Item 11 (i)
Catherine Baart (Earlswood and Reigate South) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:
This Council recognises that:
· The UK is committed to reduce its carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, and by 68% from 1990 levels by 2030. The government's Committee on Climate Change is due to report on the UK's Carbon Budget on 26 February 2025.
· The Climate Change Committee has estimated that Local Authorities have powers or influence over roughly a third of emissions in their local areas.
· The Local Government Association have estimated that climate action can be three times more cost effective if led by local rather than national government.
· Surrey County Council has a target of achieving net zero across the county of Surrey by 2050, in line with the climate science as set out in the Surrey Climate Change Strategy.
· Significant additional financial resources are required to achieve these targets, in collaboration with local public, private and third sector partners.
· The Leader confirmed at the last full Council meeting that Surrey County Council has now formed strategic relationships with the University of Surrey, Royal Holloway and University of the Creative Arts.
This Council resolves to:
I. Commission a report for the council’s Cabinet that identifies the additional finance, powers and partnership arrangements needed to deliver our county-wide 2050 climate target; and
II. Use this report to support a request to the Secretary of State that Surrey County Council and all local authorities are given statutory duties, powers and funding to enable them to achieve net zero in line with the UK's legal commitment on carbon emissions.
Item 11 (ii)
Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:
This Council agrees that:
This Council resolves to:
Item 11 (iii)
Liz Townsend (Cranleigh & Ewhurst) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:
This Council recognises that:
Children and young people have a legal right to special educational provision and support that meets their needs. However, currently too many children and young people are not getting the education and support they need, with long-term consequences for their educational outcomes and overall wellbeing, together with that of their families.
Many parents and carers of children and young people with additional needs often find the system to access education an arduous and expensive battle that brings families to breaking point.
Part of the process that they report causes much distress is the panel decision making process. This is the point when decisions are made about their child behind closed doors often by unknown professionals, and to which the individual case officer, who is involved with the families on a day-to-day basis, is not automatically invited.
This Council acknowledges that:
Many parents do not currently feel that the panel process is transparent or consistent. These panels are making significant decisions about the future of children and young people with additional needs, and it is important parents are part of the process.
Due to its closed nature, many parents and carers often feel that vital information is not adequately covered and, in some cases, omitted. Once a decision is made, the rationale provided to parents and carers for this is often reported as inadequate and this compounds a feeling of exclusion and mistrust.
This Council notes:
This process is not a statutory requirement and could be changed in line with The SEND code of Practice SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)that sets out the requirements to involve families and young people in decision making.
This Council resolves to call on the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning to commit to:
I. Provide the opportunity for parent/carers of children with additional needs to be involved in the panel decision process with a clearly defined role.
II. Provide the opportunity for the child or young person with additional needs to be involved in the panel decision process with a clearly defined role.
III. Ensure the relevant case officer is automatically invited to attend panel decision meetings.
Item 11 (iv)
Marisa Heath (Englefield Green) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:
This Council notes that:
· Having felt the impact of COVID and the conflict in Ukraine leading to rising costs in energy prices and food, our local economy, particularly our small and rural businesses need support and the ability to focus on growth, not additional tax burdens and complexity.
· The recent budget has had an immediate impact on farmers and rural businesses at a time when stability is important and as we seek to provide more healthy, sustainable and, where possible, local, food and look after our environment.
· The NFU has evidenced that around 75% of commercial family farms will be affected by the new IHT policy which was announced in the budget rather than the government’s initial claim that it would only be 27% of farms. This means many Surrey farms will be impacted.
· Several farms will not yet fully understand the implications of the changes as they will not have had their farms formally valued since the 1992 changes. Many feel that the current change are a tax on rural areas.
· Many farms do not earn enough money to pay the potential Inheritance Tax Bill without selling off some of their land or business, which in turn makes the farm business unviable and threatens the future of Surrey farming.
· The average farm size in 2023 was 88 hectares. This is the fourth smallest average farm size of all the English regions and the same as the English average of 88 hectares. 63% of farms were below 50 hectares. Due to relative land values, farms in the south-east could be more affected by changes to Inheritance Tax than those in other parts of the country. Based on average land-values (arable and pasture) the average 88ha south-east farm has a value of between £2.1m and £2.6m (excludes machinery/ plant equipment – for context, a combine harvester can cost as much as £0.5m).
·
31% farms are rented and the impact on farmers who
do not own their farms has yet to be measured.
· Surrey County Council has been working with local farmers and sharing information and best practice as it is recognised that farmers play a crucial role in land management and nature recovery across Surrey.
· The inflationary impacts of the budget on key inputs such as labour costs will prevent farmers and rural businesses being able to add investment and drive growth. Alongside this, the Rural Prosperity Fund comes to an end in March 2025 and there is no replacement for it which restricts businesses investing in their long-term resilience, competitiveness and their environmental performance.
This Council believes that:
· Food security and sustainability is a key priority for both Surrey and the nation, and the added financial pressure of the budget does not support the prioritisation of these important objectives.
· Farmers should be supported to get through the changes of moving away from direct payments, driving forward environmental objectives and producing high quality British food and encouraged to invest long-term in their businesses.
