Item 9 (i)
Matt Furniss (Shalford) to move under standing order 11 as follows:
This Council notes:
This Council resolves to:
Item 9 (ii)
Trefor Hogg (Camberley East) to move under standing order 11 as follows:
This Council notes:
This Council further notes:
That the framework of the UN Sustainable Development Goals provides a balanced, well-researched and detailed model of how those goals are strongly linked and interact with each other. For Surrey they provide a guide that supports a coherent view of Our Ambitions for People and Place and how they are strongly linked and interact with each other.
This Council resolves:
I. That where practicable this Council will make use of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as a guide to how we should address the interlinked nature of Our Ambitions for People and Place. Particularly in relation to our own policies for the environment to shape them so that they will support delivery of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and will be a key part of our contribution to leaving future generations a place to live in that allows them to thrive.
Minutes:
Item 9 (i)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Matt Furniss moved:
This Council notes:
· The proposed removal of Day Travelcards by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for those travelling into and throughout London. This will result in Surrey residents having to buy separate rail and London transport service tickets. Currently, Day Travelcards provide unlimited travel on Transport for London (TfL) services, including the London Underground, Bus, Tram, Docklands Light Railway, London Overground and Elizabeth line, and National Rail services in London. They can also be used to obtain a one third reduction in River Services fares. The proposals to remove Day Travelcards constitute an unfair, unacceptable and expensive levy on our residents who wish or need to travel to London.
· The proposals have deliberately targeted the removal of the Day Travelcard as a method to generate additional income for TfL. It is anticipated by the Mayor’s own consultation that the withdrawal of Day Travelcards will result in rail operators ceasing to sell Zone 1-6 Travelcards. This will add barriers and travel friction to journeys to London – running counter to evidence that passenger journeys and the use of public transport are enhanced by improving integrated ticketing not reducing it. No regard is given in the proposals for the potential loss of revenue to the London economy that may be caused by the increase in travel costs as Surrey residents risk being priced out of the nation’s capital. Employers, retail and leisure businesses, theatres and many others may see a reduction in revenue as residents reduce their time and/or expenditure in London. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growthhas written to TfL on this matter to express concern and a lack of support for these proposals.
This Council resolves to:
I. Demand that London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, immediately withdraws his proposals for the removal of Day Travelcards.
II. Request that the Leader of the Council writes to Sadiq Khan informing him of this resolution of Surrey County Council, the discriminatory nature of his proposal, the impact on Surrey residents, the negative impact on the economy of London and therefore the need to abandon plans to remove Day Travelcards.
III. Ensure the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Transport urging him to intervene in this matter.
Matt Furniss made the following points:
· Thanked Jonathan Essex and Robert King for their help and collaboration in crafting the cross-party updated amendment.
· Noted that there was an invisible wall being drawn around London by the Mayor of London, restricting the freedom of movement and social inclusion.
· Noted that ensuring the affordability and accessibility of public transport had been outlined as a priority for the Council and the London Assembly.
· Noted that Day Travelcards alleviated higher fares for certain passengers travelling into and around London, 14.2 million tickets had been purchased on the National Rail network alone annually across the UK.
· Noted that without the Day Travelcard passenger fares would rise by 7% for off-peak and families would pay 16% more for their tickets.
· Called for more integrated ticketing not a reduction, the withdrawal of the Day Travelcard would likely have a negative impact on Transport for London’s (TfL) income and would lead to more expensive and time-consuming journeys; disability groups had voiced concerns.
· Noted that on 27 September, alongside leaders of a range of councils outside of London, business representatives, bus users and advocates of public transport and disabled people, he signed a joint letter urging the Mayor of London to abandon the withdrawal.
· Noted that the updated amendment enabled the Council to negotiate on the zone 6 extension to areas of Surrey bordering London, currently some residents could use the Oyster card system whilst others used the National Rail ticketing system.
· Noted that some operators introduced smart ticketing, however that was not a truly pay as you go ticket.
