Agenda item

Item 9(i)

 

Mr Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘This council recognises the huge contribution made to the County by its employees.

Members are therefore concerned to learn that the Council retains over 6000 people on 'zero hours contracts' and resolves to end this practice.

Furthermore the Council recognises that the cost of living in Kingston and Surrey is one of the highest in the country. The Council notes that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson has stated that 'paying the London living wage is not only morally right, but makes good business sense' and that he has called for an updated figure of £8.80 an hour.

 

This Council, therefore, resolves that the London Living Wage should be the minimum paid to any person, directly or indirectly employed by Surrey County Council.’

Item 9(ii)

 

Mr Stephen Cooksey (Dorking South and the Holmwoods) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘This council notes:

 

a)  the current consultation on Surrey County Council's Home to School Transport Policy, the stated intention of which in advance was that "Surrey County Council is not proposing any change to its home to school transport policy for 2015."

 

and

 

b) concerns by Surrey residents including:

 

i)          the discouragement that the present system gives to parents returning to full time work, given the Coalition Government's focus on getting people off benefits and into work. At present if parents cease to receive maximum Working Tax Credit or a child ceases to qualify for free school meals, Home to School Transport stops immediately.

 

ii)         the difficulties in obtaining school transport by children living in rural parts of Surrey, especially for pupils wanting to go to their nearest school within the Borough or District where they live, where there are community ties, but who live close to Borough or District or County boundaries.

 

iii)         the difficulties caused by the nearest school to a child's home being denominational when a child is of a different religion.

 

iv)        people being denied free Home to School Transport when the shortest practical route is far longer than the distances used under the qualifying criteria because there are major physical obstacles (such as railway lines, major roads and reservoirs).

 

v)          the difficulties caused to children who live more than 3 miles from any school but who are denied free transport to the parent's school of choice because the parents have not opted for the nearest school.

 

vi)        the difficulties caused when a child does not live in a school's catchment area, even though it is their nearest school.

 

Council calls for a Members' Start and Finish Task Group to be established to assess the findings of the consultation, the concerns above and any other relevant concerns with the aim of reaching recommendations to resolve as many of the concerns as possible and report back to the Children & Education Select Committee.’

 

Item 9(iii)

 

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

 

‘This Council agrees to re-establish a Surrey-wide Youth Council at Surrey County
Council to include representatives of young people from all eleven Boroughs
and Districts in order to:

a) give Surrey young people the opportunity to debate and influence the County Council's policies.

and

b) to enable Surrey young people to be represented on the national Youth
Parliament.’

 

Item 9(iv)

 

Mr Will Forster (Woking South) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘Noting the start of the badger cull in Somerset and Gloucestershire and the possibility that DEFRA may roll out the badger cull across the rest of the UK, Council agrees not to allow the badger cull to take place on any of its county owned land, given that the science is not proven nor conclusive that a cull of badgers is the answer to eradicating Bovine TB from the countryside.

 

Council agrees that more research should be undertaken by Government and the scientific community to find more effective and cheaper vaccinations for badgers and cattle to help eradicate this disease from the countryside.’

 

Item 9(v)

 

Mr Peter Martin (Godalming South, Milford and Witley) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘This Council fully supports the successful launch of its recent apprenticeship programme in helping the County's young people get a foot in the world of work but recognises that there is much still to be done.

 

The Council therefore calls on all Members to discuss and encourage the setting up of apprenticeships with their local businesses, Districts, Boroughs, Parishes and relevant partners.’

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9 (i)

 

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 recognises the huge contribution made to the County by its employees.

Members are therefore concerned to learn that the Council retains over 6000 people on 'zero hours contracts' and resolves to end this practice.

Furthermore the Council recognises that the cost of living in Kingston and Surrey is one of the highest in the country. The Council notes that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson has stated that 'paying the London living wage is not only morally right, but makes good business sense' and that he has called for an updated figure of £8.80 an hour.

 

This Council, therefore, resolves that the London Living Wage should be the minimum paid to any person, directly or indirectly employed by Surrey County Council.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Essex.