· We should not risk losing Surrey’s high quality agricultural land used for food production to other uses which do not benefit the wider community.
· The tax would undermine investment and innovation in the sector at a time when we need Surrey farmers to invest in their businesses.
· In Surrey we have several rural businesses and farmers who are looking to both national and local Government for help to navigate changes such as the reduction in direct payments and it is important we respond to that and set out ways in which we will speak up for them.
This Council resolves to:
Minutes:
The Chair noted that under Standing Order 11.5, in consultation with Group Leaders he would reorder the motions and take the motion standing in the name of Jonathan Essex (11ii) last.
Item 11 (i)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 20.3 (a) Catherine Baart (Earlswood and Reigate South) moved a proposed alteration to the original motion standing in her own name, which had been published in the second supplementary agenda on 9 December 2024.
The updated proposed alteration to the motion was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):
This Council recognises that:
· The UK is committed to reduce its carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, and by 68% from 1990 levels by 2030. The government's Committee on Climate Change is due to report on the UK's Carbon Budget on 26 February 2025.
· The Climate Change Committee has estimated that Local Authorities have powers or influence over roughly a third of emissions in their local areas.
· The Local Government Association have estimated that climate action can be three times more cost effective if led by local rather than national government.
· Surrey County Council has a target of achieving net zero across the county of Surrey by 2050, in line with the climate science as set out in the Surrey Climate Change Strategy.
· Significant additional financial resources are required to achieve these targets, in collaboration with local public, private and third sector partners.
· The Leader confirmed at the last full Council meeting that Surrey County Council has now formed strategic relationships with the University of Surrey, Royal Holloway and University of the Creative Arts.
This Council resolves to:
I.
CommissionDeliver a report for the council’s Cabinet that
identifies the additional finance, powers and partnership
arrangements needed to deliver our county-wide 2050 climate target;
and
II. Use this report to support a request to the Secretary of State that Surrey County Council and all local authorities are given statutory duties, powers and funding to enable them to achieve net zero in line with the UK's legal commitment on carbon emissions.
Under Standing Order 20.3, the proposed alteration to the original motion was put to the vote and Council agreed to the proposed alteration and it was therefore open for debate.
Catherine Baart made the following points:
· Noted that the Council's confidence in being able to meet its net zero targets was faltering, climate change threatened the Council’s ambitions to shape places, keep people safe, and create conditions for wellbeing and prosperity.
· Noted that the Council was just on target for its 2030 and 2050 net zero goals thanks to officers’ and Members’ hard work.
· Noted that the Council had achieved simple tasks such as putting LEDs in streetlights, yet its solar energy plans faced connectivity and financial problems, and meaningful reductions in transport emissions had not been made.
· Highlighted the studies by the Local Government Association that councils have a direct impact on more than one third of its area's carbon emissions and an indirect impact on 80% of its area's carbon emissions.
· Noted that councils are conveners and enablers, independent experts are calling on the Government to empower councils to act on climate change.
· Referred to a government report that councils could deliver net zero at half the cost of a national approach and deliver three times the benefits of tackling climate change regarding growth, jobs, skills and health.
· Noted that councils received no core funding for their climate work, so the Council had to compete with other councils for small, siloed pots of money.
· Called on the Government to support the Council’s climate work with resources and powers, and access to technical support and data.
· Noted that global average temperatures in 2024 would likely reach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the Council must maintain its efforts and continue to lead locally.
·
Suggested that the Council redeploys resources to
tackle fuel poverty and transport, and to lobby the Government for
support around solar energy.
The motion was formally seconded by Lance Spencer, who made the following comments:
· Noted his speech to Council in 2021 on the same subject, where the former Prime Minister at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26) identified local government’s crucial role in delivering net zero emissions.
· Noted that in 2021 it was calculated that there was a less than 5% chance of holding the global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and less than 1% chance of keeping below the 1.5 degrees Celsius agreed in the Paris Agreement.
· Noted that 2023 was the hottest year on record, and 2024 was on track to surpass it, November 2024 was the second hottest November on record.
· Highlighted the work by the Greener Futures team which helped keep Surrey on target.
· Noted that since 2019 the Council’s carbon emissions had reduced by 38%, equivalent to 6,700 tonnes; saving the Council £4 million a year. Yet, that reduction was only 0.1% of Surrey's total carbon emissions.
· Noted that without Government support and the devolution of statutory powers, the Council would start slipping behind its net zero targets.
· Noted that at the UN Climate Change Conference in Baku (COP29), the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change highlighted the importance of councils in delivering the net zero targets.
· Wanted to be able to tell his grandson in the future that the Council did act decisively to reduce Surrey’s carbon emissions.
One Member made the following comments:
· Supported the motion and noted that the Council had decided to bring forward the plan originally scheduled for 2026 to review the net zero targets; to consider the areas of risk, a report had already been commissioned.
· Regarding the Skidmore Review, noted that the Council continued to lobby for those statutory powers.
· Noted frustration in the small, siloed pots of money with short bid times, officers worked tirelessly and were successful in winning those.
· Endorsed the support noted for the Greener Futures team.
