Item 9(i)
Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘In the Coalition Agreement, the Government made a commitment to strengthen councillors’ powers to vote on large salary packages for council officers. In addition, the Government has taken necessary steps to increase transparency about how taxpayers’ money is used, including in the pay and reward of public sector staff.
The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency published on 29 September 2011 enshrines the principles of transparency in rewarding senior staff. Sections 38 - 43 of the Localism Act 2011 place a legal obligation on Local Authorities to publish an annual Pay Policy Statement with specific requirements regarding Chief Officers pay and other benefits.
The Surrey County Council Pay Policy Statement 2013 - 14 presented to this Council in March 2013 by the Leader states:
Chief Officers’ and Chief Executive's Remuneration
Chief officers are on all-inclusive single status Surrey Pay contracts i.e. there are no variable pay salaries or bonuses paid. The council has not provided any grade related benefits in kind, such as Annual Leave, Private Medical Insurance or Lease Cars since 2007. Chief Officers receive the same allowances as other members of staff and access to the same voluntary benefits scheme, while any expenditure on business travel is reimbursed at the same rate for all grades.
The Chief Executive is on a contract which is like Chief Officers i.e. he is on an all-inclusive single status Surrey Pay contract and there is no variable pay or bonuses made. He is however paid a specific additional allowance for duties carried out in support of the Lord Lieutenant of the County.
This Council reaffirms this policy without any exceptions.’
Item 9(ii)
Mr Peter Martin (Godalming South, Milford and Witley) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
‘This Council recognises the crucial role of the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment in the Surrey economy and in attracting and retaining major businesses to locate in the county.
Given the vital importance of these airports for the continued success of the Surrey economy, this Council opposes any proposals that would serve to reduce their capacity or the role of Heathrow as a hub airport.
This Council remains of the view that expansion at either airport would require the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed.
This Council calls on Government and the aviation industry to prioritise investment in road and rail connections to the airports to reduce congestion and overcrowding.’
Item 9(iii)
Mr Will Forster (Woking South) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
Whilst the average age for leaving home is 24, only one in 20 young people in foster care stay with their carers beyond their 18th birthday. Many young people leaving foster care end up homeless and in a crisis that could be avoided.
This Council:
1. Asks the Cabinet to support the "Don't Move Me" campaign to persuade the Government to change the law and provide funding to ensure that all young people in foster care can stay with their foster families when they turn 18, if both parties agree
2. Until such time as the Government provides funding, asks Cabinet to do all it can to help young people in foster care to stay with their foster families when they turn 18, if both parties agree.
Minutes:
ITEM 9(i)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Hazel Watson moved the motion which was:
‘In the Coalition Agreement, the Government made a commitment to strengthen councillors’ powers to vote on large salary packages for council officers. In addition, the Government has taken necessary steps to increase transparency about how taxpayers’ money is used, including in the pay and reward of public sector staff.
The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency published on 29 September 2011 enshrines the principles of transparency in rewarding senior staff. Sections 38 - 43 of the Localism Act 2011 place a legal obligation on Local Authorities to publish an annual Pay Policy Statement with specific requirements regarding Chief Officers pay and other benefits.
The Surrey County Council Pay Policy Statement 2013 - 14 presented to this Council in March 2013 by the Leader states:
Chief Officers’ and Chief Executive's Remuneration
Chief officers are on all-inclusive single status Surrey Pay contracts i.e. there are no variable pay salaries or bonuses paid. The council has not provided any grade related benefits in kind, such as Annual Leave, Private Medical Insurance or Lease Cars since 2007. Chief Officers receive the same allowances as other members of staff and access to the same voluntary benefits scheme, while any expenditure on business travel is reimbursed at the same rate for all grades.
The Chief Executive is on a contract which is like Chief Officers i.e. he is on an all-inclusive single status Surrey Pay contract and there is no variable pay or bonuses made. He is however paid a specific additional allowance for duties carried out in support of the Lord Lieutenant of the County.
This Council reaffirms this policy without any exceptions.’
The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Fiona White.
Mrs Watson referred to the Surrey County Council Pay Policy Statement approved by the County Council in 2012 and updated and approved by County Council in March 2013. She considered that only the full Council could debate this issue. Her motion was not about individuals, it was about fairness, transparency and the need for all staff to be treated equally. She hoped that the whole Council would support her motion.
After a short debate in which four Members spoke on the motion, it was put to the vote with 64 Members voting for it and no Member voting against it. There were no abstentions.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
That this Council reaffirms this Pay Policy Statement without any exceptions.
ITEM 9(ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order12.1, Mr Peter Martin moved the motion, which was:
‘This Council recognises the crucial role of the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment in the Surrey economy and in attracting and retaining major businesses to locate in the county.
Given the vital importance of these airports for the continued success of the Surrey economy, this Council opposes any proposals that would serve to reduce their capacity or the role of Heathrow as a hub airport.
This Council remains of the view that expansion at either airport would require the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed.