· Noted that simplifying the complexities in ticketing would reduce the financial barrier for many short trips and having a zonal ticketing structure, and fares reform were a key part of the strategy to achieve a modal shift towards public transport.
· Noted that rail operators needed to adapt to the post-pandemic commuting pattern, the Council’s Surrey Connect bus service reflected that.
· Noted that the new joined up bus and rail ticketing approach could be accompanied by a similar cap used in the Oyster card system in London, limiting the total cost through ticketing integration; that would widely benefit Surrey.
The motion was formally seconded by Jeremy Webster, who made the following comments:
· Noted that there were 84 railway stations in Surrey with 16 in the zones and six in the Oyster card area, leaving 62 railway stations where travellers would be affected by the Day Travelcard withdrawal.
· Noted that the withdrawal was a discriminatory action against the elderly, disabled, families, children and those on low incomes, and many people do not have access to modern technology or a bank card; it would affect visitors and casual users who do not understand the system and would be unable to buy an add-on Day Travelcard to their rail ticket.
· Noted that without an Oyster card or a bank card in the zones, travellers would have to buy single peak tickets for each journey and could not use buses as those were cashless; children were charged adult fares when using bank cards to pay for buses.
· Noted that registering senior or disabled railcards and therefore claiming the discounts on fares within the zones was only possible via an Oyster card.
· Noted that TfL was keeping the Oyster card and bank card capping at the Day Travelcard price.
· Noted that the revenue apportioned to TfL from Day Travelcards was less than that received by TfL from Oyster cards.
· Urged for the discussions to take place between the Mayor of London, the Rail Delivery Group and the Department for Transport (DfT), and to stress the importance of the Day Travelcards to London and the surrounding counties.
Jonathan Essex moved an updated amendment which had been published in the second supplementary agenda (item 9 (i)) on 10 October 2023, which was formally seconded by Robert King.
The updated amendment was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):
This Council notes:
· The proposed removal of Day Travelcards by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for those travelling into and throughout London. This will result in Surrey residents having to buy separate rail and London transport service tickets. Currently, Day Travelcards provide unlimited travel on Transport for London (TfL) services, including the London Underground, Bus, Tram, Docklands Light Railway, London Overground and Elizabeth line, and National Rail services in London. They can also be used to obtain a one third reduction in River Services fares. The proposals to remove Day Travelcards constitute an unfair, unacceptable and expensive levy on our residents who wish or need to travel to London.
· The proposals have deliberately targeted the removal of the Day Travelcard as a method to generate additional income for TfL. It is anticipated by the Mayor’s own consultation that the withdrawal of Day Travelcards will result in rail operators ceasing to sell Zone 1-6 Travelcards. This will add barriers and travel friction to journeys to London – running counter to evidence that passenger journeys and the use of public transport are enhanced by improving integrated ticketing not reducing it. No regard is given in the proposals for the potential loss of revenue to the London economy that may be caused by the increase in travel costs as Surrey residents risk being priced out of the nation’s capital. Employers, retail and leisure businesses, theatres and many others may see a reduction in revenue as residents reduce their time and/or expenditure in London. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growthhas written to TfL on this matter to express concern and a lack of support for these proposals.
This Council resolves to:
I. Demand that London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, immediately withdraws his proposals for the removal of Day Travelcards.
II.
Request that the Leader of the Council writes to
Sadiq Khan and the Secretary of State for Transport
informing them both him of this resolution of Surrey
County Council, the discriminatory nature of his proposal, the
impact on Surrey residents and surrounding counties, the
negative impact on the economy of London and therefore the need to
abandon plans to remove Day Travelcards.
III. Ensure the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Transport urging him to intervene in this matter and request a joint meeting with TfL and DfT, to include in those negotiations extension of zone 6 to areas of Surrey bordering London to increase Surrey residents’ direct access to contactless TfL fares and so cheaper train travel.
