Agenda item

Item 13 (i)

Steven McCormick (Epsom Town & Downs) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

This Council notes that:

 

Home delivery via motorcycles and pedal cycles from takeaway outlets is becoming increasing popular. It responds to customer demand, adds to the local economy and provides employment opportunities for delivery drivers. However, like some other changes of shopping behaviour and consumer preferences, it can also raise unexpected, and sometimes unwanted consequences.

 

Currently, in too many areas of Surrey, high streets and shopping centres are facing a need for parking spaces by delivery drivers and, too often, that is leading to inconsiderate, dangerous and illegal parking on the pavement to the detriment and safety of pedestrians and shoppers and, currently, there is no agreed response from SCC.

 

In light of the factors listed above, and with reference to the Transportation Development Planning Good Practice Guide this Council calls upon the Cabinet to commit to:

 

1. Create a new piece of ‘Standing Advice’ for local planning authorities to consider, that new retail developments, and changes of use, factor in the requirements for motorcycle delivery parking.

 

2. Write to central government to request a consultation on a nationwide scheme whereby delivery companies will suspend riders for a period of time on receipt of photographic evidence, from Highways or the Police, if one of their riders access or park on the pavement or in contravention of the law.

 

3. Write to delivery companies (Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Just Eat, etc.) to highlight the issue of motorcycle delivery parking and to request that they introduce a policy whereby delivery companies will suspend riders for a period of time on receipt of photographic evidence, from Highways or the Police, if one of their riders access or park on the pavement or in contravention of the law.

 

4. Create a new piece of ‘Standing Advice’ for input into Local and Neighbourhood Plans, requiring sites with takeaway outlets to have designated parking areas close to the high street where motorcycles can be left securely.

 

5. Work with take-away outlets, local landowners and borough and district councils across Surrey to identify sites for designated parking areas close to the high street where motorcycles can be left secure.

 

6. Work more closely with partners, the Police and borough and district councils, to enforce more effectively the current parking restrictions, and to identify measures to discourage all motorised vehicles accessing the footway.

 

 

Item 13 (ii)

 

Mark Nuti (Chertsey) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This Council notes: 

• Council’s commitment in its Organisation Strategy and through the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy to reducing health inequalities, particularly in key neighbourhoods and amongst vulnerable groups.
• The significant impact of the cost of living on health inequalities in Surrey; 8.3% of households are in fuel poverty and 8.5% of children aged 0-19 years live in households experiencing relative poverty.
• The Government’s pre-election commitment to adopting Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England that will require all public bodies to adopt transparent and effective measures to address the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status.
• Good Company (Surrey) - a charity with a mission to see communities ‘free of poverty, where everyone can afford life’s essentials’; they co-ordinate local food banks, the Poverty Truth Commission and currently work with pupils on free school meals to understand their needs.
• The signing of Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge by the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board in July 2024, also adopted by Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Partnership at a first combined meeting in September 2024 and Board/Partnership’s commitment to enacting the pledge, including support for Board/Partnership members’ organisations to also sign in their own right.

 

This Council believes that: 

• Socio-economic disadvantage and financial hardship are barriers to reducing health inequalities and improving health and wellbeing in Surrey.
• In the delivery of all our services, we need to consider those in or at risk of poverty.
• Working with Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, such as Good Company, that work with those with lived experience of financial hardship is important in ensuring service responses are led by our communities.
• Signing the Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge demonstrates that this Council leads from the front in the Surrey system to reduce health inequalities so no-one is left behind.

 

This Council resolves to:  

 

I.     Request the Leader of the Council sign Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge on behalf of the Council.

II.    Request that the Leader of the Council subsequently instructs officers to develop an SCC poverty action plan (to include proposed actions such as the adoption of section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 which builds in addressing the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status and becoming an anchor institution) for mitigating and preventing poverty amongst Surrey residents.

 

 

Item 13 (i)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 20.3 (a) Steven McCormick moved an updated proposed alteration to the original motion standing in his own name, which had been published in the second supplementary agenda on 8 October 2024.

