Councillors and committees

Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Item 8 (i)

 

Catherine Powell (Farnham North) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Surrey Highways devotes a great deal of time and resource working with utility companies to identify unmarked assets requiring repair.  Surrey Highways is committed to making sure that assets are kept temporarily safe until the utility company makes a permanent repair to their asset.

 

Currently, Surrey Highways has access to a limited number of asset maps for utility companies which are very useful and allow rapid identification of asset owners.  However, Surrey Highways have no information at all for the majority of utility companies which makes identifying unmarked assets time consuming, resulting in adverse impacts on the travelling public for longer periods than necessary. 

 

The six month grace period granted to utility companies to leave in place temporary repairs before making permanent repairs can often have an adverse and unreasonable impact on residents and businesses.

 

Therefore, this Council requests the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure to lobby Government to:

 

      I.         Introduce a statutory requirement on utility companies to share any electronic asset maps with Local Authorities, updated at least annually, to support the Local Authorities in identifying the ownership of unmarked assets for repair work.

     II.         Introduce a statutory requirement for utility companies to work with Local Authorities using technology such as passive RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags to support easy identification of assets owners starting with areas of:

a.      Significant number of assets owned by different organisations in close proximity (for instance junction areas) where maps are less effective;

b.      Regular damage to assets by vehicles or vandalism.

    III.         Reduce the interim reinstatement period from 6 months to 1 month.

   IV.        Extend the 2-year guarantee period of utility repairs undertaken by utility companies to 5 years.

     V.        Introduce a timescale for repairs for ‘Section 81’ (of NRSWA) for Defective Apparatus, so that utilities must complete repairs in a short time period once reported of no more than 3 months.

 

Item 8 (ii)

 

Jeremy Webster (Caterham Hill) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

This Council notes:

 

  • The Ofsted inspection report on children’s services in Surrey published on 9March 2022.
  • That the overall effectiveness of our services is judged to have improved since the last inspection in 2018, and acknowledges that Surrey’s leaders have achieved significant change in that time and that they are implementing a clear and comprehensive improvement programme.

 

This Council further notes:

 

  • That this improvement is described as “…a strong foundation to strive for excellence.”; but that this programme of improvement needs to continue in order for our services to be seen as good. The findings of the inspectors are entirely consistent with the self-assessment audits and the inspection team confirmed they had confidence that the current improvement plan was not only the right one but that it was being appropriately implemented. 
  • In particular that:

 

 “Children and their families benefit from effective early help services.”

 

“The children’s single point of access service responds effectively to most contacts and referrals,” and  “Most assessments are thorough…”

 

 “The implementation of the local authority’s practice model has significantly strengthened work to tackle domestic and substance abuse…”

 

 “Many children are successfully diverted from care, as social workers work effectively with parents and risks to children are reduced”  and  “When children go missing from home, they receive timely return home interviews which lead to insightful assessments of vulnerability…”

 

“Senior managers have expanded the capacity of the inclusion team to respond to the increased number of children who are missing education or moving to elective home education. These children and young people are supported appropriately and according to their individual circumstances.”

 

In light of the positive progress made as outlined above, this Council resolves to: 

 

       I.       Re-affirm its commitment to implementing the further improvements recommended in the report as our highest priority, and that the Children’s Services improvement journey will continue until Surrey has achieved a level of provision that can be seen as being outstanding in every area of children’s services.

 

      II.       Extend its thanks to the children’s services workforce, who carry out their roles with pride, and seek to do their best for children and families in Surrey, particularly over the difficult period of the pandemic; and asks members of the Council to reflect upon their own role in future improvement work through scrutiny and challenge and by developing our community leadership of the wider children’s system in Surrey.

 

Item 8 (iii)

 

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

 

This Council notes:

 

  • That the Government are scrapping free coronavirus tests for most people as part of the ‘Living with Covid’ plan.
  • Concern that stopping providing free tests for all will make it harder to fight coronavirus. Charging for essential tests would hit those who can least afford it hardest, at a time when families are already being clobbered by soaring energy bills.

 

This Council resolves to: 

 

  1. Call on the Government to continue with free PCR and lateral flow tests for those residents in critical groups, such as front-line workers and those who are eligible for free prescriptions.
  2. Agree to explore the option of providing free asymptomatic testing for staff working in health and social care, vulnerable residents in care homes and other similar groups for up to one year.

 

Item 8 (iv)

 

Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes:

 

That it has regularly expressed regrets about the huge pressures on local government finances in Surrey, believing that the county does not get its fair share from Whitehall.

That the percentage of revenue now raised in Surrey from council tax is 80% of the total £1.2 Billion budget.

That it believes that council tax is no longer fit for purpose as a suitable method for raising local government revenue, as it invariably penalises less well-off households whilst benefiting those who are much richer.

That it asserts that no ‘levelling-up’ agenda will ultimately be successful without a revival of local government, with better funding alongside increased powers, restoring Surrey to the proud role and level of achievement it once enjoyed.