Jonathan Essex spoke to his updated amendment, making the following points:
· Noted that the updated amendment was a result of cross-party discussion and agreement and provided an opportunity to make things better by opening up talks between the Mayor of London’s office, TfL, DfT and councils around London to not just keep the Day Travelcard but as part of the wider reforms to make transport more affordable for all around as well as in London.
· Noted that the Mayor of London was proposing the withdrawal following a reduction of TfL’s operational revenue grant from the Government by £700 million in April 2018, TfL now received less revenue support from the Government than any comparable world city.
· Highlighted that TfL was therefore over dependent on ticket revenue to fund its transport services, with the reduction in Government funding TfL’s losses against pre-pandemic levels had been topped up by DfT in funding agreements agreed behind closed doors.
· Noted that the proposal to withdraw Day Travelcards was first made public in DfT’s Annex A of their funding agreement settlement letter in February 2022.
· Noted that the updated amendment retained the first resolution to demand the Mayor of London withdraw the removal of Day Travelcards, on the basis that the DfT and Train Operating Companies (TOCs) agree an alternative arrangement that allows TfL to meet the requirements of its funding agreement with the Government.
· Called for greater transparency and accountability going forward, neither the Council nor the Greater London Authority had been included in such talks.
· Noted that the updated amendment proposed that in addition to writing to both the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State for Transport, that the Council work with other councils around London to call on them to openly negotiate a wider fair transport deal and fairer funding settlement to address the long-standing fare inequality where travel into London was more expensive from just outside the zoning area.
· Noted that the wider economic, social and environmental benefits of Day Travelcards must be recognised.
· Noted that the updated amendment called on the Government to extend zone 6 into Surrey and create further zones as required, so all of Surrey would be within the area that was discounted and contactless; as enjoyed for many years by some areas north of London.
· Noted that for many years different areas of Surrey had requested extension to zone 6, doing so now would provide access to the Day Travelcard area, including buses as well as trains and providing discounted public transport to London.
· Noted that the Government's Committee on Climate Change had called for a rework of ticketing prices to make public transport more affordable, that would only have value if Day Travelcards are retained. The further discounting of tickets down to a fairer level around London would require financial support and permission from the Government and agreement by the TOCs.
The updated amendment was formally seconded by Robert King, who made the following comments:
· Thanked Jonathan Essex and Matt Furniss for their hard work in the negotiations, it was an opportunity to get something right for Surrey’s residents.
· Highlighted the ‘Feltham dash’ whereby residents would exit a South Western Railway service to scan their card in zone 6 and jump back on to save money.
· Noted that DfT had withdrawn the ability to book out of zone 6 using national ticketing, that affected passengers already hit by price rises.
· Regarding the extension of zone 6 many residents had called for that for years, the TOCs and TfL were in favour; however DfT and the Secretary of State for Transport were needed to underwrite the potential initial cost of that.
· Noted that despite operating in a major city, TfL received one of the lowest levels of funding in Western Europe; TfL had to find between £500 million and £1 billion per year in extra revenue in the Government's funding settlement.
· Noted that it was an opportunity not to degrade the service by removing Day Travelcards, but to find new revenue from new customers using public transport leaving their cars; making public transport a truly attractive proposal through a zone 6 agreement across Surrey.
Matt Furniss accepted the updated amendment and therefore it became the substantive motion.
Three Members spoke on the substantive motion and made the following comments:
· Noted that the idea of withdrawing Day Travelcards was ridiculous, many residents found it to be a vital service.
· Noted that the substantive motion went a step further as in addition to the Mayor of London, it sought to lobby the Government to support the continuation of the Day Travelcard; as well as seeking to extend zone 6 so that more of Surrey could benefit from what other London areas benefitted from.
· Noted the need to acknowledge that TfL was being asked to do a lot with very little. Whilst the Mayor of London’s decision to withdraw Day Travelcards was wrong, the decision was proposed because over 70% of the cost of travel in London was funded from fares, whereas it was less than 30% in Paris.
· Noted that the root cause of the issue was for proper funding for London, Surrey and the home counties on their transport systems.