·
Called for long-term planning and a step-change by
the Government, with adequate funding.
The Chair asked Catherine Baart, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, she made the following comments:
·
Thanked her seconder and welcomed the Cabinet Member
for Environment’s support.
The motion was put to the vote and was carried, with 69 Members voting For, 0 voting Against and 2 Abstentions.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
This Council recognises that:
· The UK is committed to reduce its carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, and by 68% from 1990 levels by 2030. The government's Committee on Climate Change is due to report on the UK's Carbon Budget on 26 February 2025.
· The Climate Change Committee has estimated that Local Authorities have powers or influence over roughly a third of emissions in their local areas.
· The Local Government Association have estimated that climate action can be three times more cost effective if led by local rather than national government.
· Surrey County Council has a target of achieving net zero across the county of Surrey by 2050, in line with the climate science as set out in the Surrey Climate Change Strategy.
· Significant additional financial resources are required to achieve these targets, in collaboration with local public, private and third sector partners.
· The Leader confirmed at the last full Council meeting that Surrey County Council has now formed strategic relationships with the University of Surrey, Royal Holloway and University of the Creative Arts.
This Council resolves to:
I. Deliver a report for the council’s Cabinet that identifies the additional finance, powers and partnership arrangements needed to deliver our county-wide 2050 climate target; and
II. Use this report to support a request to the Secretary of State that Surrey County Council and all local authorities are given statutory duties, powers and funding to enable them to achieve net zero in line with the UK's legal commitment on carbon emissions.
Item 11 (iii)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, Clare Curran, moved a proposal.
The proposal was as follows:
That the motion below by Liz Townsend be referred to the Cabinet for the purpose of consideration.
This Council recognises that:
Children and young people have a legal right to special educational provision and support that meets their needs. However, currently too many children and young people are not getting the education and support they need, with long-term consequences for their educational outcomes and overall wellbeing, together with that of their families.
Many parents and carers of children and young people with additional needs often find the system to access education an arduous and expensive battle that brings families to breaking point.
Part of the process that they report causes much distress is the panel decision making process. This is the point when decisions are made about their child behind closed doors often by unknown professionals, and to which the individual case officer, who is involved with the families on a day-to-day basis, is not automatically invited.
This Council acknowledges that:
Many parents do not currently feel that the panel process is transparent or consistent. These panels are making significant decisions about the future of children and young people with additional needs, and it is important parents are part of the process.
Due to its closed nature, many parents and carers often feel that vital information is not adequately covered and, in some cases, omitted. Once a decision is made, the rationale provided to parents and carers for this is often reported as inadequate and this compounds a feeling of exclusion and mistrust.
This Council notes:
This process is not a statutory requirement and could be changed in line with The SEND code of Practice SEND_Code_of_Practice_January_2015.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)that sets out the requirements to involve families and young people in decision making.
This Council resolves to call on the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning to commit to:
I. Provide the opportunity for parent/carers of children with additional needs to be involved in the panel decision process with a clearly defined role.
II. Provide the opportunity for the child or young person with additional needs to be involved in the panel decision process with a clearly defined role.
III. Ensure the relevant case officer is automatically invited to attend panel decision meetings.
Liz Townsend made the following points:
· Felt as though the debate was being stifled by the same culture that was failing Surrey’s families.
· Noted that Members continued to receive harrowing accounts of parents’ experiences of children with additional needs trying to access their legal right to education.
· Noted that she proposed one change to make a fairer system, putting the child and their families at the heart of decision-making.
· Queried why the Council chose not to include parents and families as attendees to the panel meetings compared to other councils - parents were their child’s best advocates - and why families’ case workers were not automatically invited.
· Noted that the SEND Code of Practice legally requires local authorities to involve families in decision-making processes, children’s opinions matter as they know what makes them feel safe, supported and understood.
· Noted that the current system creates barriers and mistrust, the proposed change would empower families and children, and build a more respectful and supportive relationship with the Council, leading to better outcomes.
In speaking to her proposal, the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning:
· Recognised the concerns of the motion’s proposer and others about the structure and the operation of the panels.
· Reiterated the ambition that sound, impartial and objective decisions were made for children and young people, based on the statutory criteria and on evidence and prioritising children's needs.
· Noted that the Council’s role was to consider issues of policy and strategy, not to focus on a specialist area of the operational activity of one directorate.
· Recognised that the scope of the changes proposed was in line with the End-to-End Review and the work of the SEND Transformation Programme, however, the SEND services and operational arrangements must be conducted in accordance with the regulatory requirements.
· Noted that the Children and Families Act and the SEND Code of Practice, were prescriptive and specialist, and therefore advice was sought from qualified professionals.
· Noted that potential changes to operational arrangements should be discussed with stakeholders as the Council was committed to co-production.
Liz Townsend confirmed that she was against the referral of the motion to the Cabinet.
Jeffrey Gray left the meeting at 12.24 pm.
Under Standing Order 28.1, ten Members demanded a recorded vote, the proposal to refer the motion was put to the vote with 42 Members voting For, 28 voting Against and 0 Abstentions.