 

 

 

 

This Council resolves to: 

 

  1. Call on the County’s eleven MPs to acknowledge that council tax is an out-of-date and regressive form of taxation.
  2. Agree, along with the MPs, to lobby the Government for wholesale reform with a better and fairer alternative to council tax as an aim
  3. Urge the Government to immediately close the loophole that allows second home owners to evade both council tax and rates by pretending to be holiday let businesses, Airbnb etc even when the property is not let at all.
  4. In the short term, suggest the government introduce additional council tax bands for high value properties and develop a scheme for redistribution of wealth to areas of deprivation.
  5. Urge the Government to immediately increase the grant to shire counties to improve the spending power of councils and ensure this year’s council tax increases are reduced, whilst putting local government finance on a longer-term and more stable footing.

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Chair explained that regarding original motion 8 (v) standing in the name of Tim Oliver which was published in a supplementary agenda (item 8) on 17 March 2022, she had agreed with Group Leaders that as Chair she would be proposing the motion. This fifth motion - agreed cross-party - was received after the fourteen-day deadline, in accordance with Standing Order 11.8 ‘An original motion may be considered without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent’. The Chair noted that due to the subject matter she had decided to take the motion first.

 

Item 8 (v)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Helyn Clack (Chair) moved:

 

This Council notes:

 

That the Russian attack on Ukraine is not just an invasion of a sovereign state, it is an attack on everything we believe in and stand for. It is an attack on freedom, democracy and self-determination.

 

That the terrible experiences of the people of Ukraine cannot be ignored and warrant the strongest possible action on simple humanitarian grounds as well as in support of freedom, democracy and self-determination.

 

This Council:

 

·         Deplores the situation in Ukraine brought about by the unwarranted, unprovoked and unprecedented Russian leadership’s aggression and invasion of the country.

 

·         Stands in solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

                    I.       Fully engage in and support national schemes for Ukrainian refugees, to identify accommodation and homes for those arriving in Surrey, (provided by public agencies as well as Surrey householders), to assist those fleeing the country to find a safe haven here for as long as is necessary, and to facilitate their return to Ukraine as and when it is safe to do so.

 

                  II.       Review and work to immediately relinquish any connections that the Council’s energy supplies, and general investments have to Russian interests.

 

                 III.       Support the decision of the Surrey Pension Fund Committee to immediately suspend making any further pension investments in Russia and Belarus and continue to review existing investments with a view to exiting. This Council urges the Committee to do so as soon as possible.

 

                IV.       Promote as widely as possible the mechanisms by which Surrey residents can donate and support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

 

                  V.       Continue to fly the Ukrainian flag as a gesture of support at our Council Headquarters in Woodhatch Place and other buildings, until such time as hostilities cease.

 

Helyn Clack made the following points:

 

·         That it was a motion of solidarity with the Ukrainian people following an unprovoked and continuing war initiated by Russia.

·         That there had been wide news coverage and heartfelt descriptions of the situation.

·         That the invasion was an attack on freedom, democracy and self-determination, rights enjoyed in Surrey through democratic accountability.

·         That her heart went out to the Ukrainian people with many fleeing and some staying behind, led by their brave President.

·         Had been moved by correspondence from residents offering to open their homes to the refugees, noting the Council’s cross-local authority immigration group working with partners to house refugees from around the world, recently from Afghanistan and now Ukraine.

 

Tony Samuels arrived at 11.24 am.

 

·         That the Council must review and relinquish any connections that its energy suppliers and general investments have to Russian interests, the Surrey Pension Fund had made its position clear on investments in Russia and Belarus. 

·         That the Council’s Communications team must disseminate information on how Members and residents can support and donate to the Ukrainian cause.

·         That the Council had raised the Ukrainian flag alongside its flag, she encouraged Members to raise awareness across their social media.

·         Called on the Council to support the motion and show solidarity.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Nick Darby, who made the following comments:

 

·         Noted the terrible chain of events which had unfolded suddenly.

·         That whatever political disagreements there were locally, there were democratic processes in place permitting differences of opinion. 

·         That the Council offered its unequivocal support to Ukraine, it was harrowing that many were homeless and separated from loved ones.

·         Noted confidence that Surrey’s residents would play their part and that the Council would be thinking about how it can offer support through accommodation.

·         That at some stage the war would end and many would wish to return, urged the Government to look at how it could support a rebuilding project.

·         Emphasised the Council’s support and solidarity to Ukraine.

 

Eleven Members made the following comments:

 

·      That all were horrified by the misery and loss of life suffered and the events demonstrated that the Council’s responsible investment policy must consider the financial risks of Governments who do not believe in democracy.

·      That the Surrey Pension Fund Committee acted as a trustee to the Surrey Pension Fund’s assets and the committee had taken the views of the Fund’s members and employers, and the Council into account with £6 million of Russian equity investments having exited. To be followed by the exiting of £6 million of Russian bond assets in due course.

·      That the committee was working to identify any indirect investment exposure to Russia and Belarus, such as through BP and Shell.

·      That without any movement by Russia and Belarus to comply with the UN Sustainable Development Goals there would be no future prospect to have direct or indirect investment in Russia or Belarus, or end to their sanctions.

·      That by Thursday it would have been one month since Russia invaded Ukraine, noting the tyranny of Russia’s President against the courage shown by Ukraine’s President. 

·      That the invasion was an illegal and barbaric attack on democracy, noting the recent air strikes on a maternity hospital.