· Praised the cross-party discussions on the updated amendment now substantive motion, that in working together to find root causes of problems better solutions could be delivered.
· Noted that many residents in their division used the main London Waterloo to Guildford line.
· Understood that the Mayor of London signed the order telling TfL to stop selling Day Travelcards from January 2024 if no alternative proposals are agreed; hoped that the Council in its joint discussions would note that shortage of time.
The Chair asked Matt Furniss, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, he made the following comments:
· Thanked all for their comments, welcomed the cross-party substantive motion as the issue affected many residents; hoped that the Government would provide support on the matter.
The substantive motion was put to the vote and was carried.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
This Council notes:
· The proposed removal of Day Travelcards by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for those travelling into and throughout London. This will result in Surrey residents having to buy separate rail and London transport service tickets. Currently, Day Travelcards provide unlimited travel on Transport for London (TfL) services, including the London Underground, Bus, Tram, Docklands Light Railway, London Overground and Elizabeth line, and National Rail services in London. They can also be used to obtain a one third reduction in River Services fares. The proposals to remove Day Travelcards constitute an unfair, unacceptable and expensive levy on our residents who wish or need to travel to London.
· The proposals have deliberately targeted the removal of the Day Travelcard as a method to generate additional income for TfL. It is anticipated by the Mayor’s own consultation that the withdrawal of Day Travelcards will result in rail operators ceasing to sell Zone 1-6 Travelcards. This will add barriers and travel friction to journeys to London – running counter to evidence that passenger journeys and the use of public transport are enhanced by improving integrated ticketing not reducing it. No regard is given in the proposals for the potential loss of revenue to the London economy that may be caused by the increase in travel costs as Surrey residents risk being priced out of the nation’s capital. Employers, retail and leisure businesses, theatres and many others may see a reduction in revenue as residents reduce their time and/or expenditure in London. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth has written to TfL on this matter to express concern and a lack of support for these proposals.
This Council resolves to:
I. Demand that London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, immediately withdraws his proposals for the removal of Day Travelcards.
II. Request that the Leader of the Council writes to Sadiq Khan and the Secretary of State for Transport informing them both of this resolution of Surrey County Council, the discriminatory nature of his proposal, the impact on Surrey residents and surrounding counties, the negative impact on the economy of London and therefore the need to abandon plans to remove Day Travelcards.
III. Ensure the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Transport urging him to intervene in this matter and request a joint meeting with TfL and DfT, to include in those negotiations extension of zone 6 to areas of Surrey bordering London to increase Surrey residents’ direct access to contactless TfL fares and so cheaper train travel.
Item 9 (ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Trefor Hogg moved:
This Council notes:
· The very strong links between the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals for 2030;
· The United Kingdom’s commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals;
· That leave no one behind is the central, transformative promise of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals; and
· Our own Community Vision for 2030 which states Our Ambitions for People and Place as making Surrey a special place where no one is left behind.
This Council further notes:
That the framework of the UN Sustainable Development Goals provides a balanced, well-researched and detailed model of how those goals are strongly linked and interact with each other. For Surrey they provide a guide that supports a coherent view of Our Ambitions for People and Place and how they are strongly linked and interact with each other.
This Council resolves:
I. That where practicable this Council will make use of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as a guide to how we should address the interlinked nature of Our Ambitions for People and Place. Particularly in relation to our own policies for the environment to shape them so that they will support delivery of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and will be a key part of our contribution to leaving future generations a place to live in that allows them to thrive.
Trefor Hogg made the following points:
· Noted that the motion sought a joined-up approach to delivering the Council’s ambitions for Surrey and how it would make Surrey a special place where ‘No one is left behind’.
· Noted that substantial progress had been made but there was more to do, to deliver that change the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provided that guidance.
· 1. No Poverty and 2. Zero Hunger: noted his deep personal commitment to fighting both, the cost of living crisis continued to bite the most vulnerable in society, and Surrey continued to help them.