The following Members voted For it:
Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Jordan Beech, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, John Furey, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Ernest Mallett MBE, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.
The following Members voted Against it:
Catherine Baart, John Beckett, Dennis Booth, Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Nick Harrison, Robert King, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Michaela Martin, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, George Potter, Catherine Powell, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Chris Townsend, Liz Townsend, Hazel Watson, Fiona White.
There were no Abstentions.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
The motion be referred to the Cabinet for the purpose of consideration.
Item 11 (iv)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Marisa Heath moved:
This Council notes that:
· Having felt the impact of COVID and the conflict in Ukraine leading to rising costs in energy prices and food, our local economy, particularly our small and rural businesses need support and the ability to focus on growth, not additional tax burdens and complexity.
· The recent budget has had an immediate impact on farmers and rural businesses at a time when stability is important and as we seek to provide more healthy, sustainable and, where possible, local, food and look after our environment.
· The NFU has evidenced that around 75% of commercial family farms will be affected by the new IHT policy which was announced in the budget rather than the government’s initial claim that it would only be 27% of farms. This means many Surrey farms will be impacted.
· Several farms will not yet fully understand the implications of the changes as they will not have had their farms formally valued since the 1992 changes. Many feel that the current change are a tax on rural areas.
· Many farms do not earn enough money to pay the potential Inheritance Tax Bill without selling off some of their land or business, which in turn makes the farm business unviable and threatens the future of Surrey farming.
· The average farm size in 2023 was 88 hectares. This is the fourth smallest average farm size of all the English regions and the same as the English average of 88 hectares. 63% of farms were below 50 hectares. Due to relative land values, farms in the south-east could be more affected by changes to Inheritance Tax than those in other parts of the country. Based on average land-values (arable and pasture) the average 88ha south-east farm has a value of between £2.1m and £2.6m (excludes machinery/ plant equipment – for context, a combine harvester can cost as much as £0.5m).
· 31% farms are rented and the impact on farmers who do not own their farms has yet to be measured.
· Surrey County Council has been working with local farmers and sharing information and best practice as it is recognised that farmers play a crucial role in land management and nature recovery across Surrey.
· The inflationary impacts of the budget on key inputs such as labour costs will prevent farmers and rural businesses being able to add investment and drive growth. Alongside this, the Rural Prosperity Fund comes to an end in March 2025 and there is no replacement for it which restricts businesses investing in their long-term resilience, competitiveness and their environmental performance.
This Council believes that:
· Food security and sustainability is a key priority for both Surrey and the nation, and the added financial pressure of the budget does not support the prioritisation of these important objectives.
· Farmers should be supported to get through the changes of moving away from direct payments, driving forward environmental objectives and producing high quality British food and encouraged to invest long-term in their businesses.
· We should not risk losing Surrey’s high quality agricultural land used for food production to other uses which do not benefit the wider community.
· The tax would undermine investment and innovation in the sector at a time when we need Surrey farmers to invest in their businesses.
· In Surrey we have several rural businesses and farmers who are looking to both national and local Government for help to navigate changes such as the reduction in direct payments and it is important we respond to that and set out ways in which we will speak up for them.
This Council resolves to:
I. Inform the Treasury that Surrey County Council disagrees with IHT proposal and calls for the policy on IHT to be scrapped.
II. Call on the Treasury to provide a multi-year funding to support local rural businesses crucial to economic recovery, farming and sustainability.
III. Ensure that Surrey County Council continues, and increases, support for farmers, local food production and rural businesses enabling sharing of best practice and resource.
Marisa Heath made the following points:
· Noted that the motion focused on protecting Surrey farmers and rural businesses, the Council had committed to support its farmers through its work on net zero, nature recovery and economic prosperity.
· Had spoken Surrey farmers, they had been impacted by the announcements under the recent budget and were questioning their future, Defra’s figures suggested that two thirds of farms could face higher tax bills as a result.
· Notwithstanding Brexit and Covid-19, noted that farmers had been under pressure over many years, the number of intensive farms in the UK had risen by one quarter since 2011.
· Noted that 85% of animals farmed for meat come from intensive systems, family-owned farms were being lost at a high rate, at present Surrey was fortunate that it does not have the mega farms destroying its environment.
· Noted that whilst there were not yet specific numbers on how many Surrey farms would be affected, acting now was crucial and the Council should care about farmers regionally and nation-wide as they provided food security.
· Noted the sudden increase in applications for solar power on farms, several farmers who felt unsupported by the country were considering giving up farming and small businesses who rely on local farmers were worried about their future.
· Stressed that it was difficult for farmers to make a living due to unfair supply chains, they received less than 1% of the total profits of the food they produce.
· Noted that some farmers saw low scale farming as their duty and that should be nurtured, farmers help protect green spaces and stop urbanisation.
· Noted that whilst farmers could avoid the tax by transferring property at least seven years before death, the farmer could not receive any income, and a couple for example could use household tax allowances pushing them up to £3 million tax free, but Surrey land and equipment values were expensive.
· Suggested a more progressive approach for tax relief for those who provide public goods including environmental stewardship and nutritious food.
