council would switch street lights back on night if requested by Surrey Police - either permanently or for a defined period of time.

· Stressed that the Council took crime and safety seriously, if Members or residents had concerns they could raise those with him as Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure and the Highways Team.

· That at the request of Members with support by residents, several routes in town centres, hospitals and key transport routes around train stations had street lights which stay on longer for people get home safely.

· That the perception of safety on streets was important irrespective of the time of day, the Council must continue to engage with Surrey Police as it was responsible for upholding public safety, engaging with the new PCC and the Chief Constable, as well as residents.

· That his amended amendment went further than the motion by providing defined actions.

· That referring to the third resolution he was happy to remove the wording of ‘higher’ used twice, however it was still vital to work with Surrey Police to identify further areas of concern.

The amended amendment was formally seconded by Tim Hall, who reserved his right to speak.

Eber Kington did not accept the amended amendment and therefore the amended amendment was open for debate.

Nine Members made the following comments on the amended amendment:

· Noted concern in the sentences removed and the unnecessary addition in the first bullet point as the importance of people feeling safe walking the streets was indisputable.

· That the seventh additional bullet point referring to ‘further investigation’ highlighted that the Council was good at deferring rather than taking action.

· That the table referencing figures for 2021 was misleading alluding to lower enquiries and requests as the figures could not be for the full year.

· Questioned why the part-night lighting policy could not be ended rather than reviewed as noted in the first bullet point, the Council to sought to delay the matter rather than make a decision.

· Welcomed the proposer of the amendment’s agreement to remove the two references to ‘higher’, its original inclusion was a concern.

· That the safety of people on Surrey’s streets particularly women was vital for the Council and the Borough and District Councils to take seriously.

· Supported the amendment as the tragic murder of Sarah Everard being attached to an ill-thought through motion was disturbing.

· Supported the amendment as it recognised the facts, noting the study in 2015 by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in 2015 in which no evidence of a link between reduced street lighting and increased crime and traffic accidents was found in the fourteen years of data from sixty-two local authorities.

· Welcomed the additional bullet point referring to light pollution as raised in the first amendment.

· Noted that whilst the figures shown in the table implied a reduction in the number of requests over the years, the reasons for reduction were unknown, they could be either the contentment with the current part-night lighting policy at night-time or a belief that nothing would change so requests were not made.

· That whilst acknowledging that the link between street lighting at night and crime and accidents was inconclusive, stressed that both the feeling and perception of feeling unsafe must be addressed.

· Noted that whilst residents in many parts of Surrey enjoyed having street lights switched off at certain hours, it was wrong that the current part-night lighting policy took a once size fits all approach.

· That street lighting was first introduced in the country because people felt unsafe to go out at night.

· That street lighting in the county was the Council’s responsibility as opposed to Surrey Police’s.

· Noted that the decision to switch to LED street lighting was one based on the need to act economically and ecologically efficient.

· That where there was a need on safety grounds to switch some street lights back on the Council would do so, the wholesale street light switch on would not be the right way to proceed.

· That whilst the murder of Sarah Everard had left the nation in mourning, it was distasteful to align her murder with policy decisions particularly as street lighting was not an issue in her murder.

· That locally the majority of burglaries took place during school pickup times and were monitored by the Borough Commander, night-time street lighting was not a contributing factor to burglaries.

· Noted that the amendment was correct apart from the order, in that the Council should ‘review’ the part-night lighting policy once ‘further investigation’ and engagement with residents and Surrey Police had been carried out, only then a decision should be made on the current policy.

· Questioned that if the amendment was to be carried how would the situation in the future differ to the current one, hoping that it would lead to tangible change, referring to table showing resident enquiries and Surrey Police requests regarding street lights in 2021, asked how many of those enquiries and requests in 2020 were accepted.

· Referring to the first resolution, asked what ‘as soon as is practicable’ meant concerning the review of the part-night lighting policy, would it be a few years or at the next feasible Cabinet meeting in the autumn.

· That residents - particularly shift workers - living indeprived areas and with houses close together had to walk a diversionary route to the main road to their home or work, which was made difficult during the hours of the part-night lighting switch off.

· Thanked the motion’s proposer for raising the issue and responses showed that the Council took the matter seriously.

· That the point in the original motion by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was confusing as the ‘80% of women report being harassed in public spaces’ did not indicate when such incidents occurred as noted that personally they had been in daylight.

· That having confidence in policing was important so that incidents of harassment were reported to the police, so that was why the amendment was correct as partnership working between the Council and Surrey Police was crucial in order to ensure wider enforcement and public safety not just concerning street lighting.

· Emphasised the importance of cultivating biodiversity against the light pollution at night caused by street lighting.

