Item 8(i)
Mrs Fiona White (Guildford West) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
National figures announced by the Coalition Government have bought welcome news on the large number of “Troubled Families” being turned around by councils across the country.
Troubled families are those that have problems and cause problems to the community around them, putting high costs on the public sector. Government funding is provided to help turn round troubled families.
The scheme, aims to:
•
get children back into school
•
reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour
•
put adults on a path back to work
•
reduce the high costs these families place on the public sector
each year.
This is achieved by:
•
joining up local services
•
dealing with each family’s problems as a whole rather than
responding to each problem, or person, separately
•
appointing a single key worker to get to grips with the
family’s problems and work intensively with them to change
their lives for the better for the long term
•
using a mix of methods that support families and challenge poor
behaviour
Nationally, out of 118,000 families, 14,000 had been turned around by the end of July 2013, a 12% success rate.
Council notes that the Leader announced on his taking office that the County’s children are his number one priority. Council further notes that in Surrey, out of 1,000 families, only 12 had been turned around in the same period, a success rate of only 1.2%.
Council requests the Chairmen of the Adult Social Care and Children & Education Select Committees to convene a joint meeting to scrutinise reports from officers as to why Surrey is underachieving by a factor of 10 below the national average and to make recommendations to Cabinet as to how a rapid turnaround in performance in this crucial area of the Council’s business can be achieved.
Item 8(ii)
Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
Council notes that:
1. The County Council appears to be implementing policies on the use of social media and filming in Council, Cabinet, Select Committees and Local Committees even though no policies have been approved by Members. Policies which should be promoting openness and transparency have not been set in an open and transparent way.
2. Legislation [S.I 2012 No. 2089 The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012] and guidance by the DCLG have been issued on the role of social media and filming to promote openness and transparency in decision making.
3. The policies being applied by Surrey County Council place unnecessary obstructions to the use of social media and filming. For example, limiting the use of social media in meetings to breaks in business at the end of items and requiring written applications to film meetings.
Council agrees that:
a) the use of social media and the filming of meetings shall be permitted at all times, without written permission, in the public part of meetings provided it does not disturb the business of the meeting and there is sufficient space.
b) it will follow the spirit of recent legislation and guidance in ensuring openness and transparency in decision making and scrutiny of decisions.
Item 8(iii)
Mr Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
This Council opposes moves to erase Stanwell Moor from the map of Surrey.
Item 8(iv)
Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) of Shale Type Rock
Surrey County Council notes that:
In particular, large
amounts of water needed for hydraulic fracturing to extract shale
gas (as well as the well-documented risk of groundwater
contamination as a result of fracking where well integrity has been compromised)
would put further pressure on limited water supplies in Surrey, and
may put residents and local agriculture at risk;
Surrey County Council shall:
i) Review whether any
economic benefits for Fracking
would not be outweighed by costs to others sectors such as
tourism; and
ii) Call on the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate
Change to introduce Industry Specific regulation of hydraulic
fracturing for the UK shale gas industry, as there are still no
specific onshore exploration or extraction regulations for
natural gas (and the offshore regulations developed in the
1990s are not sufficient to address all the issues that arise from
moving the process onshore).
Minutes:
ITEM 8(i)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Fiona White moved the motion which was:
‘National figures announced by the Coalition Government have bought welcome news on the large number of “Troubled Families” being turned around by councils across the country.
Troubled families are those that have problems and cause problems to the community around them, putting high costs on the public sector. Government funding is provided to help turn round troubled families.
The scheme, aims to:
· get children back into school
· reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour
· put adults on a path back to work
· reduce the high costs these families place on the public sector each year.
This is achieved by:
· joining up local services
· dealing with each family’s problems as a whole rather than responding to each problem, or person, separately
· appointing a single key worker to get to grips with the family’s problems and work intensively with them to change their lives for the better for the long term
· using a mix of methods that support families and challenge poor behaviour
Nationally, out of 118,000 families, 14,000 had been turned around by the end of July 2013, a 12% success rate.
Council notes that the Leader announced on his taking office that the County’s children are his number one priority. Council further notes that in Surrey, out of 1,000 families, only 12 had been turned around in the same period, a success rate of only 1.2%.