This Council calls on Government and the aviation industry to prioritise investment in road and rail connections to the airports to reduce congestion and overcrowding.’
Mr Martin began by saying that the economy of Surrey was growing and that the residents of Surrey enjoyed living in such a vibrant county, which had good schools, jobs and businesses. There was easy access to London and two international airports adjoining the county. He also said that the top 200 companies are clustered within 25 miles of Heathrow. He provided detailed statistics, including the number of Surrey residents directly employed at Heathrow and acknowledged that the airport factor had a catalytic effect on jobs at both Heathrow and Gatwick. He considered that both airports were essential to Surrey’s success and made reference to the Davies report on aviation and its interim report, due in December 2013. He believed that if Heathrow lost its ‘hub’ status it would be catastrophic for Surrey’s economy. Any uncertainty was bad for jobs and businesses and therefore, he urged Members to support his motion.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Furey, who made the following points:
· Airport capacity was one of the most difficult questions for the county, with strong feelings on all sides.
· Residents who lived close to the airports were rightly concerned about noise and air pollution, the impact on the environment and land being taken for building new runways.
· Surrey’s economy would be devastated if the Government decided to invest in a Thames Estuary airport or Stansted.
· Successive Governments had not made a decision on the future of aviation in the UK – this was damaging for Surrey’s economic competitiveness and disconcerting for residents.
· The Government must act to: (i) make a rapid and clear decision, (ii) maintain the capacity of Heathrow and Gatwick and to support the role of Heathrow as a hub airport.
· Better road and rail links to both Heathrow and Gatwick, such as a southern rail access to Heathrow from Surrey and electrification of the North Downs link to Gatwick.
· Airport development, roads and railways must be co-designed with businesses and residents working together in partnership.
Mr Essex moved an amendment at the meeting (formally seconded by Mr Robert Evans), which was to add the following sentence to Mr Martin’s motion:
‘However, this Council is concerned that any new runways at either Heathrow or Gatwick would have seriously detrimental effects to many Surrey residents and the environment.’
Mr Essex made the following points:
· He considered that his amendment did not alter the main thrust of Mr Martin’s motion.
· Most freight was brought to the airports by road
· All airports were due to submit their proposals to the Davies Commission within the week.
Eight Members spoke on the amendment, with the following points being made:
· Concern re. infrastructure problems, and in particular the A244 road.
· That the debate was about hub changes and not about airport expansions.
· Concern for residents living near Heathrow and the stacking system for aeroplanes.
· Reference to the Environment and Transport Select Committee’s May 2013 meeting, where Members debated airports including hub options and advocated examining future options for Gatwick.
· The effect of expansion at Gatwick on Charlwood village and recognition that Mole Valley District Council would have difficult decisions to make if / when they had to consider a planning application for airport expansion.
· Residents would appreciate the rail improvements to airports but would not support their further expansions.
· Stanwell Moor could be demolished if Heathrow expanded.
· It was beholden on this Council to look for and consider sensible solutions for the airports.
· A blanket approach was not appropriate – there was a need to wait for the actual proposals and then develop a formal response to them.
The amendment was put to the vote, with 21 Members voting for and 42 Members voting against it. There were two abstentions.
Therefore the amendment was lost.
Returning to the original motion, on which a further five Members spoke, making the following points:
· For the last 20 years, the UK had no airport strategy and was in danger of being left behind by other countries.
· Areas close to Heathrow airport were being blighted.
· Heathrow was the biggest hub airport in the world with 80 airlines using it and 1000 young people undertaking training there.
· Surrey had good relationships with businesses but they wanted better access links to Heathrow.
· Recognition of the importance of Heathrow airport and the huge number of residents from north Surrey that were dependent on it – either directly or indirectly.
· A desire for Surrey County Council to develop a robust aviation policy.
· A need to understand the importance of airports on the economy and that the size of Heathrow and Gatwick airport was critical to Surrey’s economy.
The original motion was put to the vote, with 59 Members voting for and 3 Members voting against it. There were three abstentions.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
This Council recognises the crucial role of the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, generating investment in the Surrey economy and in attracting and retaining major businesses to locate in the county.
Given the vital importance of these airports for the continued success of the Surrey economy, this Council opposes any proposals that would serve to reduce their capacity or the role of Heathrow as a hub airport.
This Council remains of the view that expansion at either airport would require the environmental and surface access issues involved to be satisfactorily addressed.
This Council calls on Government and the aviation industry to prioritise investment in road and rail connections to the airports to reduce congestion and overcrowding.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.50pm and resumed at 2.05pm with all those present who had been in attendance in the morning session except for Mrs Coleman, Mr Robert Evans, Mr Hodge, Mrs Kemeny, Mr Mallett, Mrs Moseley, Ms Thomson and Mr Witham.
ITEM 9(iii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Oder 12.1, Mr Will Forster moved the motion, which was:
‘Whilst the average age for leaving home is 24, only one in 20 young people in foster care stay with their carers beyond their 18th birthday. Many young people leaving foster care end up homeless and in a crisis that could be avoided.