· That public engagement was vital, noting a positive local example between the Council and the student union at Royal Holloway, University of London which had identified several roads to keep the street lights switched on at night, urging the need to make decisions on street lighting on a case-by-case basis.

Eber Kington noted the following comments in response to not accepting the amended amendment:

· That the proposer of the amendment repeated the need to work with Surrey Police, engagement with residents was an afterthought.

· Explained that Sarah Everard’s tragic death emboldened women nationally to speak about their fears, the motion sought to articulate those fears in order to seek changes to the Council’s policy.

· Could not support the amendment due to the deletions, noting the partial deletion in the first bullet point and the removal of the entire second bullet point.

· That the reduction in the number of enquiries by residents over the years as noted in the table, was due to people choosing not to make such reports rather than their satisfaction with the Council’s policy.

· That rather than ‘review’ as added to the first resolution, the Council must take action and as the policy maker it must not shift the responsibility for ensuring public safety on to Surrey Police.

· Referring to the third bullet point, no level of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) was acceptable.

Tim Hall, the seconder of the amended amendment, made the following comments:

· That the discussions had so far appeared to mix the two issues of street lighting and community safety - street lighting was only a small part of community safety.

· That the amendment recognised the need to work with Surrey Police and local police teams who were tackling issues public safety issues such as street drinking.

· Recognised that light pollution was a serious issue.

· Commended the amendment as it was practicable, based upon partnership working.

The Chair asked Matt Furniss, as proposer of the amended amendment to conclude the debate, he made the following comments:

· Noted the misrepresentation of his amendment by previous speakers, highlighting the additional sentence stating that ‘it is important to ensure that people feel safe walking our streets. Women have made their voices heard about feeling unsafe walking alone in public places.’

· That the amendment recognised the importance of working together, engaging with residents and key partners such as Surrey Police in order to lead to action.

· That the reference to the ‘review’ of the street light switch off was included only once.

· That the issue of public safety was wider than that of street lighting.

The amended amendment was put to the vote with 37 Members voting For, 30 voting Against and no Abstentions.

Therefore the amended amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 49 Members voting For, 12 voting Against and 3 Abstentions.

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes that:

· Following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard on the evening of 3 March 2021, it is important to ensure that people feel safe walking our streets. Women have made their voices heard about feeling unsafe walking alone in public places.

· The immediate Government response to Sarah’s murder included an additional £25 million to Safer Streets Fund to fund innovative and creative proposals to improve the safety of public spaces including improving street lighting,CCTV coverage, education and awareness raising all of which is welcomed by Surrey County Council.

· In contrast, light pollution is widely recognised as having impacts on both sleep patterns and on nature.

· Further investigation into what makes everyone safer in all streets at night, as well as at specific locations is warranted, in partnership with Surrey Police.

· Surrey’s streetlights can now be turned on and off individually, and as they are LED lights are now able to be dimmed to lower lighting levels than before.

This Council further notes that:

· Surrey County Council is investing £19.9 million over a 3-year period to convert all Surrey’s streetlights to LED, with a target saving of £2 million a year, and 7,700 tonnes of carbon emissions a year, as agreed in the 2021/22 budget and medium term financial strategy.

· As of June 2021 Surrey, has converted 37,546 street lights to LED with a 70.73% energy cost saving.

· Surrey’s Street lights are currently only switched off between 1am and 5am and those on main roads and town centres remain on all night. Lights on pedestrian routes at train stations, hospitals and Universities etc. go off an hour after the last train or 1am if later.

· The requests this Council has received regarding Part Night-time Lighting from members of the public and Surrey Police are as follows:

Calendar Year	Total Streetlight Enquiries recorded	Police Requests	Comments
2017	377	2	Commencement of Part Night-time Lighting, most enquiries relate to appeals or initial objection/support
2018	82	1
2019	54	3
2020	45	2
2021	18	0

· Surrey County Council always refers crime or safety concerns, that it receives, to Surrey Police to log.

· Surrey County Council takes safety and crime prevention very seriously. and always wants to listen to residents and work together to provide the safest environment possible.

In light of the factors listed above, this Council calls upon to the Cabinet:

I. To make a commitment to reviewthe streetlight switch-off as soon as is practicable and factor in environmental and safety grounds in addition to financial benefits.

II. To engage the public and raise the concerns of public safety at night with the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable of Surrey Police in order to continue to support the Police in their role in keeping Surrey residents safe.

III. To see with Surrey Police, if there are any areas with rates of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and areas of public safety need, plus areas disproportionately affected by neighbourhood and acquisitive crime in which we can support a Surrey Police or a joint Surrey Police and SCC bid for prevention interventions such as home security and new street lighting.