Council requests the Chairmen of the Adult Social Care and Children & Education Select Committees to convene a joint meeting to scrutinise reports from officers as to why Surrey is underachieving by a factor of 10 below the national average and to make recommendations to Cabinet as to how a rapid turnaround in performance in this crucial area of the Council’s business can be achieved.’
The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Lallement.
Mrs White said that:
· She was disappointed with the County Council’s performance in turning around such a small number of troubled families and gave the statistics for surrounding counties, which were all better than Surrey County Council.
· The Lib Dems believed in creating a fairer society.
· Children who did not have family support struggled to achieve.
· The impact of ‘troubled families’ on local communities and their anti-social behaviour was an issue.
· The adults often claimed unemployment benefit and the cost of troubled families mounted up.
· Health issues were sometimes an issue.
· The failure to recognise the issues was letting the troubled families down.
· She was in contact with the family support unit in Guildford.
· The Council should agree to her request for a joint meeting of the Adult Social Care and Children & Education Select Committees to consider these issues so that they could make recommendations to improve the outcomes for these families.
Mrs Angell responded and made the following points:
· That in Surrey, the word ‘troubled’ was not used, it was called the Family Support Programme.
· The figures quoted by Mrs White were inaccurate and the figure of 12 families mentioned in the motion referred to the number of families involved in the pilot programme. From October 2013, 794 families were on the Surrey programme, which had achieved a 40% success rate to date.
· Senior civil servants had visited the County Council in June and their feedback on the Family Support Programme was that the council was a leading authority in this area.
· Officers working in this area were supporting the national programme.
· The Family Support Programme was subject to rigorous scrutiny - the Children and Education Select Committee had received a report on this programme at its meeting on 19 September 2013.
· A report on Public Service Transformation would be considered by Cabinet on 22 October 2013 – this included the outline business case for Surrey’s Family Support Programme.
· She did not agree with the request for a joint meeting of the relevant select committees.
Seven Members spoke on the motion, with the following points being made:
· The programme was being delivered in partnership with Boroughs and Districts.
· Each family on the programme had an individual plan.
· Cross County support was now available for the Family Support Programme.
· It was wrong to play politics with children’s lives.
· There was a continued drive to transform public services in Surrey.
· Concern about the accuracy of data used in the original motion.
· Reports on this programme had also been to the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as well as to the Children and Education Select Committee and the select committee had supported the progress made and considered that it was a well-delivered programme.
· More help was needed for troubled families in Spelthorne.
· A reference to a letter received from Government, in relation to the Council’s partnership work with Boroughs and Districts, and that this 2-tier council had made real progress towards a one team approach.
· That, when challenged, statistics were often misleading and that other counties had turned around more troubled families.
· That the troubled families funding had been made available by the Coalition Government and this Council must put this issue at the top of its agenda.
After the debate, the motion was put to the vote with 12 Members voting for it. There were 2 abstentions and the remaining Members voted against it and therefore the motion was lost.
ITEM 8(ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Hazel Watson moved the motion which was:
‘Council notes that:
1. The County Council appears to be implementing policies on the use of social media and filming in Council, Cabinet, Select Committees and Local Committees even though no policies have been approved by Members. Policies which should be promoting openness and transparency have not been set in an open and transparent way.
2. Legislation [S.I 2012 No. 2089 The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012] and guidance by the DCLG have been issued on the role of social media and filming to promote openness and transparency in decision making.
3. The policies being applied by Surrey County Council place unnecessary obstructions to the use of social media and filming. For example, limiting the use of social media in meetings to breaks in business at the end of items and requiring written applications to film meetings.
Council agrees that:
a) the use of social media and the filming of meetings shall be permitted at all times, without written permission, in the public part of meetings provided it does not disturb the business of the meeting and there is sufficient space.
b) it will follow the spirit of recent legislation and guidance in ensuring openness and transparency in decision making and scrutiny of decisions.’
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Forster.