·      Welcomed the international support in standing up to Russia’s President, yet more needed to be done for example Surrey must stand up to Russian oligarchs in the county.

·      Welcomed the Council’s response including the flying of the Ukrainian flag and response concerning investments.

·      That the Government needed to redouble its efforts in its support for Ukrainian refugees - so far five million in Europe - and to remove the barriers faced, hoped that the Council and the Borough and District Councils would work together to show support for the refugees.

·      Praised the many thousands in Surrey who had offered their homes up to Ukrainian refugees and had organised collections to support them.

·      Noted an example of a Ukrainian individual who was running supplies down to Folkestone with goods transported into the heart of the war zone.

·      Noted support for the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme whereby Ukrainians coming to the UK would have the same rights as settled persons, yet the private visa process remained overcomplicated with no way of matching Ukrainian families to a sponsor. 

·      That the Ukrainian individual highlighted was keen to join up efforts and welcomed ideas for further support such as the use of Council buildings to enable Ukrainian refugees to meet together.

·      Stressed that it was important that the Council recognises those Russians in Surrey who were appalled at their President’s actions. 

·      Noted concern on the visa scheme which in one local case a child might be offered a visa and the mother not as they shared different surnames, noting that it would be helpful for additional information to be included on the Council’s website to reflect such cases.

·      That the Nationality and Borders Bill would make refugees travelling independently second-class citizens.

·      Highlighted the issue of those with settled status offering refugee cards being denied free transport on public transport that they are entitled to for six months, asked the Chair to discuss the matter with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure. 

·      That it was important to learn from the skills and opportunities found throughout Covid-19 and for the Council and the Borough and District Councils to continue to empower its communities.

·      Noted that it was important to recognise the evolving list of how the Council would offer its support therefore the Council should resolve ‘at least to’.

·      That the Council must empower the Leader through various forums such as the County Councils Network to show that solidarity with the Ukrainians sits at all levels of government.

·      That the Government needed to extend, elaborate on, and simplify the visa scheme process.

·      That through relinquishing connections immediately with Russia in energy supply, the Council was committed to take swift action and so too in the case of the Surrey Pension Fund and its investments.

·      Hoped that the motion provided an opportunity for collaborative working and that Surrey’s voice would join those nationally who had agreed similar motions.  

·      Stressed that words must be coupled with action, urged Surrey’s residents if able to take in Ukrainian refugees.

·      That whilst immense solidarity was rightly shown to Ukraine, it was important not to forget the impact on other eastern European countries such as Poland and to support them.

·      Looked forward to Chelsea Football Club’s removal of any Russian connections through its sale.

·      That residents were showing solidarity for Ukraine, noting that seventy-five Ukrainian flags would be flown in Cobham High Street alternating with the Union Jack, welcomed the flying of the Ukrainian flag at Woodhatch Place and hoped that Members and their divisions would encourage similar shows of support.

·      The Vice-Chair thanked Surrey’s residents for their generosity in providing sanctuary, donations and storage space for supplies, and welcomed officers’ support.

·      Noted the view that the properties and wealth of Russian oligarchs should be used to help the refugees and to rebuild Ukraine once the war is over.

·      Noted issues with the visa scheme were being resolved, noting a positive story of a Surrey resident to shortly be reunited with their family.

·      Highlighted the brave Russian citizens who were standing up to their President and stood in solidarity with them.

·      The Leader recognised the difficult time faced by Ukraine and was heartened to see the Council and country come together, noting a divisional example of a rally held in support for Ukrainian refugees and the arrival of one of the first Ukrainian families in Cobham.

·      The Leader noted the need to simplify the visa scheme and that the Council would continue to work with the Government to address the practical issues, lobbying was happening via the County Councils Network.

·      The Leader noted that regarding the second resolution for the Council to relinquish any connections with companies that have Russian interests, clarified that the Council had terminated its contract with Gazprom in 2020 used for the eight care homes earmarked for closure and noted that the Council now bought all its energy through the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) framework.

·      The Leader noted that many schools in Surrey bought their utilities through the CCS framework but were not obliged to so could potentially be buying gas from Gazprom and noted that schools should contact the Council.

·      The Leader noted that the Council had adopted the guidance notes produced by lawyers for the Local Government Association in relation to contracting with Russian organisations and there would be further internal guidance issued as necessary.

·      The Leader noted that local authorities were awaiting confirmation of the funding of £10,500 per Ukrainian refugee, the Council was working with the Borough and District Councils on the practicalities.

·      The Leader urged residents to do whatever they can to show support for Ukrainians. 

·      The Leader noted that it was an attack on world democracy and all must stand together and oppose dictators.

·      The Leader emphasised that the motion was just the start of the work that the Council would do to support Ukrainian and other refugees.

 

Helyn Clack (Chair) as proposer of the motion, concluded the debate:

 

·      Welcomed the moving comments made which would be followed up.

·      Noted that it was a long road ahead before a solution would be found.

·      That standing together with Ukraine, it was vital to ensure that democracy prevails and that all can be done in Surrey to make sure that happens.

 

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

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes:

 

That the Russian attack on Ukraine is not just an invasion of a sovereign state, it is an attack on everything we believe in and stand for. It is an attack on freedom, democracy and self-determination.