 

Mr Evans said that:

·         There were two parts of the motion: (i) zero hours contracts, (ii) London living wage but that both parts were about Surrey County Council being a better employer.

·         Surrey had pockets of poverty and food banks were opening up in the county and this motion was a modest attempt to improve the matter for the poorer people living in Surrey.

·         That ‘zero hours contracts’ had been rebranded by the County Council as ‘bank contracts’ and employees on these contracts were only paid for the hours actually worked and were expected to be available as/when the Council required them – he urged Members to decide today to end this practice.

·         On the London living wage, he quoted hourly rates and also referred to the salary paid to Surrey’s apprentices and said that paying the London living wage made good business sense, was morally right and was supported by the Mayor of London and also the Prime Minister.

 

Mr Martin responded and made the following points:

 

·         That the motion was in three parts and that the Conservatives would endorse the huge contribution made to the County by its employees.

·         The County Council had 1900 staff on the bank but when schools were included, the figure rose to nearly 6000, which was about 18% of the workforce.

·         Bank staff covered vacancies and the practice worked well for covering unplanned activities.

·         These contracts were part of the flexible working policy, many people preferred this way of working and the practice could be in both parties interest.

·         The County Council used bank contracts responsibly and staff on these contracts were paid the same hourly rate as permanent staff in the same position but just paid for the hours that they worked. They were also entitled to the same basic terms and conditions of employment as permanent staff on a pro-rata basis.

·         These arrangements made good business sense and he did not support ending this practice.

·         Referring to the ‘living wage’, he said that there were three different rates in the UK for the living wage.

·         When considering wages, it was important to consider the whole package and that the pension scheme, together with other staff benefits should be factored into the equation.

·         Raising the living wage in Surrey to the rate paid for the London living wage would cost the County Council £2m.

·         That the Council had spent £750K on apprenticeships and work experience opportunities.

·         Finally, he said that recent pay settlements had favoured those on the lowest pay scales and he urged Members to reject that part of the motion referring to zero hours contracts and the London living wage.

 

Seven Members spoke on the motion, with the following points being made:

 

·         That the County Council’s staff were valued, however, there was concern that Members were being asked to make policy ‘on the hoof’, with no allocated budget and therefore, agreeing to this motion could have an impact on other budgets.

·         It was the right thing to do and was similar to a motion put forward by the Liberal Democrats during the last Administration.

·         There was evidence from the Mayor of London that it was beneficial to pay the London living wage.

·         That wages, particularly in the north of the county were influenced by London salaries but it was important to continue with the county council’s current position in relation to wages.

·         That Surrey County Council did not receive the same funding as London councils – if it did, council tax could be reduced. However, as it stood, services in Surrey would have to be cut if this motion was agreed.

·         The Conservatives would always take the long term view and would balance delivery of services with the cost of staff.

·         The People, Performance and Development Committee regularly looked at staff salaries and benefits at their meetings.

·         This motion was about sharing benefits fairly.

·         Disappointment that a high percentage of public sector and voluntary organisations used zero hours contracts.

·         The difficulty of obtaining a mortgage for those people on zero hours contracts

·         Members were urged to end this practice now and then work out the detail including its funding.

 

Mr Robert Evans requested a recorded vote on the motion and 10 Members stood in support of this request.

 

The Chairman informed Members that he had received a request to split the motion into three parts and to vote separately on each section.

 

On the first part of the motion, Members voted unanimously in support of:

 

‘This Council recognises the huge contribution made to the County by its employees.’