 

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

 

This Council notes that:

 

Home delivery via motorcycles and pedal cycles from takeaway outlets is becoming increasing popular. It responds to customer demand, adds to the local economy and provides employment opportunities for delivery drivers. However, like some other changes of shopping behaviour and consumer preferences, it can also raise unexpected, and sometimes unwanted consequences.

 

Currently, in too many areas of Surrey, high streets and shopping centres are facing a need for parking spaces by delivery drivers and, too often, that is leading to inconsiderate, dangerous and illegal parking on the pavement to the detriment and safety of pedestrians and shoppers and, currently, there is no agreed response from SCC.

 

Surrey County Council should be consulted on applications for outlets by the district planning authorities. In the case of purpose built sites Transport Development Planning have ensured that there is sufficient space for delivery drivers and are additionally mindful of the need to build in provision for mopeds and motorcycles on applications the Surrey County Council is consulted on.

 

In some areas of Surrey, high streets and shopping centres are facing a need for parking spaces by delivery drivers and, too often, that is leading to inconsiderate parking on and illegal driving over the pavement to the detriment and safety of pedestrians and shoppers.

 

In light of the factors listed above, and with reference to the Transportation Development Planning Good Practice Guide this Council calls upon the Cabinet to commit to:

 

               I.         Create a new piece of ‘Standing Advice’ for local planning authorities to consider, that new retail developments, and changes of use, factor in the requirements for motorcycle delivery parking.

 

             II.         Write to central government to request a consultation on a nationwide scheme whereby delivery companies will suspend riders for a period of time on receipt of photographic evidence, from Highways or the Police, if one of their riders access or park on the pavement or in contravention of the law.

 

            III.          

               I.         Write to delivery companies (Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Just Eat, etc.) to highlight the issue of motorcycle delivery parking on pavements and issues caused by riding on and across pavements. and tTo request that they introduce a policy whereby delivery companies will suspend riders for a period of time on receipt of photographic evidence, from Highways or the Police, if one of their riders access or park on the pavement or in contravention of the law. information from these companies on the training and guidance given to their riders and for them to provide information on their policies for dealing with evidenced poor rider behaviour involving the highway or pavement.

 

            IV.        Create a new piece of ‘Standing Advice’ for input into Local and Neighbourhood Plans, requiring sites with takeaway outlets to have designated parking areas close to the high street where motorcycles can be left securely.

 

             II.         To request a round table meeting with all delivery companies and Surrey Police to discuss best practice guidelines for delivery riders in Surrey.

 

             V.        Work with take-away outlets, local landowners and borough and district councils across Surrey to identify sites for designated parking areas close to the high street where motorcycles can be left secure.

 

            VI.         

            III.         Work more closely with partners, the with Surrey Police, as the enforcement authority, and borough and district councils, to enforce more effectively the current parking restrictions, and to identify measures to discourage all motorised vehicles accessing the footway. to tackle key areas where this issue occurs and educate the drivers on their driving behaviour where appropriate.

 

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

 

Steven McCormick made the following points:

 

·         Noted that the issue related to moped delivery riders riding on and parking on the pavement outside fast-food outlets on Epsom High Street.

·         Noted that Members and borough councillors had correspondence from concerned and impacted residents and business owners.

·         Noted a plea from the manager at Swale House, Epsom that mopeds and bikes on the pavement were an obstacle course for the blind and partially sighted.

·         Noted a recent interview by BBC Surrey on the problem, for one week there were no bikes on the pavement following the interviewer reaching out to the delivery companies.

·         Noted that the solutions concerned several agencies, delivery companies and the restaurants and fast-food outlets could speak to the delivery riders.

·         Noted that the Council, and Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, and Surrey Police could enforce certain aspects; however that parking enforcement only temporarily resolved the issue.

·         Noted a recent multi-agency meeting at Epsom with some of those stakeholders, action points were agreed. Thanked the Council’s officers for their work and the contributions by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways.