· 3. Good health and well-being: noted the excellent health service in Surrey, however the level of challenge to them was rising, the focus must be on the causes and not symptoms; focusing on health inequalities.
· 4. Quality education: noted that Surrey’s schools were among the best in the country equipping children for the future, 91% of them were Ofsted rated Good or Outstanding.
· 5. Gender equality: noted that across Surrey there was still much to do to change long held attitudes.
· 6. Clean water and sanitation: noted that the Council must continue to hold its utility companies to account.
· 7. Affordable and clean energy: noted that the Council’s ambition was that 15% of Surrey’s energy should come from solar energy by 2032; he welcomed hearing people getting solar panels installed.
· 8. Decent work and economic growth: noted that economic growth was essential in terms of being able to afford a greener future, waste of resources including energy must be eliminated.
· 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure: noted that Surrey’s research centres were world class in various disciplines, Surrey could provide the infrastructure required.
· 10. Reduced inequalities: targeting Surrey’s identified priority areas and priority groups with the resources needed to deliver change.
· 11. Sustainable cities and communities: noted that the Healthy Streets for Surrey design guide was a good beginning to allowing us to enjoy natural spaces and energy efficient buildings.
· 12. Responsible consumption and production: communications, education and making it easier to be responsible were vital, just imposing more taxes was not.
· 13. Climate action: noted that the easier part of reducing emissions over the last thirty years in the country had been done, now action needed to be done on the harder work of changing technology and reducing consumption; supporting businesses and residents every step of the way.
· 14. Life below water and 15. Life on land: noted that the state of nature in Surrey was inadequate, the Council must strive to mobilise its residents and landowners to participate in restoring nature through efforts such as planting the 1.2 million trees and further developing and delivering the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
· 16. Peace, justice and strong institutions: were needed that help residents through persuasion, but do not compel them.
· 17. Partnerships for the goals: working together for a better county, making Surrey that special place where ‘No one is left behind’.
The motion was formally seconded by Jonathan Hulley, who reserved the right to speak.
Five Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:
· Noted that the SDGs captured many of the Council’s ambitions around inequality, sustainability, health and justice; and whilst already looked at in the climate change and environmental work, it was good to have an explicit commitment and focus.
· Noted that it was important that the Council was seen to be playing its role in the bigger picture of what needs to be done to create a better county, but also a better world.
· Noted that most of the SDGs were meant to be accomplished by 2030, those were last revised in 2017 and had been written before that; questioned why the administration waited so long to bring forward the motion.
· Noted that the SDGs were high-level and broad, it was hard to see what the motion would do in terms of implementing anything which would make a difference in anyone's lives.
· Noted that it was difficult to see how protecting the oceans was relevant to a landlocked county like Surrey, nor how the Council could reduce income inequality within and between nations, or how it could promote more international cooperation.
· Noted that looking at the SDGs such as working to tackle climate change, the Council had already declared a ‘climate emergency’ and had a climate change plan setting out more detail than the SDG set out.
· Could not see a reason to vote against the motion, however simply saying the Council agrees with the SDGs and seeks to do something about those was meaningless as the motion did not spell out action to be taken; hoped that detailed plans on action to be taken would be provided.
· Noted that the SDGs were a collection of interlinked objectives designed to serve as a shared blueprint for nations for peace and prosperity for people and the planet now and into the future; the UK signed up to them in 2015.
· Passionately supported the SDGs, however eight years had passed and the SDGs were in jeopardy as progress stalled noting the climate crisis, economic fluctuations, conflicts and increasing inequality with household disposable income falling.
· Noted that the Government pledged to max out on oil and gas reserves, the quality of rivers and seas was threatened by raw sewage, more of the country’s natural biodiversity had been lost compared to most countries in Western Europe, public services were under threat, doctors, nurses and teachers felt undervalued and overworked, there were cost of living and mental health crises and the Criminal Justice System had its funding cut.
· Noted that committing to the SDGs was an admirable pledge, however it would be helpful to know how against the above national backdrop, the Council would meet the SDGs.