Mrs Watson referred to guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government, in relation to social media and filming in meetings and said that the County Council had an inconsistent approach to the publication of guidance on its committees’ agendas. She believed that requests for filming meetings should be an administrative rather than a political decision and that Council policy needed changing. She urged all Members to support her motion.
Ms Le Gal moved an amendment at the meeting (formally seconded by Mrs Frost), which was to delete points 1-3 and (b) of the original motion and amend (a) as follows (additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):
Council agrees that:
a)
the use of social media and the filming of meetings shall be
permitted at all times, without written permission with the
Chairman’s consent obtained in advance of the meeting, in the
public part of meetings provided it does not disturb the business
of the meeting and there is sufficient space.
Ms Le Gal made the following points:
· That the County Council was open and transparent which was why her amendment had removed the political points.
· The Chairmen were in charge of meetings and therefore his / her consent was required. This was particularly relevant for local committee meetings because they were held at various venues.
· Committee meetings were meetings held in public and not public meetings.
Eleven Members spoke on the amendment, with the following points being made:
· A request that school governors be asked to replicate this guidance at their meetings, if possible.
· Concern that the Chairman may not be fully in control of the meeting if use of social media, such as Twitter, was permitted.
· The Chairman was in control of the meeting and therefore, it was reasonable to obtain their consent.
· The Chairman was answerable to the public.
· Agreed that social media guidance needed clarification but the amendment went too far in the other direction.
· A request that the Epsom and Ewell Local Committee could determine their own guidance if they wished.
· Removing the words ‘without written permission’ adhered to the legislation.
· Openness and transparency were important.
· That the amendment was more restrictive than the original motion.
The amendment was put to the vote with 51 Members voting for and 20 Members voting against it. There were no abstentions.
Therefore the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion. Members then voted on the substantive motion, which was agreed and therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
That the use of social media and the filming of meetings shall be permitted at all times, with the Chairman’s consent obtained in advance of the meeting, in the public part of meetings provided it does not disturb the business of the meeting and there is sufficient space.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.55pm and resumed at 2.15pm with all those present who had been in attendance in the morning session except for Mrs Barton, Mr Ellwood, Mr Fuller, Mr Hall, Dr Grant-Duff, Mrs Hicks, Mrs Lallement, Mrs Lay, Mrs Moseley, Mr Sydney, Mr Young and Mrs Young.
ITEM 8(iii)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Robert Evans moved the motion which was:
‘This Council opposes moves to erase Stanwell Moor from the map of Surrey’
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Jenkins.
Prior to the start of the debate on this motion, the Leader of the Council raised a point of order because he considered that the Council had debated a motion on airports in July and therefore, the council should not debate another motion on this topic within six months. The Chairman informed Members that he had taken advice and the motion had been ruled in order because it was sufficiently different from the motion debated in July.
In support of his motion, Mr Robert Evans, made the following points:
· That at the last Council meeting, he had voted in favour of the motion relating to Heathrow and Gatwick. However, since then the Davies Commission had reported, setting out several proposals for Heathrow, including a south west option which would have a direct impact on 850 homes in Stanwell Moor.
· Concern about the health of residents and that Stanwell would become a ‘dead-end’ village if this proposal went ahead.
· Further increased traffic movement.
· Consideration of other options such as better use of capacity at Heathrow and re-routing holiday flights to other airports.
· Unlike many European airports, Heathrow was situated in an urban area.
· That the County Council had a responsibility to its residents.
Mr Furey moved an amendment at the meeting (formally seconded by Mr Martin), which was (additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):
‘This Council opposes moves to erase
recognises the concerns of the residents
ofStanwell Moor from the map of
Surrey about proposals for the expansion
of Heathrow and calls on the Davies Commission to end the
uncertainty for them as soon as possible.’
Mr Furey reminded Members what had been agreed at the Council meeting in July – that the Council recognised the crucial roles of both airports in Surrey and that this authority would look closely at the impact of any expansion.
He also made the following points:
· Thousands of Surrey residents worked at the airport.
· 58 schemes had been submitted to the Davies Commission and until its interim draft report was published in December 2013, it was impossible to comment on specific proposals.
· If the south west option was included in the proposals, the County Council would be a consultee.