·         Noted that the motion highlighted the issue and suggested proactive steps to take forward, working in partnership with stakeholders and agencies.

 

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

 

·         Thanked the Member for making the updated alteration, which would allow the Council to work with the other agencies, particularly Surrey Police which has the enforcement powers for parking on and driving over pavements.

·         Noted that the issue was both county and country wide.

·         Noted the need to use the authority's influence to engage with the companies as they were responsible for their employees and their actions.

 

Ten Members made the following comments:

 

·         Noted that the issue affected many of Surrey’s communities, had spoken to disabled and partially sighted individuals who struggled to navigate the town centre because of the obstruction created.

·         Noted the alarming headlines in Dartford with nuisance food delivery drivers putting lives at risk.

·         Noted that Ealing Council took a multi-agency approach, it ran roadshows and events speaking to the riders to educate them and to look at their safeguarding around unlicensed vehicles and human trafficking.

·         Hoped that the Trading Standards team could assist, the solution would be more achievable by tackling it collectively.

·         Noted that the issue was more impactful in someareas in Surrey and thanked the proposer for agreeing to the changes to ensure that enforcement sits in the right place.

·         Noted that the issue was extremely dangerous with drivers riding on footpaths and down alleyways.

·         Noted that it was vital to work with the employers to resolve the issue, as where the police intervened, they found that many drivers were uninsured and unlicensed, with multiple people using the same bike at different times.

·         Noted that training and behaviour change were important, but so too was providing the different infrastructure and locations to encourage delivery drivers to pick up from.

·         Suggested the need to call on the Government to require food delivery apps to prioritise awarding food collection to drivers that sit in designated areas.

·         Noted that delivery vans were also problematic blocking pavementsin rural areas forcing children to walk into the road.

·         Noted the need to address the issue relating to the new Brightwells Yard shopping centre in Farnham, there were cars pulling up onto pavements outside companies and there would be more to come.

·         Noted the worsening of the problem in Guildford town centre even in those areas where there were enforcement powers such as disabled parking bays and waiting restrictions, since the centralisation of on-street parking enforcement there were no enforcement officers to be seen.

·         Noted the need to resource parking enforcement and enforce restrictions, asked the Cabinet to consider introducing a byelaw to prohibit pavement parking, to enable enforcement officers to fine motorists.

·         Noted the issue in Walton-on-Thames, Churchfield Road off the High Street where delivery drivers park in the designated area, but there was a large overhang of motorbike boxes over the narrow pavement and road, and neither rails or bollards could be put in place.

·         Noted anger in the large amount of delivery vans parking on pavements and displaying a disabled badge.

·         Noted that home delivery was beneficial for the local economy, employment and consumer choice.

·         Noted that on Epsom High Street, there were more motorcycle delivery riders driving on the pavement which meant it was residents’ most common concern in June; raised the issue with the Highways team but the responses listed the reasons why nothing effective could be done.

·         Noted that a meeting with affected parties had not been set up by the Cabinet Member, despite being agreed in response to a Member question at the last Council meeting.

·         Noted that a fellow Member set up a meeting in September to find solutions, attended by Council, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, and business representatives, and residents, it was positive with actions agreed and those solutions were incorporated into the motion.

·         Noted that the removal of resolutions which seemed like hard work for the Council such as resolution V was disappointing.

·         Noted that the Residents' Association and Independents Group had forced the Council to take the issue seriously, having come up with the local partnerships and links that the Council could work with and solutions.

 

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

 

·         Acknowledged that the problem was county-wide and noted that the motion was the starting point.

·         Noted the comments around safeguarding which was a concern and would be considered, as would the suggestion for having different locations for motorcycle pickup.

·         Noted that enforcement officers were available and the bikes disappeared when they turned up.

·         Welcomed Members’ support and stressed the need to work collaboratively with all Members, to try and achieve a positive outcome for residents.

 

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes that:

 

Home delivery via motorcycles and pedal cycles from takeaway outlets is becoming increasing popular. It responds to customer demand, adds to the local economy and provides employment opportunities for delivery drivers. However, like some other changes of shopping behaviour and consumer preferences, it can also raise unexpected, and sometimes unwanted consequences.