This Council:
1. Asks the Cabinet to support the "Don't Move Me" campaign to persuade the Government to change the law and provide funding to ensure that all young people in foster care can stay with their foster families when they turn 18, if both parties agree
2. Until such time as the Government provides funding, asks Cabinet to do all it can to help young people in foster care to stay with their foster families when they turn 18, if both parties agree.’
In support of his motion, Mr Forster said that young people were generally staying at home longer than before but this change had not been reflected in the foster care system. He considered that it was critical for the Council to support its obligation to children in foster care and to provide them with a better chance for success. He urged all Members to vote for this motion and to think of it as an ‘Invest to Save’ option.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Ian Beardsmore.
Mrs Mary Angell tabled both the Department for Education’s ‘Charter for Care Leavers’ and an amendment at the meeting (formally seconded by Mrs Curran) which was:
(N.B. Using the original motion, any additional words were underlined and the deletions crossed through)
‘Whilst the average age for leaving home is 24, nationally only one in 20 young people in foster care stay with their carers beyond their 18th birthday. In the UK many young people leaving foster care end up homeless, and in a crisis that could be
avoided.
In Surrey we have worked hard to address these issues, and currently our Fostering Service is supporting 47 young people, who are 18 plus, to remain in family-based care.
This Council:
1.
Asks the Cabinet to support the “Don’t
move me Campaign” aimed at persuading to persuade the
Government to change the law, and to provide adequate funding that
will ensure young people, for whom it is appropriate, can remain
stay with their foster families when they turn 18, provided
all if all parties agree.
2. Asks the Council to acknowledge that the Cabinet is both committed to supporting the National Charter for Care Leavers, and active in supporting the Corporate Parenting Board in ensuring that all young people leaving care have a statutory plan (pathway plan) in place, which will support them as they move into adulthood. This will include the choice to remain with their foster family after they turn 18, provided this is the right option for them.
3. Asks all members in their role as Corporate parents to continue their endorsement and support of the Corporate Parenting Board’s innovative workstream launched in May 2013 entitled “Moving On ... from the Council’s care to Independent Living”, which was facilitated by the Shift Team.
4. Asks the Council to congratulate the Children in Care Council for their exemplary commitment and hard work in partnership with the Corporate Parenting Board and Care Leavers’ Service to ensure that the opinions of young people are both listened to and acted upon to shape services.
Both Mr Forster and Mr Beardsmore (the seconder) agreed to support the amendment to his motion.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Families spoke to the amended motion and acknowledged the difficult issues that these young people needed to resolve when they left foster care. She confirmed that Surrey County Council was committed to them remaining with their carers until they had completed their education and said that currently 47 young people were being supported by the council. She also referred to paragraph 4 of the amended motion, in which the Council was asked to congratulate the Children in Care Council for their exemplary commitment and hard work.
Six more Members spoke on the motion as amended, making the following points:
· That the County Council continued to provide free school meals and a free travel card for foster children.
· Assistance was given to ensure that they had access to good housing and developed good housekeeping skills.
· Reference to the matched funding savings scheme for children in care.
· Praise for the fostering panels and Surrey’s processes and the way that the council took its responsibilities seriously.
· That no children in care had been excluded from school or entered the youth justice system during the last two years.
· A desire to build on the achievement to date and provide opportunities for these young people to move into higher education and lead independent lives.
· That supporting this motion was a long term investment with enormous benefits.
The amended motion was put to the vote and agreed, with no Member voting against it.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
Whilst the average age for leaving home is 24, nationally only one in 20 young people in foster care stay with their carers beyond their 18th birthday. In the UK many young people leaving foster care end up homeless, and in a crisis that could be avoided.
In Surrey we have worked hard to address these issues, and currently our Fostering Service is supporting 47 young people, who are 18 plus, to remain in family-based care.
This Council:
1. Asks the Cabinet to support the “Don’t move me Campaign” aimed at persuading the Government to change the law, and to provide adequate funding that will ensure young people, for whom it is appropriate, can remain with their foster families when they turn 18, provided all parties agree.
2. Asks the Council to acknowledge that the Cabinet is both committed to supporting the National Charter for Care Leavers, and active in supporting the Corporate Parenting Board in ensuring that all young people leaving care have a statutory plan (pathway plan) in place, which will support them as they move into adulthood. This will include the choice to remain with their foster family after they turn 18, provided this is the right option for them.
3. Asks all Members in their role as Corporate parents to continue their endorsement and support of the Corporate Parenting Board’s innovative workstream launched in May 2013 entitled “Moving On ... from the Council’s care to Independent Living”, which was facilitated by the Shift Team.
4. Asks the Council to congratulate the Children in Care Council for their exemplary commitment and hard work in partnership with the Corporate Parenting Board and Care Leavers’ Service to ensure that the opinions of young people are both listened to and acted upon to shape services.