 

That the terrible experiences of the people of Ukraine cannot be ignored and warrant the strongest possible action on simple humanitarian grounds as well as in support of freedom, democracy and self-determination.

 

This Council:

 

·         Deplores the situation in Ukraine brought about by the unwarranted, unprovoked and unprecedented Russian leadership’s aggression and invasion of the country.

 

·         Stands in solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

                  I.        Fully engage in and support national schemes for Ukrainian refugees, to identify accommodation and homes for those arriving in Surrey, (provided by public agencies as well as Surrey householders), to assist those fleeing the country to find a safe haven here for as long as is necessary, and to facilitate their return to Ukraine as and when it is safe to do so.

 

                  II.       Review and work to immediately relinquish any connections that the Council’s energy supplies, and general investments have to Russian interests.

 

                 III.       Support the decision of the Surrey Pension Fund Committee to immediately suspend making any further pension investments in Russia and Belarus and continue to review existing investments with a view to exiting. This Council urges the Committee to do so as soon as possible.

 

                IV.       Promote as widely as possible the mechanisms by which Surrey residents can donate and support Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

 

                  V.       Continue to fly the Ukrainian flag as a gesture of support at our Council Headquarters in Woodhatch Place and other buildings, until such time as hostilities cease.

 

Item 8 (i)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 20.3 (a) Catherine Powell moved a proposed alteration to the original motion standing in her own name, which had been published in the supplementary agenda (items 6 and 8) on 21 March 2022.

 

The proposed alteration to the motion was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):

 

This Council notes that:

 

Surrey Highways devotes a great deal of time and resource working with utility companies to identify unmarked assets requiring repair. Surrey Highways is committed to making sure that assets are kept temporarily safe until the utility company makes a permanent repair to their asset.

 

Currently, Surrey Highways has access to a limited number of asset maps for utility companies which are very useful and allow rapid identification of asset owners.  However, Surrey Highways have no information at all for the majority of utility companies which makes identifying unmarked assets time consuming, resulting in adverse impacts on the travelling public for longer periods than necessary.

 

The six month grace period granted to utility companies to leave in place temporary repairs before making permanent repairs can often have an adverse and unreasonable impact on residents and businesses.

 

Therefore, this Council requests the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure to lobby Government to:

 

                        I.        Introduce a statutory requirement on utility companies to share any electronic asset maps with Local Authorities, updated at least annually, to support the Local Authorities in identifying the ownership of unmarked assets for repair work.

                       II.        Introduce a statutory requirement for utility companies to introduce an easy identification system of assets to to support work with Local Authorities in identifying third party assets using technology which is compatible with Local Authority systems such as passive RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags to support easy identification of assets owners starting with areas of:

a.      Significant number of assets owned by different organisations where maps are less effective;

b.      Regular damage to assets by vehicles or vandalism.

                       III.       Reduce the interim reinstatement period from 6 months to 1 month.

                       IV.       Extend the 2-year guarantee period of utility repairs undertaken by utility companies to 5 years.

                        V.       Introduce a timescale for repairs for ‘Section 81’ (of NRSWA) for Defective Apparatus, so that utilities must complete repairs in a short time period once reported of no more than 3 months.

 

Under Standing Order 20.3, the proposed alteration to the original motion was put to the vote and Council agreed to the proposed alteration and it was therefore open for debate.

 

Catherine Powell made the following points: 

 

·         Welcomed the collaboration with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure on the motion.

·         Recognised the challenging experiences Members may have had with assets owned by utility companies causing problems in their division, such as in relation to identifying the relevant utility company and ensuring repairs.

·         That as all utility companies increased their use of modern technologies such as electronic data asset maps and asset identification systems, it was right that such data was made available data to aid the Council.

·         Outlined the resolutions requesting the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure to lobby the Government.

·         Hoped that Members would support the motion which would place an increased responsibility on the utility companies and make the work of the Council easier, more efficient and reduce its costs.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Matt Furniss, who made the following comments:

 

·         Supported the motion and highlighted the importance of protecting the Council’s increased investment as a highway authority on its roads.

·         Noted that 70% of all interventions on Surrey Highways concerned utility companies and the Council reported over 2,500 Section 81 defect apparatus reports annually - improved response times from the Government were needed.

·         That 25% of all utility repairs by utility companies - which were reported following the Council’s inspections - failed their safety code within the two years.

·         That the Council was putting £100 million a year into the highway network and its structures to ensure that Surrey keeps moving and the Council must ensure that its partners do the same.

·         That by getting those longer periods for which utility companies are bound, it was hoped that would make their reinstatements and asset repairs right the first time.

·         That continued Government support was vital to ensure that the utility companies take responsibility for their actions on the highway network.

 

Six Members made the following comments:

 

·         Highlighted an example of a local road in Send village which underwent slot cutting at night followed by work on the water mains and on the gas infrastructure; stressed that utility companies must show a duty of care to residents and should notify the Council on the intended timings.

·         That the Council would work to facilitate the work of the utility companies and vice versa, to be made easier through the new technology outlined in the motion.

·         Noted an example of an extreme case in the past whereby contractors were killed during digging trenches to lay assets as the maps wereinadequate. Technology had since developed and it was essential that anyone working on the highways should have access to accurate maps.

·         Supported the simplification of the processes set out in the motion. 