 

Surrey County Council should be consulted on applications for outlets by the district planning authorities. In the case of purpose built sites Transport Development Planning have ensured that there is sufficient space for delivery drivers and are additionally mindful of the need to build in provision for mopeds and motorcycles on applications the Surrey County Council is consulted on.

 

In some areas of Surrey, high streets and shopping centres are facing a need for parking spaces by delivery drivers and, too often, that is leading to inconsiderate parking on and illegal driving over the pavement to the detriment and safety of pedestrians and shoppers.

 

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

 

                 I.       Write to delivery companies (Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Just Eat, etc.) to highlight the issue of motorcycle delivery parking on pavements and issues caused by riding on and across pavements. To request information from these companies on the training and guidance given to their riders and for them to provide information on their policies for dealing with evidenced poor rider behaviour involving the highway or pavement.

 

               II.       To request a round table meeting with all delivery companies and Surrey Police to discuss best practice guidelines for delivery riders in Surrey.

 

              III.       Work with SurreyPolice, as the enforcement authority, to tackle key areas where this issue occurs and educate the drivers on their driving behaviour where appropriate.

 

 

Item 13 (ii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mark Nuti moved:

 

This Council notes: 

 

·         Council’s commitment in its Organisation Strategy and through the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy to reducing health inequalities, particularly in key neighbourhoods and amongst vulnerable groups.

·         The significant impact of the cost of living on health inequalities in Surrey; 8.3% of households are in fuel poverty and 8.5% of children aged 0-19 years live in households experiencing relative poverty.

·         The Government’s pre-election commitment to adopting Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England that will require all public bodies to adopt transparent and effective measures to address the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status.

·         Good Company (Surrey) - a charity with a mission to see communities ‘free of poverty, where everyone can afford life’s essentials’; they co-ordinate local food banks, the Poverty Truth Commission and currently work with pupils on free school meals to understand their needs.

·         The signing of Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge by the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board in July 2024, also adopted by Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Partnership at a first combined meeting in September 2024 and Board/Partnership’s commitment to enacting the pledge, including support for Board/Partnership members’ organisations to also sign in their own right.

 

This Council believes that: 

 

·         Socio-economic disadvantage and financial hardship are barriers to reducing health inequalities and improving health and wellbeing in Surrey.

·         In the delivery of all our services, we need to consider those in or at risk of poverty.

·         Working with Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, such as Good Company, that work with those with lived experience of financial hardship is important in ensuring service responses are led by our communities.

·         Signing the Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge demonstrates that this Council leads from the front in the Surrey system to reduce health inequalities so no-one is left behind.

 

This Council resolves to:  

 

I.      Request the Leader of the Council sign Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge on behalf of the Council.

II.    Request that the Leader of the Council subsequently instructs officers to develop an SCC poverty action plan (to include proposed actions such as the adoption of section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 which builds in addressing the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status and becoming an anchor institution) for mitigating and preventing poverty amongst Surrey residents.

 

Mark Nuti made the following points:

 

·         Thanked the Principal Lead - Health and Wellbeing, who was instrumental in introducing the Good Company to the Council and producing the motion.

·         Noted that the word poverty was harsh and it was complex, traps people in a cycle and isolates them; it means many things to people such as financial hardship, homelessness, lack of education, and unemployment.

·         Urged the Council to take the End Poverty Pledge, to continue the work to mitigate and prevent poverty and inequalities.

·         Urged Members to support the pledge personally, to consider how they could make a difference.

·         Noted that the Good Company believed that collaboration was the key to preventing people from falling into poverty and supporting people to move out of poverty.

·         Noted that winter was a difficult time for many families, especially the elderly, particularly considering the Government’s withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment, and increase in the energy price cap.

·         Noted that as part of Surrey's Fuel Poverty Programme, the Council won a grant of nearly £1 million from the Southern Gas Network to support vulnerable residents.