 

On the second part of the motion, relating to ‘zero hours contracts’, the following Members voted for it:

 

Mr Beardsmore, Mr Beckett, Mr Cooksey, Mr Essex, Mr Robert Evans, Mr Forster, Mr Hickman, Mr Jenkins, Mr Mallett, Mrs Mason, Mr Orrick, Mrs Searle, Mrs Watson, Mrs White

 

The following Members voted against it:

 

Mrs Angell, Mr Barker, Mr Bennison, Ms Bowes, Mr Brett-Warburton, Mr Carasco, Mr Chapman, Mrs Clack, Mrs Coleman, Mr Cosser, Mrs Curran, Mr Ellwood, Mr Few, Mr Furey, Mr Gardner, Mr Goodman, Mr Gosling, Dr Grant-Duff, Mr Gulati, Mr Hall, Mr Harmer, Miss Heath, Mr Hodge, Mr Hussain, Mr Ivison, Mr Johnson, Mrs Kemeny, Mr Kemp, Mr Kington, Mrs Lake, Mrs Lay, Mrs Lewis, Mr Mahne, Mrs Marks, Mr Martin, Mrs Moseley, Mrs Mountain, Mr Munro, Mr Norman, Mr Page, Mr Pitt, Mrs Ross-Tomlin, Mrs Saliagopoulos, Mr Samuels, Mr Selleck, Mr Skellett, Mr Taylor, Ms Thomson, Mr Townsend, Mr Walsh, Mr Wilson, Mrs Windsor, Mr Witham, Mr Young and Mrs Young

 

There were two abstentions:

 

Mrs Barton and Mrs Lallement

 

Therefore, the second part of the motion was lost.

 

On the third part of the motion, relating to ‘the London Living Wage’, the following Members voted for it:

 

Mrs Barton, Mr Beardsmore, Mr Cooksey, Mr Essex, Mr Robert Evans, Mr Forster, Mr Jenkins, Mr Johnson, Mr Kington, Mrs Lallement, Mr Mallett, Mrs Mason,

Mr Orrick, Mrs Searle, Mrs Watson, Mrs White

 

The following Members voted against it:

 

Mrs Angell, Mr Barker, Mr Bennison, Ms Bowes, Mr Brett-Warburton, Mr Carasco, Mr Chapman, Mrs Clack, Mr Cosser, Mrs Curran, Mr Ellwood, Mr Few, Mr Furey, Mr Gardner, Mr Goodman, Mr Gosling, Dr Grant-Duff, Mr Gulati, Mr Hall, Mr Harmer, Miss Heath, Mr Hodge, Mr Hussain, Mr Ivison, Mrs Kemeny, Mr Kemp, Mrs Lake, Mrs Lay, Mrs Lewis, Mr Mahne, Mrs Marks, Mr Martin, Mrs Moseley, Mrs Mountain, Mr Munro, Mr Norman, Mr Page, Mr Pitt, Mrs Ross- Tomlin, Mrs Saliagopoulos, Mr Samuels, Mr Selleck, Mr Skellett, MrTaylor, Ms Thomson, Mr Townsend, Mr Walsh, Mr Wilson, Mr Witham, Mr Young and Mrs Young

 

There were four abstentions:

 

Mr Beckett, Mrs Coleman, Mr Hickman and Mrs Windsor

 

Therefore, the third part of the motion was lost.

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council recognises the huge contribution made to the County by its employees.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.45pm and resumed at 2.15pm with all those present who had been in attendance in the morning session except for Mrs Barton, Mr Bennison, Mr Brett-Warburton, Mr Ellwood, Mr Tim Evans, Ms Heath,

Mr Hickman, Mr Kemp, Mrs Moseley, Mr Norman, Mr Young and Mrs Young.

 

ITEM 9(ii)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council decided it wished to hear further before agreeing whether or not to debate this motion.

 

Mr Cooksey made a short statement giving reasons why the motion should not be referred. He considered that it was important for the Council to have the opportunity to discuss this issue and not just the Cabinet. He had proposed the motion because the stated intention was that the County Council was not proposing any changes to its home to school transport policy for 2015. It was his view that the current policy provided little flexibility and that officer decisions were based on the rigid application of this policy.

 

The Leader made a short statement stating that it would be inappropriate to debate this matter because the consultation on the County Council’s Home to School Transport Policy was still on-going. He considered that the outcome of the consultation should be reported firstly, to the Children and Education Select Committee and then to Cabinet.