· Had met a family running Northfield Farm Supplies near Dorking, the business had been doing well until it was hit by increasing energy costs from Ukraine and the oil spillage on the A24, such businesses must be supported as a priority.
· Highlighted that there nothing to replace the Rural Prosperity Fund, driving investment in rural areas was vital for keeping the character of Surrey intact.
·
Called for new funding to cover small and rural
businesses across Surrey, British farming and a rural economy were
crucial to the county.
The motion was formally seconded by Matt Furniss, who reserved the right to speak.
Paul Follows moved an amendment which had been published in the second supplementary agenda on 9 December 2024, which was formally seconded by Lance Spencer.
The amendment was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):
This Council notes that:
· Having felt the impact of Brexit, COVID and the conflict in Ukraine leading to rising costs in energy prices and food, our local economy, particularly our small and rural businesses need support and the ability to focus on sustainable growth, not additional tax burdens and complexity.
· The departure from the European Union (Brexit) has led to an increased complexity of import/export rules and saw British farmers leave the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Leave campaigners and the last government told farmers and the public at large that both factors would be negligible. This has proven to be incorrect.
· Land acquisition and banking for the purposes of tax-avoidance is possible and that some consideration of this aspect by central government is reasonable but should be handled sensitively and not to the detriment of genuine farmers.
· The potential for such tax-avoidance is sustained because the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has limited prohibition of housebuilding on some grades of agricultural land.
· The recent budget has had an immediate impact on farmers and rural businesses at a time when stability is important and as we seek to provide more healthy, sustainable and, where possible, local, food and look after our environment.
· The NFU has evidenced that around 75% of commercial family farms will be affected by the new IHT policy which was announced in the budget rather than the government’s initial claim that it would only be 27% of farms. This means many Surrey farms will be impacted.
· Several farms will not yet fully understand the implications of the changes as they will not have had their farms formally valued since the 1992 changes. Many feel that the current change are a tax on rural areas.
· Many farms do not earn enough money to pay the potential Inheritance Tax Bill without selling off some of their land or business, which in turn makes the farm business unviable and threatens the future of Surrey farming.
· The average farm size in 2023 was 88 hectares. This is the fourth smallest average farm size of all the English regions and the same as the English average of 88 hectares. 63% of farms were below 50 hectares. Due to relative land values, farms in the south-east could be more affected by changes to Inheritance Tax than those in other parts of the country. Based on average land-values (arable and pasture) the average 88ha south-east farm has a value of between £2.1m and £2.6m (excludes machinery/ plant equipment – for context, a combine harvester can cost as much as £0.5m).
· 31% farms are rented and the impact on farmers who do not own their farms has yet to be measured.
· Surrey County Council has been working with local farmers and sharing information and best practice as it is recognised that farmers play a crucial role in land management and nature recovery across Surrey.
· The inflationary impacts of the budget on key inputs such as labour costs will prevent farmers and rural businesses being able to add investment and drive growth. Alongside this, the Rural Prosperity Fund comes to an end in March 2025 and there is no replacement for it which restricts businesses investing in their long-term resilience, competitiveness and their environmental performance.
This Council believes that:
· Food security and sustainability is a key priority for both Surrey and the nation, and the added financial pressure of the budget does not support the prioritisation of these important objectives.
· Farmers should be supported to get through the changes of moving away from direct payments, driving forward environmental objectives and producing high quality British food and encouraged to invest long-term in their businesses.
· We should not risk losing Surrey’s high quality agricultural land used for food production to other uses which do not benefit the wider community.
· The tax would undermine investment and innovation in the sector at a time when we need Surrey farmers to invest in their businesses.
· In Surrey we have several rural businesses and farmers who are looking to both national and local Government for help to navigate changes such as the reduction in direct payments and it is important we respond to that and set out ways in which we will speak up for them.
This Council resolves to:
I.
Inform the Treasury
that Surrey County Council disagrees with IHT proposal and calls
for the policy on IHT to be scrapped reviewed and a
greater emphasis placed upon supporting genuine farmers and
addressing tax-avoidance schemes.
II. Call on the Government to update the NPPF to strengthen the restrictions on development on agricultural land.
II.
III. Call on the Treasury to provide a multi-year funding to support local rural businesses crucial to economic recovery, farming and sustainability.
IV. Call on the Government to improve its working relationship with the EU on agricultural and trade policy areas.
III.
V. Ensure that Surrey County Council continues, and increases, support for farmers, local food production and rural businesses enabling sharing of best practice and resource.
Paul Follows spoke to his amendment, making the following points:
· Noted that he could not support a motion about farming that does not talk about Brexit more holistically, leaving the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the single market had made life harder and more complex for farmers.
· Noted that the Rural Prosperity Fund was less than the previous European Union (EU) funding despite promises that it would be equal.
· Noted the addition of the word ‘sustainable’ before growth, the Council had declared a Climate Emergency and should not support growth at any cost.
· Noted that it was not improper for the Government to seek to deal with tax avoidance, particularly in the current financial climate; believed that the discussion should have been about the thresholds where that tax is applied.
· Noted that agricultural land could be used to land bank which has implications on house building, and to commit tax avoidance, the previous government did not make changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to address that; the second resolution called for a review of that.