·         Noted that last year, 570,000 households were helped with winter resilience planning. Last winter, around 46,000 residents accessed one of the 43 warm hubs across Surrey.

·         Noted that the Surrey Crisis Fund provided support to over 2,000 residents every year and over 86,000 households received support from the Household Support Fund last year.

·         Thanked the voluntary and charitable sector for the work done in communities.

·         Noted that all could help by being CLEAR: Communication, Listening, Empathy, Agency, Respect; no one wants to live in poverty.

·         Noted that poverty was a catalyst that often leads to mental and physical ill health, urged all to sign the pledge to make sure ‘no one is left behind’.

The motion was formally seconded by Bernie Muir, who made the following comments:

 

·      Noted that poverty is a reality in Surrey, for example Court ward in Epsom.

·      Had signed the pledge as Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

·      Highlighted the actions from the Health and Wellbeing Board, and Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Partnership September 2024 report on the pledge, concerning the key areas: Leadership, Culture, Accountability.

·      Noted that the Good Company’s Epsom Advice Café and the Epsom Pantry, made a real difference.

·      Provided a summary of Ben's story, he had worked since he was twelve years old and was out of work due to ill health, and noted the difficulty of seeking help and the fear of not being able to feed his family was terrifying.

·      Noted that recent crises had increased the number of people and families in trouble.

·      Emphasised that collaborative working with all stakeholders was vital to create effective solutions.

 

Lance Spencer moved an amendment which had been published in the first supplementary agenda on 7 October 2024, which was formally seconded by Hazel Watson.

 

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

 

This Council notes: 

 

·         Council’s commitment in its Organisation Strategy and through the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy to reducing health inequalities, particularly in key neighbourhoods and amongst vulnerable groups.

·         The significant impact of the cost of living on health inequalities in Surrey; 8.3% of households are in fuel poverty and 8.5% of children aged 0-19 years live in households experiencing relative poverty.

·         The Government’s pre-election commitment to adopting Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England that will require all public bodies to adopt transparent and effective measures to address the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status.

·         Good Company (Surrey) - a charity with a mission to see communities ‘free of poverty, where everyone can afford life’s essentials’; they co-ordinate local food banks, the Poverty Truth Commission and currently work with pupils on free school meals to understand their needs.

·         The signing of Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge by the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board in July 2024, also adopted by Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Partnership at a first combined meeting in September 2024 and Board/Partnership’s commitment to enacting the pledge, including support for Board/Partnership members’ organisations to also sign in their own right.

 

This Council believes that: 

 

·         Socio-economic disadvantage and financial hardship are barriers to reducing health inequalities and improving health and wellbeing in Surrey.

·         In the delivery of all our services, we need to consider those in or at risk of poverty.

·         Working with Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, such as Good Company, that work with those with lived experience of financial hardship is important in ensuring service responses are led by our communities.

·         Signing the Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge demonstrates that this Council leads from the front in the Surrey system to reduce health inequalities so no-one is left behind.

 

This Council resolves to:  

 

                 I.       Request the Leader of the Council sign Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge on behalf of the Council.

               II.       Request that the Leader of the Council subsequently instructs officers to develop an SCC poverty action plan (to include proposed actions such as the adoption of section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 which builds in addressing the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status and becoming an anchor institution) for mitigating and preventing poverty amongst Surrey residents.

              III.       Request that the Cabinet review any changes proposed for the budgets for 2025/26 to ensure there is no reduction in funding to organisations that Surrey County Council works with to mitigate and prevent poverty in Surrey.

 

Lance Spencer spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

 

·         Supported the motion and had received good feedback about the Good Company, which was one of many organisations supporting those most in need across Surrey.

·         Read out what Microsoft Copilot said that the Council could do to reduce poverty in Surrey, noting that whilst Surrey was wealthy it had pockets of deprivation and the Council must further act to support those residents. The initiatives underway were noted, but a more sustained and comprehensive approach was needed considering the rising cost of living.