 

14 Members voted for debating the motion today but 39 Members voted against debating it today. There were three abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That this motion be referred to the Cabinet, for determination. Under Standing Order 12.6, the Cabinet must report back to County Council at the earliest appropriate meeting.

 

ITEM 9(iii)

 

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

 

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

 

‘‘This Council agrees to re-establish a Surrey-wide Youth Council at Surrey County
Council to include representatives of young people from all eleven Boroughs
and Districts in order to:

(a)     give Surrey young people the opportunity to debate and influence the County  Council's policies.
and
(b)     to enable Surrey young people to be represented on the national Youth
Parliament.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Searle.

 

Mrs Kemeny moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. This was formally seconded by Mrs Curran.

 

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

 

‘This Council agrees to re-establish a Surrey-wide Youth Council at Surrey County Council to include representatives of young people from all eleven Boroughs and Districts in order to: supports the establishment of a County-wide youth democracy platform to include representatives of young people from our schools and colleges working alongside existing provision in Surrey’s Boroughs and Districts, in order to:

 

(a)        give Surrey young people the opportunity to debate and influence the County Council's policies.

and

(b)        to enable Surrey young people to be represented on the national Youth Parliament.’

 

Both Mr Beardsmore and Mrs Searle agreed to accept the amendment to this motion and therefore, it became the substantive motion.

 

Seven Members spoke on the substantive motion, with the following points being made:

 

·         The motion was about giving young people the opportunity to contribute to shaping the County Council’s policies.

·         Praise for the excellent youth council in Mole Valley.

·         Increasing the involvement of youth people in democracy was an important issue and thanks to officers for enabling the development of youth democracy in the Epsom and Ewell area.

·         Pleased that the amendment had been accepted by the Liberal Democrats.

·         The substantive motion was not supporting the reinstatement of a youth parliament (dissolved in 2012).

·         This administration had seen an outstanding transformation of youth services during the last two years. In particular, the reduction in NEETS Not in Education, Employment or Training) and young people had contributed to the shaping of Surrey’s employability plan.

·         Surrey’s youth service was ‘Value for Money’ and work on youth democracy had started over the summer. It was expected that elections for representatives on the national Youth Parliament would be held on-line and it was planned that youth councillors would meet on-line as well as face to face.

·         A higher expectation, with full inclusion and involvement in shaping the Council’s policies for youth democracy was needed.

·         Young people were brought up and were conversant with technology and therefore the on-line platform was the right way forward.

·         Confirmation that both those Surrey young people that studied outside the county and also NEETS would be included and represented.

·         The importance of investing in young people because they were the future of local government.

 

After the debate, the substantive motion was put to the vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED (unanimously):

 

This Council supports the establishment of a County-wide youth democracy platform to include representatives of young people from our schools and colleges working alongside existing provision in Surrey’s Boroughs and Districts, in order to:

 

(a)        give Surrey young people the opportunity to debate and influence the County Council's policies.

and

(b)       to enable Surrey young people to be represented on the national Youth Parliament.

 

 

ITEM 9(iv)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Will Forster moved the motion which was:

 

‘Noting the start of the badger cull in Somerset and Gloucestershire and the possibility that DEFRA may roll out the badger cull across the rest of the UK, Council agrees not to allow the badger cull to take place on any of its county owned land, given that the science is not proven nor conclusive that a cull of badgers is the answer to eradicating Bovine TB from the countryside.

 

Council agrees that more research should be undertaken by Government and the scientific community to find more effective and cheaper vaccinations for badgers and cattle to help eradicate this disease from the countryside.’

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs White.

 

Mr Forster said that:

·         The case for badger culling was not proven and he did not want it to be allowed on any County Council owned land.

·         Badgers were not a threat to human health because milk was pasteurised.

·         The cull had not worked in Gloucestershire or Somerset.

·         This motion was similar to one recently agreed by Hampshire County Council, where it had been supported by all political groups.

·         Previously, this Council had agreed to protect the countryside.

 

Mr Furey responded and made the following points:

 

·         That the Government Minister had confirmed that research would continue and an independent report had been commissioned.