· Noted that the first resolution was amended to have a focus on tax avoidance and reiterate the Council’s support for genuine farmers who produce food.
· Noted that the fourth resolution called on the Government to improve its working relationship with the EU on trade and the CAP was a huge issue for farmers.
· Emphasised that the amendment sought to collectively help farmers in Surrey and nationally by acknowledging the wider issues they faced which impacted their businesses and livelihoods, and to help with the wider issues of food and energy security.
The amendment was formally seconded by Lance Spencer, who made the following comments:
· Highlighted that Woking only had one farm, across Surrey there were fewer farms than most other shire counties.
· Noted his personal experience having grown up on a small family farm, the land value per acre had significantly increased over the generations; yet in a good year the profits would be less than the minimum wage and in a bad year the farm lost money.
· Noted that farming was unprofitable yet in some cases wealthy individuals purchase farms to avoid inheritance tax, that explain the high land value compared with minimal returns; genuine young farmers could not afford to purchase the land.
· Noted that the Government’s proposed legislation sought to stop land banking but had not sufficiently considered genuine family farmers’ situation.
· Noted that the unamended motion did not consider the need to stop the land being used primarily for inheritance tax planning purposes.
·
Stressed the need to encourage farmers to hand their
farms down through the generations, noting the bond between the
farmers and their land, locally sourced food was beneficial to the
environment and the local economy.
Marisa Heath did not accept the amendment and therefore the amendment was open for debate.
Two Members spoke on the amendment and made the following comments:
· Noted close family members that attended an agricultural university, many of their colleagues were now in the food supply chain and had worked on their family farm for no money but to keep the farm going.
· Noted that farmers work twenty-four hours a day throughout the year to look after their farm and livestock.
· Highlighted rural poverty and farmers being unable to pay their stockmen, many farms live on an overdraft and could not save to pay for the inheritance tax.
· Noted that farming is a calling, they work hard to leave that land to the next generation, they are caretakers of the land for the community.
· Hoped that the aspirations of the younger generation of farmers could be kept going so they keep on producing cheaper food than the rest of Europe.
· Noted that Brexit provided the UK with its individuality as the President of the European Commission recently signed a deal to import cheap food into the EU from South America which would not help their farmers.
· Noted that the amendment sought to distinguish between large landowners and family farms, it sought to distinguish between tax avoidance and the need to support family farmers, the average family farm was smaller than one thousand acres.
· Noted that solar farms were needed in the right place, not on Grade 1 agricultural land, that was a flaw in the NPPF to be addressed as indicated by the amendment.
· Noted the need to buy the heaviest items and those that degrade quickest close to the UK, undertook research whereby in the Brexit year (2019) 16% of fruit and 54% of vegetables consumed in the UK were grown here, that was the lowest level for over twenty years.
· Noted that the UK has the right climate to grow apples and pears but in 2019 it imported nearly 500,000 tonnes more than it exported, importing from as far afield as South Africa and New Zealand.
· Noted that Brexit and the trade rules affect climate change, agriculture must be bought as locally as possible and the UK must work within the common market.
George Potter left the meeting at 12.47 pm.
Marisa Heath noted the following comments in response to not accepting the amendment:
· Noted that she did not want the motion to be used politically to discuss the impact of leaving the EU.
· Highlighted that resolution four was not needed as the Government had committed to a common veterinary agreement with the EU, which would likely mean the adoption of equal standards and enabling ease of access.
· Noted that farming had been struggling for a long time and most of that was linked to the CAP and receiving less than what was inputted.
· Noted that the CAP was criticised for encouraging farming practices that were damaging to the environment and large landowners benefited, the protectionism damaged developing countries.
· Noted that the motion sought to protect farmers, rural businesses and food security.
·
Advised the Government to think through its approach
regarding tax avoidance.
The Chair asked Paul Follows, as proposer of the amendment to conclude the debate:
· Noted that the amendment sought to strengthen the motion to focus on food security and supporting genuine farmers, to review the inheritance thresholds and not allow those who deliberately abuse the land and planning policies to avoid taxation.
· Noted that the CAP has serious issues, there were many aspects of the EU that need reform; however since Brexit farmers who were operating based on having CAP money had lost out as they did not receive the promised equivalent subsidy from the government.
· Noted that the government did not provide the equivalent funding to that previously received from European rural development funding, whilst the net outflow of funding went from the UK to the EU, there was money spent in the regional and rural areas; farmers were at a deficit because of Brexit.
·
Queried why the motion’s proposer did not
support the amendment calling for more to be done about tax
avoidance and whilst mismanaged, the Government’s policy was
designed to raise revenue to fund public services.
The amendment was put to the vote with 17 Members voting For, 47 voting Against and 2 Abstentions.
Therefore the amendment was lost.
Returning to the debate on the substantive motion, two Members made the following comments:
· Noted that Surrey is renowned for its abundance of woodland and beautiful countryside, according to a report by the University of Surrey the farming and agricultural sector contributed over £500 million to the economy and accounted for 14% of the national farming income.