·         Shared those frustrations felt by residents when utility assets on the highways are not reinstated properly, therefore supported the reduction in the interim reinstatement period and the extension of the guarantee period.

·         That the Council had made significant changes and progress in how it engages with utility companies - notably the Lane Rental Scheme - and the motion would provide more control and greater collaboration.

·         That the motion would make a large difference and supported the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure in writing to the Secretary of State for Transport to set out a strong case for the reforms needed.

·         That the Council needed to do more towards the utility works and to improve the relationship with the utility companies, noting an example of a local road which after having undergone costly resurfacing by the Council, the utility companies renewed the pipes constantly month after month.

·         Noted a current local issue of two sewerage leaks yet the service operator had said that they had no pipes in that area, stressed that the issue would have knock-on effects to nearby areas including Green Belt land.

·         Welcomed the motion which would benefit residents.

·         That the infrastructure providers needed to be encouraged to work with the Council such as through regular high-level meetings to address any difficulties.

·         Requested that the results of the lobbying outlined in the resolutions are provided to Members in due course.

 

The Chair asked Catherine Powell, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, she made the following comments:

 

·         Thanked Members for their supportive comments and noted that it was interesting to hear the number of negative experiences faced.

·         Expressed sympathy in response to the issue of the sewerage leaks raised, having faced a similar incident in Farnham Park recently.

 

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

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Surrey Highways devotes a great deal of time and resource working with utility companies to identify unmarked assets requiring repair. Surrey Highways is committed to making sure that assets are kept temporarily safe until the utility company makes a permanent repair to their asset.

 

Currently, Surrey Highways has access to a limited number of asset maps for utility companies which are very useful and allow rapid identification of asset owners.  However, Surrey Highways have no information at all for the majority of utility companies which makes identifying unmarked assets time consuming, resulting in adverse impacts on the travelling public for longer periods than necessary.

 

The six month grace period granted to utility companies to leave in place temporary repairs before making permanent repairs can often have an adverse and unreasonable impact on residents and businesses.

 

Therefore, this Council requests the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure to lobby Government to:

 

                      I.    Introduce a statutory requirement on utility companies to share any electronic asset maps with Local Authorities, updated at least annually, to support the Local Authorities in identifying the ownership of unmarked assets for repair work.

                    II.    Introduce a statutory requirement for utility companies to introduce an easy identification system of assetsto support Local Authorities in identifying third party assets using technology which is compatible with Local Authority systems such as passive RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags starting with areas of:

a.      Significant number of assets owned by different organisations where maps are less effective;

b.      Regular damage to assets by vehicles or vandalism.

                   III.    Reduce the interim reinstatement period from 6 months to 1 month.

                  IV.    Extend the 2-year guarantee period of utility repairs undertaken by utility companies to 5 years.

                    V.    Introduce a timescale for repairs for ‘Section 81’ (of NRSWA) for Defective Apparatus, so that utilities must complete repairs in a short time period once reported of no more than 3 months.

 

Item 8 (ii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Jeremy Webster moved:

 

This Council notes:

 

·         The Ofsted inspection report on children’s services in Surrey published on 9 March 2022.

·         That the overall effectiveness of our services is judged to have improved since the last inspection in 2018, and acknowledges that Surrey’s leaders have achieved significant change in that time and that they are implementing a clear and comprehensive improvement programme.

 

This Council further notes:

 

·         That this improvement is described as “…a strong foundation to strive for excellence.”; but that this programme of improvement needs to continue in order for our services to be seen as good. The findings of the inspectors are entirely consistent with the self-assessment audits and the inspection team confirmed they had confidence that the current improvement plan was not only the right one but that it was being appropriately implemented. 

 

·         In particular that:

 

 “Children and their families benefit from effective early help services.”

 

“The children’s single point of access service responds effectively to most contacts and referrals,” and  “Most assessments are thorough…”

 

 “The implementation of the local authority’s practice model has significantly strengthened work to tackle domestic and substance abuse…”

 

 “Many children are successfully diverted from care, as social workers work effectively with parents and risks to children are reduced”  and  “When children go missing from home, they receive timely return home interviews which lead to insightful assessments of vulnerability…”

 

“Senior managers have expanded the capacity of the inclusion team to respond to the increased number of children who are missing education or moving to elective home education. These children and young people are supported appropriately and according to their individual circumstances.”

 

In light of the positive progress made as outlined above, this Council resolves to: 

 

                   I.       Re-affirm its commitment to implementing the further improvements recommended in the report as our highest priority, and that the Children’s Services improvement journey will continue until Surrey has achieved a level of provision that can be seen as being outstanding in every area of children’s services.

 

                  II.       Extend its thanks to the children’s services workforce, who carry out their roles with pride, and seek to do their best for children and families in Surrey, particularly over the difficult period of the pandemic; and asks members of the Council to reflect upon their own role in future improvement work through scrutiny and challenge and by developing our community leadership of the wider children’s system in Surrey.

 

 

 

Jeremy Webster made the following points:

 

·         That having worked for Children’s Services in Surrey from 2014 for a number of years, saw first-hand the impact of the Ofsted reports and what the inspectors were looking for.

·         Witnessed the efforts made to make the service more child-centred, focused on early help and prevention, and to create sustainable improvements for children.