· That he considered that the amendment reflected the concerns of Stanwell Moor residents and he urged the Davies Commission to end the uncertainty as soon as possible.
Nine Members spoke on the amendment, with the following points being made:
· That the amendment was patronising and insulting.
· Two well attended public meetings had taken place in the area and that an invite to a future public meeting was extended to the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and the Environment.
· Concern that the community would be split.
· The importance of time limitation for noise issues.
· The amendment abdicated responsibility and the Council should be concerned about planning issues for both Heathrow and Gatwick.
· Uncertainty was a big issue.
· Current Council policy supported no further expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick and it was better to wait until the interim report before taking further action.
· The amendment proposed a more measured way to express concern.
· It was preferable for the Davies Commission to end uncertainty and it was hoped that the south west option would not be shortlisted but if it was, there would be several issues to consider, such as the environmental impact, mitigation and compensation options.
The amendment was put to the vote with 43 Members voting for and 19 Members voting against it. There were 2 abstentions.
Therefore, the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion. Members then voted on the substantive motion, which was agreed and therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
That this Council recognises the concerns of the residents of Stanwell Moor about proposals for the expansion of Heathrow and calls on the Davies Commission to end the uncertainty for them as soon as possible.
ITEM 8(iv)
Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.
The Chairman advised Members who had asked for guidance about participating in this debate, if they were members of the planning committee, that they could participate fully in the debate and subsequent vote and that this would not preclude them from any future planning decision provided they maintained an open mind when hearing those applications.
Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Jonathan Essex moved the motion which was:
‘Hydraulic Fracturing
(Fracking) of Shale Type Rock
Surrey County Council notes that:
In particular, large
amounts of water needed for hydraulic fracturing to extract shale
gas (as well as the well-documented risk of groundwater
contamination as a result of fracking where well integrity has
been compromised) would put further pressure on limited water
supplies in Surrey, and may put residents and local agriculture at
risk;
Surrey County Council shall:
(i)
Review whether any economic benefits for Fracking would not be
outweighed by costs to
others sectors such as tourism; and
ii) Call
on the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to
introduce Industry Specific regulation of hydraulic fracturing for
the UK shale gas industry, as there are still no specific
onshore exploration or extraction regulations for natural gas
(and the offshore regulations developed in the 1990s are not
sufficient to address all the issues that arise from moving the
process onshore).’
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Beardsmore.
In support of his motion, Mr Essex made the following points:
· Concern about fracking, both from an engineering point of view and on environmental grounds.
· That the volumes of water needed for hydraulic fracking was huge and pollution was inevitable.
· Reference to the minor earthquake caused by fracking in Lancashire.
· Industrialisation of Surrey’s countryside – with piping across it and additional lorries.
· Licences have been approved for ‘pilot’ exploration in several areas of Surrey.
· This motion asks for the benefits of fracking to be reviewed and better regulation, for this industry, be introduced by Government.
· A greater understanding of the impact so that the Council was more in control of Surrey’s countryside.
Five Members spoke on the motion, with the following points being made:
· Fracking was still in its infancy.
· Acknowledgement that it was of interest to residents and that a ‘questions / answers’ webpage would be kept up to date.
· The Government was encouraging exploration and that residents should be reassured that this country had some of the most stringent environment and safety regulations in the world, which were monitored by the Health and Safety Executive.
· Policies were in place and the County Council was a Mineral Planning Authority.
· Uncertainty on how much shale gas exists.
· The Department of Environment had published a balanced report on fracking in July.
· Surrey was rich in natural resources and any planning application would be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
· A licence to explore near Egham had been granted.
· This motion requested a review on whether the benefits of fracking outweighed the disadvantages.
· Proper regulation was required.
· This country was known for going forward and exploration.
· Concern re. the water resource required and that there were too many unanswered questions.
· The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment referred to the Shale Gas ‘Questions and Answers’ on the Surrey County Council website which could answer many Members’ questions and will be updated as required to take account of the latest information.
The motion was put to the vote with 16 Members voting for and 40 Members voting against it. There were 3 abstentions.
Therefore, the motion was lost.