· Noted that Surrey’s farms produced varied produce and livestock, 40% of Surrey Hills’ land was agricultural and over 800 people were employed in land holdings.
· Stressed that Surrey’s farmers were committed to safeguarding flora and fauna, and preserving traditional rural skills.
· Noted that farmers were proud of their stewardship to benefit the food chain and environment, and to pass on sustainable and viable businesses.
· Noted that many farms engage with children so they can appreciate farms and the countryside as future custodians, through local projects children were taught the vital link between farms and what they eat.
· Noted that a farming estate only needed to be valued at £1.3 million for their economic returns to be wiped out by inheritance tax under the new policy.
· Noted that farms were more exposed to the impacts of the inheritance tax measures due to Surrey’s high land and property prices, the National Farmers' Union reports that farms under £1 million were too small to be viable and medium sized farms hit by the liability would not be protected by the ten-year payment window resulting in higher payments to returns.
· Noted that the measures threatened Surrey's farming families and community which had shaped the landscape, culture and outdoor opportunities for employment, leisure and wellbeing.
· Noted that market towns were formed through the agricultural trade and host regular farmers markets, providing healthy and sustainable food.
· Noted that the Council values the vital contribution that farming makes to Surrey's economy and identity; the motion recognises and thanks farmers.
· Noted that the motion must be better organised and accurate, based on facts, it fails to mention that one of the largest holders of farmland in Surrey with over 2,000 hectares is the Council.
· Noted that the motion refers to several farms and notes that ‘many feel’, that was not quantified.
· Noted that the motion stated that the average size of farms was 88 hectares, that was the figure for the South East region and not Surrey, the University of Surrey estimates the average farm size in Surrey to be 50 hectares mainly due to the high land cost; relative land values and the type of farming varied hugely across the region.
· Noted that a farmer who inherited a farm worth £1 million twenty-five years ago now had an asset worth £3 million equating to £2 million in profit if sold.
· Noted that a Surrey householder in the same situation would expect to pay 40% inheritance tax unless they legally passed it on seven years before death or set up a trust - which farmers could do - farmers could use red diesel in agricultural machinery which reduces the fuel cost by half.
· Queried what the support was by the Council to farmers as noted in the third resolution and whether the Cabinet had approved it, how much would it cost and was it in the budget.
Matt Furniss, the seconder of the motion, made no comments.
The Chair asked Marisa Heath, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, she made the following comments:
· Noted that she spoke to farmers daily, the reference to many equated to around hundreds of farmers, she joined the protest against the Government’s new policy.
· Noted that the motion was not solely about Surrey, but about putting affordable food on residents’ tables.
· Acknowledged that Surrey has higher land values which was a problem for farmers, the motion sought to protect farmers and to ensure that food costs do not increase for residents.
· Noted that she holds numerous meetings with farmers and visits their farms, officers liaise with them providing support on the issues they face.
· Noted that in the absence of funding to support them, called on the Government not to hurt them with the inheritance tax policy and to provide money to support rural businesses.
The motion was put to the vote and was carried, with 47 Members voting For, 5 voting Against and 16 Abstentions.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
This Council notes that:
· Having felt the impact of COVID and the conflict in Ukraine leading to rising costs in energy prices and food, our local economy, particularly our small and rural businesses need support and the ability to focus on growth, not additional tax burdens and complexity.
· The recent budget has had an immediate impact on farmers and rural businesses at a time when stability is important and as we seek to provide more healthy, sustainable and, where possible, local, food and look after our environment.
· The NFU has evidenced that around 75% of commercial family farms will be affected by the new IHT policy which was announced in the budget rather than the government’s initial claim that it would only be 27% of farms. This means many Surrey farms will be impacted.
· Several farms will not yet fully understand the implications of the changes as they will not have had their farms formally valued since the 1992 changes. Many feel that the current change are a tax on rural areas.
· Many farms do not earn enough money to pay the potential Inheritance Tax Bill without selling off some of their land or business, which in turn makes the farm business unviable and threatens the future of Surrey farming.
· The average farm size in 2023 was 88 hectares. This is the fourth smallest average farm size of all the English regions and the same as the English average of 88 hectares. 63% of farms were below 50 hectares. Due to relative land values, farms in the south-east could be more affected by changes to Inheritance Tax than those in other parts of the country. Based on average land-values (arable and pasture) the average 88ha south-east farm has a value of between £2.1m and £2.6m (excludes machinery/ plant equipment – for context, a combine harvester can cost as much as £0.5m).
· 31% farms are rented and the impact on farmers who do not own their farms has yet to be measured.
· Surrey County Council has been working with local farmers and sharing information and best practice as it is recognised that farmers play a crucial role in land management and nature recovery across Surrey.
· The inflationary impacts of the budget on key inputs such as labour costs will prevent farmers and rural businesses being able to add investment and drive growth. Alongside this, the Rural Prosperity Fund comes to an end in March 2025 and there is no replacement for it which restricts businesses investing in their long-term resilience, competitiveness and their environmental performance.
This Council believes that:
· Food security and sustainability is a key priority for both Surrey and the nation, and the added financial pressure of the budget does not support the prioritisation of these important objectives.
