Agenda item

ITEM 9(i)

 

Mrs Clare Curran (Bookham and Fetcham West) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘Council notes:

·        this Administration’s commitment to economic stimulation which has helped significantly in reducing the number of NEETS in the county with Surrey now down to the lowest level nationally and;

 

·        the great success in exceeding the target of 500 apprentices in just ten months which has led to the recently-launched drive to create a further 170 new apprenticeships for this County’s young people.

Therefore, this Council thanks:

·        our Skills Centres and all their staff who perform the vital role of filling a gap in post-16 provision and support young people towards full participation by focussing on preparing them for employment opportunities;

·        the County’s young people and apprentices who so enthusiastically embrace programmes such as the Ready for Work Re-engagement Programme, and;

·        Surrey’s business community and other partners who have been so supportive in giving Surrey’s youth an opportunity in the workplace.’

 

 

ITEM 9(ii)

 

Mr Ian Beardsmore (Sunbury Common and Ashford Common) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘This Council welcomes the recently announced additional funding allocation from the Pothole Repair Fund and the Weather Repair Fund totalling £9.2m.

 

This Council notes that the Government allocated a greater share of funding to a number of model councils that were able to demonstrate best practice in highway maintenance. These councils have invested in new technology and initiatives.

 

This Council agrees that Surrey County Council will:

 

(i)      learn from best practice of other Councils to improve the speed and quality of pothole repair in Surrey

 

and

 

(ii)      review the way in which the County Council bids for funding from Government so that Surrey receives its fair share of funding in future.’

 

Item 9(i)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Clare Curran moved the motion which was:

 

‘Council notes:

·        this Administration’s commitment to economic stimulation which has helped significantly in reducing the number of NEETS in the county with Surrey now down to the lowest level nationally and;

 

·        the great success in exceeding the target of 500 apprentices in just ten months which has led to the recently-launched drive to create a further 170 new apprenticeships for this County’s young people.

Therefore, this Council thanks:

·        our Skills Centres and all their staff who perform the vital role of filling a gap in post-16 provision and support young people towards full participation by focussing on preparing them for employment opportunities;

·        the County’s young people and apprentices who so enthusiastically embrace programmes such as the Ready for Work Re-engagement Programme, and;

·        Surrey’s business community and other partners who have been so supportive in giving Surrey’s youth an opportunity in the workplace.’

 

Mrs Curran made the following points:

 

·         That all Members joined her in congratulating those staff who had worked hard in achieving both the reduction in the number of NEETS in the county and also exceeding the Council’s target of 500 apprentices in ten months.

·         Initiatives such as the Ready to Work Re-engagement Programme and meaningful work placements were commended.

·         The importance of networks.

·         That, through the Local Committees, the Youth Service was embarking on re-commissioning its services for the next five years and she urged Members to ensure that the needs of the young people in their divisions were understood.

·         The statutory duty of the Early Years Service to ensure all young children were ‘school ready’.

·         The Family Support Programme.

·         The need to improve careers advice for all young people, starting in Year 9.

·         That the service was working closely with LEPS and also the proposal for a University Technical college would broaden opportunities for young people.

·         All these initiatives would help ensure that the County Council provided young people with the opportunities to enable them to have a good start in life.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Dr Grant-Duff.

 

Seven Members spoke, making the following points:

 

·         Support for the motion – this was a ‘good news’ story.

·         Promise of continued support through Members’ allocations for young people’s initiatives.

·         The reduction in the number of NEETS was excellent news.

·         Concern that the Youth Service future plans were presented with lack of clarity.

·         Early intervention and prevention was crucial. 

·         Business Investment in surrey – an example of how Surrey businesses were working to supply components for aircraft was given.

·         Apprenticeships had been a success and were life changing opportunities for young people and Surrey’s commitment to the scheme deserved credit.

·         It was good news that no Looked After Child (LAC) had entered the youth justice services in the last two years.

·         The prospect of having a University Technical College (UTC) was a new concept of education.

·         An invitation for all Members, who are aware of businesses in their division who may be willing to take on an apprentice, to contact the Head of Commissioning and Development.

 

After the debate, the motion was put to the vote and agreed, with no Member voting against it.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Council notes:

·        this Administration’s commitment to economic stimulation which has helped significantly in reducing the number of NEETS in the county with Surrey now down to the lowest level nationally and;

 

·        the great success in exceeding the target of 500 apprentices in just ten months which has led to the recently-launched drive to create a further 170 new apprenticeships for this County’s young people.

Therefore, this Council thanks:

·        our Skills Centres and all their staff who perform the vital role of filling a gap in post-16 provision and support young people towards full participation by focussing on preparing them for employment opportunities;

·        the County’s young people and apprentices who so enthusiastically embrace programmes such as the Ready for Work Re-engagement Programme, and;

·        Surrey’s business community and other partners who have been so supportive in giving Surrey’s youth an opportunity in the workplace.’

 

 

Item 9(ii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Ian Beardsmore moved the motion which was:

 

‘This Council welcomes the recently announced additional funding allocation from the Pothole Repair Fund and the Weather Repair Fund totalling £9.2m.

 

This Council notes that the Government allocated a greater share of funding to a number of model councils that were able to demonstrate best practice in highway maintenance. These councils have invested in new technology and initiatives.