·         Emphasised the complexity and volume of the work that social workers do.

·         Had been responsible for an average of forty plus children in 2017, was pleased to report that had since halved for current social workers. 

·         Outlined the resolutions.

 

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

 

·         That the Council must thank its current and past senior officers for making sure that Children’s Services was now on the right path.

·         That it was reassuring that the strengths and areas requiring development were recognised in the Ofsted report, ensuring that the service could accurately self-evaluate and could make the necessary improvements.

·         That bringing about change is never easy and the Council has fostered many new initiatives and ways of working to get to its current position.

·         That it was vital that the Council paid tribute to its workforce who provide daily care despite the challenges and that the Council fully supports them on the path to further improvements. 

 

Jonathan Essex moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda (items 6 and 8) on 21 March 2022, which was formally seconded by Nick Darby.

 

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

 

This Council notes:

 

·         The Ofsted inspection report on children’s services in Surrey published on 9 March 2022.

·         That the overall effectiveness of our services is judged to have improved since the last inspection in 2018 and acknowledges that Surrey’s leaders have achieved significant change in that time and that they are implementing a clear and comprehensive improvement programme.

 

This Council further notes:

 

·         That this improvement is described as “…a strong foundation to strive for excellence.”; but that this programme of improvement needs to continue in order for our services to be seen as good. The findings of the inspectors are entirely consistent with the self-assessment audits and the inspection team confirmed they had confidence that the current improvement plan was not only the right one but that it was being appropriately implemented.

 

·         In particular that:

 

 “Children and their families benefit from effective early help services.”

 

“The children’s single point of access service responds effectively to most contacts and referrals,” and  “Most assessments are thorough…”

 

 “The implementation of the local authority’s practice model has significantly strengthened work to tackle domestic and substance abuse…”

 

 “Many children are successfully diverted from care, as social workers work effectively with parents and risks to children are reduced”  and  “When children go missing from home, they receive timely return home interviews which lead to insightful assessments of vulnerability…”

 

“Senior managers have expanded the capacity of the inclusion team to respond to the increased number of children who are missing education or moving to elective home education. These children and young people are supported appropriately and according to their individual circumstances.”

 

In light of the positive progress made as outlined above, this Council resolves to:  

 

                  I.        Re-affirm its commitment to implementing the further improvements recommended in the report as our highest priority, and that the Children’s Services improvement journey targets will continue until Surrey to has achieved a level of provision that is classed can be seen as Outstanding by Ofsted outstanding in every area of children’s services.

 

                           II.          Extend its thanks to the children’s services workforce, who carry out their roles with pride, and seek to do their best for children and families in Surrey, particularly over the difficult period of the pandemic; and asks members of the Council to reflect upon their own role in future improvement work through scrutiny and challenge and by developing our community leadership of the wider children’s system in Surrey.

 

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

 

·           That the amendment to the first resolution was intended to be forward looking.

·           Achieved by clarifying that the Council aims to be outstanding not just in how it is seen, but as it is judged externally by families and through Ofsted’s Outstanding rating.

·           That it was important that the Council moves from its current plan of getting to an Ofsted Good rating, towards a new plan of getting to an Outstanding rating and having that reflected in its culture.

·           That by shifting its ambition the Council must strengthen its plans and practices as well as continuing the excellent pathway in which the Council had now set itself on.

 

The amendment was formally seconded by Nick Darby, who made the following comments:

 

·         Reiterated that the main changes proposed sought for the Council to head for an Ofsted rating of Outstanding rather than simply being outstanding.

·         Hoped that the amendment could be supported.

 

Jeremy Webster accepted the amendment and therefore it became the substantive motion.

 

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

 

·         That the public had been made more aware of the importance of Children’s Services as a result of the recent national trials for the murders of two young children.

·         Supported the motion but noted that the inclusion of selected positive quotes of the Ofsted report was unnecessary.

·         Supported the motion as the Council must be forward looking, that after four years for the Council to now be rated as Requires Improvement meant that the Council was not good enough.

·         That the Council had issues in staffing, with foster carers and the carers’ performance and around the transition of its children and young people out of care and into education or work.

·         That children's education and family services are not to be politicised.

·         That there remained a number of ‘buts’ as for example ‘overall effectiveness’ needed improvement and the Council must continue to work hard to reach an Outstanding rating.

·         That whilst not being able to support the motion, would not vote against it out of respect for the many officers in Children’s Services who were working diligently to improve the Council’s performance.

·         Applauded the progress made however a rating of Requires Improvement was not adequate for Surrey’s children, as corporate parents the Council should not be happy with that rating.

·         That Surrey was an affluent county yet had been independently rated as failing its Looked After Children since 2015, in six years the Council had moved one rating from Inadequate to Requires Improvement.

·         Comparatively less affluent local authorities have an Outstanding rating as do some of Surrey’s neighbours. 

·         That the Ofsted report notes that services were no longer inadequate which was positive, however overall progress had been slow since 2015.

·         Offered support to the administration to help in any way possible and would continue to actively participate in future improvement work through scrutiny and challenge.

·         Highlighted that Ofsted had recognised that the Council was implementing a clear and comprehensive improvement programme and that the Council had made good progress.