· Farmers should be supported to get through the changes of moving away from direct payments, driving forward environmental objectives and producing high quality British food and encouraged to invest long-term in their businesses.
· We should not risk losing Surrey’s high quality agricultural land used for food production to other uses which do not benefit the wider community.
· The tax would undermine investment and innovation in the sector at a time when we need Surrey farmers to invest in their businesses.
· In Surrey we have several rural businesses and farmers who are looking to both national and local Government for help to navigate changes such as the reduction in direct payments and it is important we respond to that and set out ways in which we will speak up for them.
This Council resolves to:
I. Inform the Treasury that Surrey County Council disagrees with IHT proposal and calls for the policy on IHT to be scrapped.
II. Call on the Treasury to provide a multi-year funding to support local rural businesses crucial to economic recovery, farming and sustainability.
III. Ensure that Surrey County Council continues, and increases, support for farmers, local food production and rural businesses enabling sharing of best practice and resource.
Item 11 (ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, Clare Curran, moved a proposal.
The proposal was as follows:
That the motion below by Jonathan Essex be referred to the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee for the purpose of consideration and making recommendations to Cabinet or Council for decision.
This Council agrees that:
· Surrey County Council used to support a network of 58 Sure Start Children Centres with some government support. These were replaced with 23 Family Centres in 2017 and these are now funded through 11 Family Centre and Family Resilience contracts that also include youth services up to 18 (and age 25 for those with SEN).
· This shift to the family centres model has been accompanied by a shift in council funding for children services. There is now less funding allocated to universal and community support, and signposting to families (often through group sessions) alongside increased funding for more targeted and intensive support to individual families, including through the new Intensive Family Support Service (IFSS).
· Recent academic research has highlighted that the Sure Start Children Centres model reduced childhood obesity and youth crime whilst increased early identification of SEN (and reduced SEN and EHCPs in secondary schools) and improved educational outcomes.
· The above shift in funding in children's services within a post-Covid context of continued austerity, together with service improvements in Surrey County Council, has contributed to a reduction in children being taken into care in Surrey. However, at the same time there has been an increase in the numbers of children requiring additional support when they start school, and a surge in the number of children who have mental health needs.
This Council resolves to:
I. Commission a review of recent research into the benefits of taking a broader preventative approach to children's services. This review should include recommendations to improve long-term outcomes for Surrey families, including through strengthening universal and community support to meet emerging needs earlier.
II. Write to the new Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP to call for additional funding for local authority Children’s Services across the UK that is directed to prevention, to improve outcomes to meet the objective that no children or families are left behind.
Jonathan Essex made the following points:
· Noted that if the motion is referred, hoped that the Cabinet Member would call on the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to direct more funding to prevention in Children’s Services.
· Noted that budget constraints had affected Children's Services work, reducing children being brought into care and reducing prevention and emerging needs support to more families.
· Noted that research highlighted that Sure Start children's centres provided earlier support to families, reduced child hospital admissions and obesity, improved child mental health and reduced criminal convictions, increased educational attainment, and increased SEND support for five year-olds led to less children needing an EHCP by secondary school age.
· Noted that savings exceeded costs and prevention worked, should the motion be referred he sought assurance that without delay a broader preventative approach to Children's Services would be explored that reaches deprived communities, particularly as child poverty had increased.
· Called for sufficient centres to be created within walking distance from areas of greatest social need and to collaborate with the voluntary and community sector.
Matt Furniss left the meeting at 13.06 pm.
In speaking to her proposal, the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning:
· Hoped that by referring it to the select committee, it would be reflected on, researched and resourced, and recommendations would be developed that would bring forward the Council's future policy around early help and intervention.
· Welcomed the Government’s announcement concerning social care, the overhaul sought to rebalance in favour of early intervention and consider national findings regarding the Families First initiative.
· Noted that the Local Government Finance Policy Statement 2025 to 2026 hinted at changes in the funding frameworks for early help services, the Member’s motion called on various Council strategies and work underway.
· Noted that the Member’s ambitions touched on the work being done to encourage stronger communities working with the voluntary, community and faith networks across Surrey, the work by the Health and Wellbeing Board around poverty and the towns and villages work by health colleagues.
Jonathan Essex confirmed that he was against the referral of the motion to the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee.
Under Standing Order 28.1, ten Members demanded a recorded vote, the proposal to refer the motion was put to the vote with 42 Members voting For, 25 voting Against and 1 Abstention.
The following Members voted For it:
Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Jordan Beech, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, John Furey, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Nick Harrison, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Scott Lewis, Andy Lynch, Ernest Mallett MBE, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Becky Rush, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.
The following Members voted Against it:
Catherine Baart, John Beckett, Dennis Booth, Harry Boparai, Stephen Cooksey, Nick Darby, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Paul Follows, Angela Goodwin, Robert King, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Catherine Powell, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Chris Townsend, Liz Townsend, Hazel Watson, Fiona White.
The following Members Abstained:
Michaela Martin.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
The motion be referred to the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee for the purpose of consideration and making recommendations to Cabinet or Council for decision.
Jeremy Webster left the meeting at 13.13 pm.