·         There was a target to eradicate the Bovine TB within 25 years.

·         The National Trust had not ruled out culling of badgers on their land.

·         A reference to the article in Surrey Nature about badgers.

·         Clarification of the legal aspect relating to culling.

 

Six Members spoke on the motion, with the following points being made:

 

·         Concern re. the logistics of organising a cull as badgers crossed boundaries.

·         If Hampshire County Council had supported a similar motion, then why couldn’t this County Council adopt a similar approach.

·         The vaccine option may be cheaper but it was not an easy solution.

·         The importance of further research - when considering this issue, there was no role for politics or sentiment, the decision must be based on scientific results.

·         Members should be mindful of any decision made by the Government relating to badger cullings and the County Council may not have the authority to override the Government.

·         There had already been a 10 year study on Bovine TB / Badgers, progress was being made and most Members who spoke considered vaccination the preferred option.

·         This issue was of concern to residents and there was currently a petition relating to this topic on the Surrey County Council website.

 

After the debate, the motion was put to the vote with 12 Members voting for it. 40 Members voted against it and there were no abstentions.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.

 

ITEM 9 (v)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Peter Martin moved the motion which was:

 

‘This Council fully supports the successful launch of its recent apprenticeship programme in helping the County's young people get a foot in the world of work but recognises that there is much still to be done.

 

The Council therefore calls on all Members to discuss and encourage the setting up of apprenticeships with their local businesses, Districts, Boroughs, Parishes and relevant partners.’

 

Mr Martin made the following points:

 

·         Surrey’s apprenticeship programme was a scheme that the Council was proud of, with 200 apprenticeships created within 100 days just over 2 years ago.

·         In 2012, the programme was doubled and this year the County Council had invested £750K in the programme and had a target of 500 apprenticeships.

·         This year, there had been four successful youth employment events in Surrey.

·         The number of NEETS had fallen dramatically over the last two years.

·         The County Council was ‘practising what it preached’. For example, the procurement team were having an increased focus on delivering apprenticeships through their supply base, with one of the County Council’s key contractors, Babcock 4S committed to employing 35 apprentices this financial year.

·         Finally, he commended the motion to Council and asked for all Members’ help in engaging with the programme.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Angell who referred to all Members being Corporate Parents. She also said that a number of new initiatives concerning apprenticeships in Children Services would be shared with the Looked After Children teams.

 

 

Mr Essex moved an amendment at the meeting (formally seconded by Mr Robert Evans) which was to add an additional paragraph to the original motion so that it read:

 

‘This Council fully supports the successful launch of its recent apprenticeship programme in helping the County's young people get a foot in the world of work but recognises that there is much still to be done.

 

The Council therefore calls on all Members to discuss and encourage the setting up of apprenticeships with their local businesses, Districts, Boroughs, Parishes and relevant partners.

 

This Council also resolves to ensure that all those carrying out duties in the Council previously undertaken by those in positions held by Surrey County Council employees should be paid at least the Surrey County Council’s minimum wage.’

 

Mr Essex confirmed his support of the apprenticeship scheme and said that the County Council needed a commitment that apprenticeships were in addition to jobs currently available.

 

Three Members spoke and made the following points:

 

·         It was important to ensure that young people are paid appropriately and also properly trained.

·         This motion was not about the minimum wage and the amendment was beyond the remit of the Council.

·         In response it was agreed that the amendment strengthened the motion.

 

The amendment was put to the vote, with 13 Members voting for and 42 Members voting against it. There was one abstention.

 

Therefore, the amendment was lost.

 

Returning to the original motion, the Deputy Leader said that there was widespread agreement for the motion. He also suggested that if Members required administrative support to contact businesses that they contact the Assistant Director for Young People.

 

RESOLVED (unanimously):

 

This Council fully supports the successful launch of its recent apprenticeship programme in helping the County's young people get a foot in the world of work but recognises that there is much still to be done.

 

The Council therefore calls on all Members to discuss and encourage the setting up of apprenticeships with their local businesses, Districts, Boroughs, Parishes and relevant partners.