IV. To inform Divisional Councillors of locations where a Part Night-time Lighting safety request is made by a Surrey resident so they too can raise any points with Surrey Police.

Item 8 (ii)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Will Forster moved:

This Council notes that:

This Council also notes that:

In October 2019 it unanimously passed a motion proposed by Lib Democrat Members that spoke to the situation in Surrey:

With the corresponding resolution (I.):

This Council further notes that:

This Council resolves to:

I. Express its disappointment that despite repeated promises, no proposals have as yet been brought forward; and

~~II.~~ To robustly renew its call for a sustainable solution to the funding of adult social care and write to the Government and Surrey’s Members of Parliament urging them to honour their promise to urgently tackle this long-term crisis, which leaves many vulnerable residents without the support they need whilst others face catastrophic costs.

Will Forster made the following points:

· That he tabled the original motion to get the Council to redouble its efforts to stand up to the Government over their failure to deliver the previously promised reforms of the adult social care system.

· Noted that the adult social care system was broken, suffering from chronic and systemic underfunding exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

· That it was vital to acknowledge the country’s ageing population and expense of adult social care costs.

· That adult social care was rationed leaving many vulnerable people without the support they need, with many having to pay catastrophic costs.

· Stressed that the country needed a long-term sustainable solution for addressing the real crisis in adult social care.

· That no action had been taken since Rt Hon Boris Johnson’s MP first speech as Prime Minister in July 2019 where he promised to fix the crisis.

· Noted that last month the leaders of social care organisations across the country wrote to the Government urging them to act on the reform of England’s adult social care system and to publish its proposals before the summer recess.

· That the Council was in a good position to urge the Government for cross-party change, noting Surrey’s influential Members of Parliament and the Leader’s role as chairman of the County Councils Network (CCN).

The motion was formally seconded by Liz Townsend, who made the following comments:

· Quoted from the Prime Minister’s first speech in July 2019 where he said that his job was to protect individuals from the fear of selling their homes to pay for the costs of care.

· Noted that under the current system people with assets over £14,250 had to pay for part of their care costs, those with assets over £23,250 had to meet the bills in full.

· That in their letter the leaders of organisations that represented adult social care highlighted the importance in the reform debate of helping people to avoid catastrophic care costs and selling their home to pay for care.

· That the Health and Care Bill contained no clear proposals for the reform of adult social care or for its investment, leaving many with the fear of having to sell their own home to avoid high care bills.

· Highlighted research conducted by Age UK in 2019 which showed that the number of older people with some level of unmet need stood at 1.5 million, likely to have increased due to the pandemic.

· Stressed that Members had a responsibility to residents to renew the call for a sustainable funding solution, ensuring that vulnerable residents are not being left behind.

Bernie Muir moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda (12 July 2021), which was formally seconded by Luke Bennett.

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

This Council notes that:

In Boris Johnson’s first speech as Prime Minister in July 2019, hehighlighted the importance of reforming the~~promised to fix the crisis in~~ social care system once and for all “with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”

~~This Council also notes that:~~

~~In October 2019 it unanimously passed a motion proposed by Lib Democrat Members that spoke to the situation in Surrey:~~

~~With the corresponding resolution (I.):~~

This Council further notes that:

~~In the absence of the promised plan~~ Leaders of social care organisations from across the country recently wrote to the Prime minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to urge the Government to act now on reform of England’s social care system. ~~and publish its proposals before the summer recess.~~That is why this Government has responded to the need for a modern health and care system through its Health and Care Bill. This Bill builds on proposals to bring health and care services closer together to build back better and improve care for our communities.

This Council resolves to:

I. ~~Express its disappointment that despite repeated promises, no proposals have as yet been brought forward; and~~

I. Continue to use formal channels, by working with the Local Government Association, County Councils Network, our Surrey MPs and Government Ministers to find a long-term, sustainable solution to social care, in turn tackling health inequality and ensuring no-one is left behind.

II. Support the Government’s commitment to working with councils and the social care sector to enhance existing assurance frameworks that support the drive to improve the health outcomes and experiences of residents.

III. Work closely with Surrey Heartland and Frimley ICS to implement the Health and Care Bill to deliver a truly integrated approach to health and social care.

Bernie Muir spoke to her amendment, making the following points:

· Noted general agreement on the need for reforms in adult social care.

· That the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP in his first speech as Prime Minister in July 2019 noted the need to fix the crisis “once and for all”, the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto stated that it would seek a cross-party consensus to bring forward proposals for reform - delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic - re-stated in the Queen’s Speech in May.

· The Council was using formal channels, working with the Local Government Association (LGA), the CCN, Surrey’s MPs and Government ministers to find a long-term sustainable solution to adult social care.

· That is was clear that the demand for adult social care was rapidly increasing, noting the 6% increase since 2015/16.