·         Targeted financial support and co-production was vital, the Council must expand its funding to community-based projects that address immediate needs and enhance its collaboration with local charities and community organisations. A more inclusive and supportive environment could be built through empowering communities and encouraging local initiatives.

·         Noted that as of February 2024, over 26,000 households in Surrey were on Universal Credit, that was a nearly 10% increase from last year. The number of single parent households on Universal Credit had risen by nearly one third over the last two years, the number of households on Universal Credit with children and adult couples had risen by 10%.

·         In the 2023/24 school year there were over 22,000 pupils in state-funded Surrey schools that were eligible for free school meals, the percentage of eligible children increased from about 9% in 2018/19 to nearly 15%. Eligibility rates were highest in state-funded alternative provision schools and special schools.

·         Stressed that the funds at local government level were inadequate to support families, voluntary and charity sectors provided support to families yet all funding had stopped for all local charities in Woking.

·         Called on the Council to ensure that the funding for the voluntary and charity sectors is not reduced during the upcoming budget setting process.

 

The amendment was formally seconded by Hazel Watson, who made the following comments:

 

·         Stressed that providing help and support to the most disadvantaged Surrey residents was a vital Council function.

·         Noted that often the voluntary organisations working locally provided that support to make a difference.

·         Had worked with the Council’s Mole Valley Community Link Officer (CLO) and a group of residents in Box Hill to help isolated and disadvantaged residents.

·         Noted an event last month with stalls from various organisations.

·         Noted the ‘a warm welcome’ weekly event at the doctor’s surgery between November and March providing food, advice and activities.

·         Noted that a Council survey of the village to obtain the views of residents on their needs had been carried out and the results were being analysed.

·         Suggested that it would be appropriate for the Council’s Chair and Chief Executive to write to the CLO to thank her for her work.

·         Noted that reducing the Council’s funding in next year’s budget to the voluntary organisations would be regressive.

 

Mark Nuti did not accept the amendment and therefore the amendment was open for debate.

 

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

 

·         Suggested that the amendment’s proposer attends a select committee meeting to listen to discussions from officers and Members about addressing poverty.

·         Noted that the motion sets the scene, highlighting the pockets of deprivation and recognised that people were suffering; noting the various funds available, the Council knew what needed to be done and where.

·         Could not commit the Council to top slicing the budget for next year, the statutory responsibilities to fund SEND children, Adult Social Care, and Highways were priorities.

·         Noted that the administration would have agreed wording around the Council protecting the funding of organisations it works with, the Council could not commit to the ask without the relevant organisations being named.

·         Noted the active conversation with the voluntary sector, which the Council values and depends upon to help deliver services to vulnerable residents.

·         Encouraged Members that wish to speak on the draft Council budget to attend the November Cabinet meeting.

·         Noted that borough and district councils were financially challenged, with Citizens Advice in some areas unable to be supported, noted the importance of partnering with voluntary organisations which provide additional services that local authorities cannot.

·         Noted that Runnymede Borough Council reviewed its budget on what the council and voluntary sector could best provide, and provided that funding.

·         Stressed the importance of the Council partnering with the borough and district councils, with the upcoming determination of Council Tax.

·         Noted that several borough and district councils provided full relief for Council taxpayers, it was ridiculous that councils were taking people to court for not paying Council Tax, as they could not afford it.

·         Encouraged the Council to pass on the Household Support Funding once received to the borough and district councils.

·         Noted that the Council relied on support from the third sector, those organisations were connected to the communities they serve.

·         Noted that without the commitment to not reducing the funding in 2025/26, there would be further cuts and a reduction in support to residents; they had low workforce costs and a high impact. Consistency and security in their future funding was needed.

·         Supported the work of the Poverty Truth Commission and Good Company. 

·         Noted that poverty had become an entrenched part of society after a decade of austerity, the use of food banks had become a lifeline for many. 

·         Noted that the pledge sought to ensure that people should be able to afford life's essentials and those struggling financially should receive compassion.