 

This Council agrees that Surrey County Council will:

 

(i)      learn from best practice of other Councils to improve the speed and quality of pothole repair in Surrey

 

and

 

(ii)      review the way in which the County Council bids for funding from Government so that Surrey receives its fair share of funding in future.’

 

Mr Beardsmore said that this was a straight forward motion about the discrepancy of funding between different County Councils – both Kent and Hampshire had received more funding than Surrey and therefore, this Council needed to ascertain what the other counties were doing and then incorporate their ‘best practice’ into Surrey’s bid for Government funding.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Cooksey.

 

Mr Furey moved an amendment at the meeting, which was formally seconded by Mr Harmer.

 

The motion, as amended, read:

 

‘This Council welcomes the recently announced additional funding allocation from the Pothole Repair Fund and the Weather Repair Fund totalling £9.2m.

 

This Council notes that the Government allocated a greater share of funding to a number of model councils, Surrey being one of them, that demonstrated best practice in highway maintenance and congratulate the Leadership of the County Council on achieving this recognition. Surrey has invested in new technology, a long term approach to the maintenance and renewal of the highway asset, with a clear understanding of its values to residents, visitors and the economy.

 

This Council agrees that Surrey County Council will:

 

(i)      share, learn and work with other best Councils to continue to improve the quality and timeliness of pothole repair in Surrey

And

 

(ii)      Continue to press Government to review and change the funding methodology to take proper account of:

a)  The economic importance of the Surrey Road Network to the national  economy.

b)  The significant high wear and tear on Surrey Roads which is not recognised within the current funding framework.

c)  The exemplary Asset Management approach to the Surrey Road network, by the use of term investment, ensuring Value for Money for the residents of Surrey.’

The Chairman confirmed to Mr Beardsmore that the amendment to his motion was ruled ‘in order’.

 

Speaking to his amendment, Mr Furey highlighted the following points:

 

·         The County Council had been awarded nearly £4m from the Government’s ‘pothole challenge’ fund – the remaining funding awarded dealt with last winter’s flooding crisis.

·         The Department for Transport had confirmed that the County Council’s bid was exemplary.

·         Surrey was regarded as a ‘top authority’ and as such had received a 30% uplift in funding – one of only 15 (out of 153) highway authorities that had received this uplift.

·         The development of a 15 year Asset Management programme had assisted the County’s case.

·         As part of the Council’s contract with Kier, the liability for pothole repairs had passed to them – this highly efficient contract provide Value for Money for Surrey residents.

·         The highway asset was one of the most valuable assets under Surrey’s control.

·         The County was one of the largest net contributors to the UK economy – a fact not reflected in the funding received from the Department of Transport.

·         There were high traffic volumes in Surrey and there was a direct correlation between number of vehicles and highway defects.

·         59% of Surrey’s roads were urban and working on these roads was more expensive, due to peak restrictions around peak hours.

·         The damage caused by utility companies

·         That the Government raised £33bn from fuel duty annually – if 2p per litre was invested in highways, and based on the current funding formula, this would provide an extra £18 – 25m per year for Surrey.

 

Six Members spoke making the following points:

 

·         This was an important motion / amendment because many residents were concerned about potholes.

·         It was also important to learn from the best practice of other local authorities.

·         Most damage was caused by lorries rather than cars.

·         Repairing the potholes was vitally important.

·         The amendment was part of the process to obtain a better deal from Government.

·         The Highways Members’ Reference Group was doing an excellent job and all Members were encouraged to visit the Highways depot in Merrow to see their work firsthand.

·         The introduction of the permit scheme had helped.

·         Extra funding was needed from Government – the problems of the M25 and the effect on the A25 were highlighted.

·         The amendment was self-congratulatory and did not address the issues raised in the original motion.

·         Residents would not agree that Surrey was a model authority.

·         Recognition that the County Council had more to learn from other local authorities.

·         The Government did not believe that Surrey needed more support.  

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 50 Members voting for and 14 Members voting against it. There were five abstentions.

 

The amendment became the substantive motion.

 

Under Standing Order 23.1, Mr Kington then moved:

 

‘That the question be now put’

 

20 Members stood in support of this request. The Chairman considered that there had been adequate debate and agreed to the request.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council welcomes the recently announced additional funding allocation from the Pothole Repair Fund and the Weather Repair Fund totalling £9.2m.

 

This Council notes that the Government allocated a greater share of funding to a number of model councils, Surrey being one of them, that demonstrated best practice in highway maintenance and congratulate the Leadership of the County Council on achieving this recognition. Surrey has invested in new technology, a long term approach to the maintenance and renewal of the highway asset, with a clear understanding of its values to residents, visitors and the economy.

 

This Council agrees that Surrey County Council will:

 

(i)      share, learn and work with other best Councils to continue to improve the quality and timeliness of pothole repair in Surrey

And

 

(ii)      Continue to press Government to review and change the funding methodology to take proper account of:

a)  The economic importance of the Surrey Road Network to the national  economy.

b)  The significant high wear and tear on Surrey Roads which is not recognised within the current funding framework.

c)  The exemplary Asset Management approach to the Surrey Road network, by the use of term investment, ensuring Value for Money for the residents of Surrey.