· Noted that in April 2023 the UN Secretary-General highlighted that nations had only made 12% progress on the SDGs with seven years to go. The ambitious SDGs needed to be met now and all levels of government must strive to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, promote sustainability, and provide access to education and justice for all.
· Noted disappointment in the motion where it used the wording ‘where practicable’, asked when the values would not be practical and when there would be a time that the Council would approach a situation with decisions and policies that promote inequality, injustice and unsustainable actions.
· Asked what the motion was trying to achieve, hoped that its purpose would be to take some of the SDGs that relate to concerns today in areas that the Council could address.
· Regarding SDG 7, renewable electricity was vital particularly with local generation however generating solar panels stripped large amounts of natural resource from the land, suggested the use of vertical wind turbines and using skills in Surrey to develop technologies that could be used within the urban environment to make a real difference; as part of the Council’s takeover of the Local Enterprise Partnerships’ responsibilities.
· Noted that the Government's reports highlight a large gap in strategy around the storage and transport of hydrogen; asked what the county could do to fill that gap as the Council invests in 32 hydrogen buses.
· Regarding SDG 12, reiterated that Surrey’s carbon footprint was based on the carbon used within Surrey; it did not include airport transport or imported food; did not believe that the motion’s purpose was to widen that remit.
· Noted the need to discuss the prominence of economic growth in politics and the county, the SDGs were a good opportunity to do that, linking the climate impacts of over consumption of resources and emissions in Surrey and addressing entrenched poverty and inequality locally.
· Noted the need to have an economy that thrives and survives locally, with growth which does not mean building on green belts and destroying sustainable communities.
· Noted that the Council bravely shared its leadership of its Greener Futures Board with the Founding Director of the Institute for Sustainability at the University of Surrey; the global quality of life had declined since 2016 partly due to climate pressures.
· Noted that SDGs were in decline, the Council therefore in declaring that it wants to move forward in Surrey as part of that global challenge was brave, it must take its leadership role seriously setting out a clear message.
· Welcomed the restructuring of the Cabinet and the Corporate Leadership Team with growth and the environment moved into the same section; it provided an opportunity to discuss the balancing of the economy, environment and social aspects of sustainability.
Jonathan Hulley, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:
· Noted that whilst the SDGs were high-level, the Council had already delivered projects that brought meaning to those.
· Referring to SDG 11, the Council had rolled out the Surrey Connect bus service across the county - thanked the Leader and Cabinet Member for that - and furthermore the Council had its tree planting strategy and focused on planting of trees in Surrey’s streetscapes.
· Referred to SDG 17, delivering the Council’s Community Vision for Surrey 2030 required the support and the cooperation of residents, businesses, the public sector and the district and borough councils; all needed to be part of the solution.
The Chair asked Trefor Hogg, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, he made the following comments:
· Acknowledged that the SDGs were framed by the United Nations in relation to nations, that was why the wording ‘where practicable’ was used in the motion, as the SDGs need to be applied at a county level.
· Noted that as a county, Surrey was doing well but had further to go; for example currently a lot of energy and resources were wasted, targeting waste was the best way of improving Surrey’s position.
The motion was put to the vote and was carried.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
This Council notes:
· The very strong links between the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals for 2030;
· The United Kingdom’s commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals;
· That leave no one behind is the central, transformative promise of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals; and
· Our own Community Vision for 2030 which states Our Ambitions for People and Place as making Surrey a special place where no one is left behind.
This Council further notes:
That the framework of the UN Sustainable Development Goals provides a balanced, well-researched and detailed model of how those goals are strongly linked and interact with each other. For Surrey they provide a guide that supports a coherent view of Our Ambitions for People and Place and how they are strongly linked and interact with each other.
This Council resolves:
That where practicable this Council will make use of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as a guide to how we should address the interlinked nature of Our Ambitions for People and Place. Particularly in relation to our own policies for the environment to shape them so that they will support delivery of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and will be a key part of our contribution to leaving future generations a place to live in that allows them to thrive.