·         That the Ofsted report highlighted that children were safer and they and their families benefitted from effective early years services, and that Surrey leaders had achieved significant change and were determined to continue.

·         That findings from the recent inspection of the Council’s Youth Offending Service were that the Council had a well-motivated and knowledgeable service backed up by targeted training opportunities and a well-resourced specialist hub, the quality of casework was impressive, and the management team and practitioners knew the children well and addressed their needs through a wide range of services.

·         That it was vital that staff in Children’s Services feel supported by the Council to maintain the improvements made and to make further improvements and support them to ensure that no one is left behind.

·         That to deliver true transformation it was important to work in partnership to understand the issues and causes, the Ofsted report identifies clear areas where improvement is required.

·         Highlighted an area of improvement in the Ofsted report around the continued significant shortage of local foster carers, the removal of transport to contact provided by the Council had negative effects on foster carers as reported via a survey undertaken by the Surrey Foster Care Association, such as feeling unsafe to travel and considering leaving the service. 

·         Invited Members to meet the Surrey Foster Care Association executive and members to understand the challenges they face and how to work together to resolve them.

·         That foster carers worked tirelessly to provide a vital service and to get to a rating of Outstanding the Council needed their help.

·         Highlighted another area of improvement in the Ofsted report, that for a small number of disabled children there was insufficient attention to the capacity of their parents, noted a letter on the matter from a resident.

·         That the Council must acknowledge and encourage the good work by the Surrey Corporate Parenting Board, to ensure that as many of Surrey’s children as possible were looked after in the county and to ensure that Surrey’s foster carers were supported such as through a cross-party group working with foster carers to ensure that they have a voice.

·         Called for a Member briefing so that all Members as corporate parents could understand the full implications of the Ofsted report and encourage the creation of a revised Surrey Corporate Parenting Strategy.

·         That the Council would work to address the areas highlighted in the Ofsted report which need improvements such as around staff turnover, as the quicker the Council could improve its rating the better.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Familieshoped that despite some of the comments made, Members could agree that the continued improvement of Children’s Services was the Council’s highest priority in order to improve the lives of its vulnerable children through transformational social work.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families noted that the Ofsted report said that the senior leadership team and Council leaders had a credible commitment and a drive to improve services.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families thanked the current Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, for her work and that of her team, all members of staff in the service who worked tirelessly despite the challenges of the pandemic, and the guidance provided by the previous portfolio holder for children.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families asked Members to reflect on their role through the appropriate committees in supporting the improvement of Children’s Services through scrutiny and challenge.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families noted that common to local authorities with a Good or Outstanding rating in Children’s Services was the involvement of Members in all matters relating to children and young people.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families responded to the criticisms around the slow progress made, noting that the Ofsted report stated that progress had accelerated since 2018 which was in line with the Council’s clear improvement plan, thanked the late Executive Director for his work.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families noted that recounting previous Ofsted rating on Inadequate in reports back to 2008, the Council had a long history of inadequacy and it was a difficult journey back.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families noted that the 2018 Ofsted report stated that the likelihood of improvement gaining momentum was more realistic than at any time since 2015, comparatively to similar local authorities the Council’s improvement journey was consistent.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families noted that the Council was not complacent with its improved rating, Surrey was a large county and it would take time to embed change and further improvements in the consistency and delivery of its services.

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families noted that the Council recognised that more progress needed to be made and was striving for excellence for Surrey’s children and young people.

 

The Chair asked Jeremy Webster, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, he made the following comments:

 

·         Highlighted some positives of the Ofsted report which were that the Children's Single Point of Access (C-SPA) was working which provided targeted support and meant that caseloads were more manageable, the Council was becoming more child-centred, new assessment tools were becoming more embedded, the work with family courts was becoming more effective, the Council understood the health needs of children better, and the mental health services were highly effective.

·         Recognised that challenges remained such as regarding the transition of children into adulthood, where to find more foster carers and how to reduce staff turnover in social workers.

·         That Surrey’s Corporate Parenting Strategy requires updating and Members should be involved in that process.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 51 Members voting For, 1 voting Against and 9 Abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes:

 

·         The Ofsted inspection report on children’s services in Surrey published on 9 March 2022.

·         That the overall effectiveness of our services is judged to have improved since the last inspection in 2018 and acknowledges that Surrey’s leaders have achieved significant change in that time and that they are implementing a clear and comprehensive improvement programme.

 

This Council further notes:

 

·         That this improvement is described as “…a strong foundation to strive for excellence.”; but that this programme of improvement needs to continue in order for our services to be seen as good. The findings of the inspectors are entirely consistent with the self-assessment audits and the inspection team confirmed they had confidence that the current improvement plan was not only the right one but that it was being appropriately implemented.

 

·         In particular that:

 

 “Children and their families benefit from effective early help services.”

 

“The children’s single point of access service responds effectively to most contacts and referrals,” and  “Most assessments are thorough…”

 

 “The implementation of the local authority’s practice model has significantly strengthened work to tackle domestic and substance abuse…”

 

 “Many children are successfully diverted from care, as social workers work effectively with parents and risks to children are reduced”  and  “When children go missing from home, they receive timely return home interviews which lead to insightful assessments of vulnerability…”

 

“Senior managers have expanded the capacity of the inclusion team to respond to the increased number of children who are missing education or moving to elective home education. These children and young people are supported appropriately and according to their individual circumstances.”