· That in order to effectively deliver the required services it was key to: secure predictable sustainable long-term funding; acknowledge the exponential demand, take into account the demographic changes; recognise pressures that would further lead to increasing demand.

· That in addition to meeting future demand, policies were needed to address the pressures to recruit and retain the workforce, noting the need for the parity of esteem for care workers with NHS staff.

· Noted that the Government had expressed the commitment to enable local government to be equal partners in an integrated care system, noting the Council’s strong position to drive change through its partnership with Surrey Heartlands, the Transformation Programme and the effective work of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

· That the aim was to tackle health inequality and focus on preventative healthcare in order to deliver for those who needed support using innovative solutions to bring services into the community.

· Noted that the Council’s objectives were integrated into the Health and Care Bill, such as the NHS and local Government coming together to plan health and care services around patients’ needs

· Noted that the main benefits of the Health and Care Bill was the removal of bureaucratic and transaction processes, freeing up the NHS to focus on what mattered to patients: preventative healthcare, supporting the ageing population, tackling health inequality, supporting the diverse needs of local populations and enhancing patients’ safety.

The amendment was formally seconded by Luke Bennett, who reserved his right to speak.

Will Forster did not accept the amendment and he made the following comments:

· That the amendment watered down and re-wrote the original motion by removing: reference to the Prime Minister’s promise to fix the social care crisis, reference to the previously passed motion on social care and reference made by the leaders of social care organisations in their letter asking for the Government’s proposals to be published before the summer recess.

· That the Council needed to be strong willed in demanding the reforms from the Government, the amendment went contrary to that.

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

· Noted that in the two years since the last general election and eleven years of Conservative Party administration, past governments had failed to bring forward sensitive plans for adult social care reform.

· That since the Prime Minister’s speech in July 2019, two million people had applied for support and had their requests refused.

· That the Covid-19 pandemic had highlighted that frontline carers were essential to a properly functioning society and economy yet two thirds did not earn a real living wage.

· Denounced the excuse by the mover of the amendment who suggested that the Covid-19 pandemic had been a distraction for the Government not to act, noting the passing of the Education Act 1944 during the Second World War.

· Stressed that a proper vision for adult social care across the country was needed that was based on need and was publicly funded, that empowered the users of adult social care as well as its workers many poorly paid, prioritised home first care and supported unpaid carers.

· Noted that the Health and Care Bill outlined a major top-down reorganisation in adult social care through the loss of local control and inclusion of measures making it easier to give contracts to the private sector - the amendment was a disservice to Surrey’s residents.

· Echoed disappointment with the amendment highlighting the changes to the ‘resolves to’ section which removed the Council’s expressing of its disappointment at the repeated promises and delays, replaced by writing to the Government and Surrey’s MPs, and continued use of formal channels - ineffective over the last decade.

· That the amendment sought to re-write history through its removal of the previously passed motion on social care, which went contrary to the value of honesty.

· Noted caution in the use of language alleging dishonesty and the re-writing of history, as events had moved on since that motion was passed.

· That the Council’s administration was aware of the need for a long-term sustainable solution for the funding of adult social care.

· Explained that the Health and Care Bill was part of the long-term funding solution as it integrated the health system and local government, noting the hard work in Surrey over the past three years to integrate Surrey Heartlands and Frimley Integrated Care Systems - with joint appointments and a joint vision.

· Stressed the importance of formal channels, he used his role as Leader of the Council each time he spoke with Surrey’s MPs, as chairman of the CCN and at LGA meetings.

· Noted that there was no simple solution to the long-term funding of adult social care, he looked to future reform by the new Secretary of State for Health.

· The Leader provided notice that he would bring an original motion to the next Council meeting on what the Cabinet and partners across Surrey were doing concerning the Safer Streets Fund.

Luke Bennett, the seconder of the amendment, made no comments.

The Chair asked Bernie Muir, as proposer of the amendment to conclude the debate, she made no further comments.

The amendment was put to the vote with 37 Members voting For, 25 voting Against and 1 Abstention.

Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 37 Members voting For, 13 voting Against and 16 Abstentions.

Therefore it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes that:

In Boris Johnson’s first speech as Prime Minister in July 2019, hehighlighted the importance of reforming the social care system once and for all “with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”

This Council further notes that:

Leaders of social care organisations from across the country recently wrote to the Prime minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to urge the Government to act now on reform of England’s social care system. That is why this Government has responded to the need for a modern health and care system through its Health and Care Bill. This Bill builds on proposals to bring health and care services closer together to build back better and improve care for our communities.

This Council resolves to:

III. Work closely with Surrey Heartland and Frimley ICS to implement the Health and Care Bill to deliver a truly integrated approach to health and social care.