·         Noted that an action plan for the pledge must be financed and the root causes of poverty tackled, addressing people’s needs now and the Council must set out what ending poverty would look like in Surrey.

·         Regarding the cost-of-living crisis the following were needed: retrofitting to address energy poverty, ensuring adequate affordable housing to address the housing emergency, and to sustain the £2 maximum local bus fares.

·         Noted that simply signing the pledge felt hollow, practical action was needed to end poverty; the amendment requested that financial commitment by the administration.

·         Noted frustration on the annual settlements from the Government which made planning by organisations difficult.

·         Noted that many towns and parishes, and boroughs and districts entered into multi-year Service Level Agreements, the Council should do more of that, planning for how organisations are given secure long-term funding.

 

Mark Nuti noted the following comments in response to not accepting the amendment:

 

·         Stressed that it was not a budget-setting Council meeting, signing the pledge meant a commitment to join the Good Company in understanding poverty and doing everything possible to mitigate it.

·         Noted that there were many things done by staff daily irrespective of the pledge, the Council continues to support communities and provides funding to charities.

·         Noted that a commitment could not be made to maintain that funding to the same charities as charity work was reviewed, the Council looked at where the best investment should go to support communities.

·         Noted that the request for an action plan for poverty to address the Equality Act 2010 would be included in the Equality Impact Assessment reports.

·         Stressed that eradicating poverty required working in partnerships across Surrey irrespective of politics, working from the top down together.

 

The Chair asked Lance Spencer, as proposer of the amendment to conclude the debate:

 

·         Supported the idea of working together but noted that it had been difficult to do so over the Council term.

·         Noted the horrifying situation faced by individuals in long-term and irreversible debt.

·         Noted that the suggested alternative wording to the amendment by the administration would have watered it down.

·         Noted scepticism that the amendment was a huge ask for the Council.

·         Noted that for example, Woking Borough Council was in £2.4 billion debt, unable to give £1 to its local Citizens Advice.

·         Highlighted that there were thousands of people in extreme debt that the amendment sought to support.

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 22 Members voting For, 34 voting Against and 5 Abstentions.

 

Therefore the amendment was lost.

 

Returning to the debate on the substantive motion, no Members made any comments.

 

The Chair asked Mark Nuti, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, he made no further comments.

 

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes: 

 

·         Council’s commitment in its Organisation Strategy and through the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy to reducing health inequalities, particularly in key neighbourhoods and amongst vulnerable groups.

·         The significant impact of the cost of living on health inequalities in Surrey; 8.3% of households are in fuel poverty and 8.5% of children aged 0-19 years live in households experiencing relative poverty.

·         The Government’s pre-election commitment to adopting Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England that will require all public bodies to adopt transparent and effective measures to address the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status.

·         Good Company (Surrey) - a charity with a mission to see communities ‘free of poverty, where everyone can afford life’s essentials’; they co-ordinate local food banks, the Poverty Truth Commission and currently work with pupils on free school meals to understand their needs.

·         The signing of Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge by the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board in July 2024, also adopted by Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Partnership at a first combined meeting in September 2024 and Board/Partnership’s commitment to enacting the pledge, including support for Board/Partnership members’ organisations to also sign in their own right.

 

This Council believes that: 

 

·         Socio-economic disadvantage and financial hardship are barriers to reducing health inequalities and improving health and wellbeing in Surrey.

·         In the delivery of all our services, we need to consider those in or at risk of poverty.

·         Working with Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, such as Good Company, that work with those with lived experience of financial hardship is important in ensuring service responses are led by our communities.

·         Signing the Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge demonstrates that this Council leads from the front in the Surrey system to reduce health inequalities so no-one is left behind.

 

This Council resolves to:  

 

                 I.       Request the Leader of the Council sign Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge on behalf of the Council.

               II.       Request that the Leader of the Council subsequently instructs officers to develop an SCC poverty action plan (to include proposed actions such as the adoption of section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 which builds in addressing the inequalities that result from differences in socio-economic status and becoming an anchor institution) for mitigating and preventing poverty amongst Surrey residents.