 

In light of the positive progress made as outlined above, this Council resolves to:  

 

                     I.         Re-affirm its commitment to implementing the further improvements recommended in the report as our highest priority, and that the Children’s Services improvement journey targets Surrey to achieve a level of provision that is classed as Outstanding by Ofsted in every area of children’s services.

 

                    II.         Extend its thanks to the children’s services workforce, who carry out their roles with pride, and seek to do their best for children and families in Surrey, particularly over the difficult period of the pandemic; and asks members of the Council to reflect upon their own role in future improvement work through scrutiny and challenge and by developing our community leadership of the wider children’s system in Surrey.

 

Item 8 (iii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Will Forster moved:

 

This Council notes:

 

·           That the Government are scrapping free coronavirus tests for most people as part of the ‘Living with Covid’ plan.

·           Concern that stopping providing free tests for all will make it harder to fight coronavirus. Charging for essential tests would hit those who can least afford it hardest, at a time when families are already being clobbered by soaring energy bills.

 

This Council resolves to: 

 

                  I.        Call on the Government to continue with free PCR and lateral flow tests for those residents in critical groups, such as front-line workers and those who are eligible for free prescriptions.

                 II.        Agree to explore the option of providing free asymptomatic testing for staff working in health and social care, vulnerable residents in care homes and other similar groups for up to one year.

 

Will Forster made the following points:

 

·         That having recently recovered from Covid-19, noted the importance of providing free asymptomatic tests especially whilst cases were high. 

·         That as part of the Government’s ‘Living with COVID-19’ plan, free Covid-19 testing would be stopped for most people in the country and there was concern that the move was premature, as it could lead to local outbreaks and add to the cost-of-living crisis.

·         That the motion called on the Council to lobby the Government to continue to provide free Covid-19 testing for critical groups like frontline workers in health and social care, as well as vulnerable individuals.

·         That the Council needed to send a strong message to the Government against removing the provision of free testing and in the absence of national change the Council must step up and provide free Covid-19 testing to critical groups that the Council has a duty of care for.

·         Hoped that the Leader would write to the Government calling on them to reverse its decision and to extend free Covid-19 testing and that the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health would work with officers to deliver a local testing programme in Surrey as soon as possible.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Sinead Mooney, who made the following comments:

 

·         Welcomed the collaboration on drafting the original motion.

·         Noted that the Council had continuously followed national policy on Covid-19.

·         That whilst awaiting further national policy guidance on the ‘Living with COVID-19’ plan, welcomed the motion and the opportunity to explore further the option for free asymptomatic testing for Surrey’s most vulnerable residents and frontline workers.

 

Two Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:

 

·         That the situation regarding free Covid-19 testing should be reconsidered.

·         That currently the Council followed national policy on Covid-19, including testing and awaited further guidance on the asymptomatic testing policy at the end of March, as well as the offer to specific settings and testing in response to outbreaks.

·         That once that guidance was published the Council’s Public Health team would be considering how best to implement it locally.

·         That testing should continue for health and social care workers who look after vulnerable individuals such as those in care homes often requiring constant contact, many with dementia, co-morbidities or were immunosuppressed living in close proximity which meant an increased chance of transmission especially with the Omicron variant.

·         That as a result of Omicron the Government was offering Covid-19 boosters for those aged over 75 years, residents in care homes, and those over 12 years old who were immunosuppressed. 

·         That health and social care workers were no longer required to have Covid-19 vaccinations, and neither were residents or visitors and given the nature of the work it was vital to encourage regular testing. 

·         That the Council should lobby the Government for free testing and it should continue to support the vulnerable groups outlined in the motion.

·         That Covid-19 had not gone away so all should be vigilant.

·         Thanked all in Surrey for following public health guidance throughout the pandemic and all should continue to follow key precautions to help stop the spread such as getting vaccinated, wearing a face covering in crowded settings, letting fresh air in, washing hands regularly and staying at home if unwell.

·         That vaccination statistics showed that the vaccine remained the best form of protection for Covid-19, noting that it was never too late for those eligible to book a vaccine.

·         That as one those groups being eligible to still get free testing, supported the motion to protect vulnerable people as the country was in a state of transition concerning Covid-19.

 

The Chair asked Will Forster, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, he made the following comments:

 

·         Thanked Members for their comments.

 

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

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes:

 

·           That the Government are scrapping free coronavirus tests for most people as part of the ‘Living with Covid’ plan.

·           Concern that stopping providing free tests for all will make it harder to fight coronavirus. Charging for essential tests would hit those who can least afford it hardest, at a time when families are already being clobbered by soaring energy bills.

 

This Council resolves to: 

 

                  I.        Call on the Government to continue with free PCR and lateral flow tests for those residents in critical groups, such as front-line workers and those who are eligible for free prescriptions.

                 II.        Agree to explore the option of providing free asymptomatic testing for staff working in health and social care, vulnerable residents in care homes and other similar groups for up to one year.

 

Item 8 (iv)

 

Under Standing Order 13.1 the time limit for debating motions had been reached, therefore Council did not debate this original motion.

 

 

Supporting documents: