Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Meeting of Council, Tuesday, 14 October 2014 10.30 am (Item 64/14)
Share this item

ITEM 8(i)

Mr Chris Townsend (Ashtead) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

‘This Council notes that, underlying the extensive funding and overall provision of school places in Surrey, fundamental problems still exist in the planning and delivery of school places.

2014 has again seen failures in forecasting based on birth rates, the planning of school places, the early phase co-ordination of planning, education and highway, and the promotion of sustainable transport and travel options.

As a result:

· parents seeking school places have experienced unnecessary concerns about their children's opportunities to both attend their local schools, but also to arrive at that school safely and

· residents living close to schools have seen their concerns in relation to planning and highways ignored.

This Council therefore calls upon the Cabinet Members for Schools & Learning, Highways, Transport & Flooding Recovery, Environment & Planning and Business Services to work together to produce an Action Plan which tackles the current problems related to forecasting, the early coordination of teams responsible for the expansion of schools, late planning applications, and travel arrangements to schools, to be in place by the end of 2014.

This Council further agrees that the Action Plan be subjected to scrutiny by a joint meeting of Members of the relevant Select Committees.’

ITEM 8(ii)

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

‘This Council welcomes the statement made by the Prime Minister following the No vote in the Scottish Referendum and in particular welcomes the formation of a Cabinet sub-committee to examine English constitutional change and the continuing commitment that “power can and must be devolved more locally.”

This Council commends the One Place, One Budget initiative taken by the County Councils Network and chaired by the Leader of Surrey County Council, which creates an ambitious vision for public services to be more closely controlled by local people. This envisages a new devolution settlement between Whitehall and the Counties to move decisions about how all local services are delivered closer to the people affected by those decisions. This would deliver better public services, reverse decades of centralisation and revitalise UK democracy.

This Council urges the Government to take the opportunity now for a radical English Devolution settlement devolving power to both the Counties and the Cities of England.’

ITEM 8(iii)

Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

‘Council notes:

· The strong and enthusiastic participation shown by the people of Scotland in a remarkable democratic process leading to the Referendum on 18 September;

· The resulting increased discussion on the devolution of powers from central government in Westminster and Whitehall.

Council believes:

· That power should be devolved to the people in all parts of the United Kingdom;

· That England is currently ruled by an over-centralised state that fails to reflect localities and regions;

· That concentrating more power to English MPs in Westminster is not the answer for English devolution and that passing power down to local areas of England is essential.

Council therefore calls for:

Surrey’s MPs, the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet to lobby for urgent major devolution of power, including tax raising and spending, from central government to the regions, counties, boroughs & districts and cities of England.

And that such lobbying should emphasise:

That the devolution of powers and finance to English councils be carried out in ways that enhance and strengthen local democratic bodies. This must include agreement that it shall be for local people and communities to decide their form of democratic leadership without having a specific model imposed (for example directly elected Mayors) in return for more powers;

A recognition that English devolution must include both large cities and county areas, as the many councils not within city regions must also gain greater powers and finance in order to build successful and prosperous futures.’

ITEM 8(iv)

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

‘In the light of the recent referendum in Scotland and the widely held view that constitutional changes are essential in order to restore public confidence in the nation’s democratic structures, this Council agrees to investigate the extent to which the unitary authority model could now better deliver quality services and efficiency savings.

Furthermore, this Council resolves that any future reorganisation of local government must ensure that Surrey retains a significant influence on the regional and national agenda.’

ITEM 8(v)

Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

‘This Council notes that the Local Government 2000 Act recommended that it is good practice for the Chairs of Scrutiny and Select Committees to be occupied by councillors from outside of the ruling party. Such an arrangement would support and enhance the transparency and accountability of decision making of the Council. It would also assert and protect the public interest on the issue of decision making.

Therefore, the Council agrees:

· That the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should not be a member of the ruling group; and

· That the Chairs and Deputy Chairs of all Select Committees, and other committees of Surrey County Council with a scrutiny function will, in future, be allocated and distributed in proportion to the representation of councillors elected by the different groups.’

Minutes:

Item 8(i)

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

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

‘This Council notes that, underlying the extensive funding and overall provision of school places in Surrey, fundamental problems still exist in the planning and delivery of school places.

As a result:

· parents seeking school places have experienced unnecessary concerns about their children's opportunities to both attend their local schools, but also to arrive at that school safely and

· residents living close to schools have seen their concerns in relation to planning and highways ignored.

This Council further agrees that the Action Plan be subjected to scrutiny by a joint meeting of Members of the relevant Select Committees.’

Mr Townsend made the following points:

· That planning for school places should have started earlier.

· It was difficult for parents to find out information re. school places in their local areas.

· School expansions – parents of pupils attending the schools were consulted. However, the consultation process did not necessarily extend to local residents.

· Proper consultation and communication was key to the success of school expansions.

· The importance of addressing traffic issues around schools and ensuring pupil safety.

· A need to look at school place planning for secondary schools now.

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Kington.

Thirteen Members spoke, making the following points:

· The Leader’s statement, which had been about the rising demand for school places in Surrey, and the actions taken by the Council, was welcomed.

· In order that all Surrey children could have a school place, no one in the Chamber was against the expansion of schools, but concern was expressed about the consultation process and communication issues, particularly with local residents – it was considered that the key issue was to ensure that Highways officers worked more closely with local residents.

· Pupil forecasting was not an exact science, due in part to some children crossing borders and coming into Surrey for education. The Plan needed to be constantly updated. Also, the exact figures for primary schools would only be known in January each year for the following September.

· More land was needed to build new schools.

· Frustration and lack of confidence, in relation to the Council’s plans to deliver school places in some Members’ divisions.

· That the Council was doing its best for Surrey residents and that this motion was an attack on officers.

· The Council was proud that a school place had been offered to every Surrey child.

· That the Authority did have a 10 year forecasting plan, which was revised each year – this year the forecast was 98% accurate.

· A request for a joined up service with Education, Highways, Police and Cabinet to deliver school expansions.

· Acknowledgement that some traffic disruption was inevitable but measures should be in place to mitigate disruption, particularly where new schools were being built.

· Teachers parking in residential roads was also an issue in some areas and the Council needs to work together with local residents and schools to address this.

· The importance of early planning was stressed - building work should not commence until planning permission had been granted and a school travel plan was in place.

· Reference to the significantly increased birth rate in Surrey.

· That the County was in the process of building 5 new schools.

· Predicting demand for school places was a complex process but the Authority had recently acquired a new forecasting tool which should help.

· An offer for the Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning to visit local areas where residents were concerned with school expansion.

· The key to the way forward was co-operation, co-ordination and clear communication.

After the debate, the motion was put to the vote, with 22 Members voting for it and 52 Members voting against it. There were no abstentions.

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, Mr Martin moved the motion which was:

This Council urges the Government to take the opportunity now for a radical English Devolution settlement devolving power to both the counties and the cities of England.’

Mr Martin made the following points in support of his motion:

· That following the Scottish Referendum, he welcomed the clear decision of the Scottish people to remain with the United Kingdom and believed that now was the time for a radical English Devolution settlement, which he believed had cross party consensus.

· That it was important that Surrey’s voice was heard by members of the Government’s new sub-committee looking at Constitutional Change.

· The Prime Minister had mentioned devolving some powers to cities but counties should also be included in the process.

· Surrey had a vibrant economy and the County’s Plan for future devolvement of some powers and increased local decision making had already been sent to Government.

· Surrey County Council had a strong track record for partnership working plus the ambition to deliver.

The motion was formally seconded by Ms Le Gal.

Mrs Watson moved an amendment at the meeting, which was formally seconded by Mr Cooksey.

A copy of the amendment was attached as Appendix C.

Speaking to her amendment, Mrs Watson made the following points:

· The amendment improved the original motion and provided the background as to why devolution was necessary because England needed to make more local decisions.

· It also referred to Boroughs and Districts and requested that Surrey MPs and the Council’s Cabinet lobbied for urgent devolution of power.

· That this was a ‘Once in a Lifetime’ opportunity that would benefit Surrey’s businesses and residents.

· Westminster should not continue to micro-manage Surrey County Council’s affairs.

Speaking to the amendment, Members made the following points:

· The points made in the original motion relating to the County Councils’ Network (CCN) were missing.

· It was contradictory and the language used in the amendment was aggressive

· The omission of combining with other counties to petition government.

· Agreement that the amendment was complementary and did make the original motion stronger.

· More powers for Local Government would be beneficial.

· The amendment was urging more radical change.

· More devolution to English cities and counties was the way forward.

· The importance of an in-depth discussion re. devolvement of more powers to local areas.

· There didn’t appear to be any real objections to the amendment.

· Concern that the original motion was not sufficiently radical.

The amendment was put to the vote with16 Members voting for and 46 Members voting against it. There was 1 abstention.

Therefore, the amendment was lost.

Returning to the original motion, 9 Members spoke, making the following points:

· Devolution for English counties and cities was welcomed by all levels of Local Government.

· The increased need to use voluntary organisations as Central Government reduced costs and therefore, the importance of increasing the public’s confidence in Local Government.

· The best way to achieve success for increasing devolved powers to local areas was through the LGA and CCN.

· Suggest focussing on one area, for example – Health and Social Services so that savings could be made by these services working together.

· Support for the motion, as it is going in the right direction.

· No further review of county boundaries - stability was essential.

· Promotion of the opportunity and benefits of increased local decision making, for Surrey residents.

· Confidence that the County Council could meet and address the challenges of more devolved powers.

· The excellent record to date of the County Council efficiency savings and sharing services to provide more effective services

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

Therefore it was:

RESOLVED:

This Council welcomes the statement made by the Prime Minister following the No vote in the Scottish Referendum and in particular welcomes the formation of a Cabinet sub-committee to examine English constitutional change and the continuing commitment that “power can and must be devolved more locally.”

This Council urges the Government to take the opportunity now for a radical English Devolution settlement devolving power to both the counties and the cities of England.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.45pm, part way through the debate on the motion standing in Mr Martin’s name, and resumed at 1.30pm with all those present who had been in attendance in the morning session except for Mrs Angell, Mr Barker, Mrs Bowes, Mrs Bramhall, Mrs Coleman, Mrs Curran, Mr Ellwood, Mrs Frost,

Mrs Hicks, Mr Hussain and Mrs Thomson.

Item 8(iii)

Mrs Watson agreed to withdraw her motion.

Item 8(iv)

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:

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Essex.

Mr Robert Evans made the following points:

· He referred to negotiations between the proposers of the previous two motions and the possibility of merging the motions. However, it was agreed that they should remain as separate motions.

· Residents in his division did not consider that a two tier Surrey was a good idea – they wanted a unitary model.

· That there were about 600 councillors across Surrey, all receiving allowances and he considered that this was a costly and confusing way to provide local democracy.

· It was essential that Surrey County Council was part of any future debate on the nation’s democratic structures.

· Surrey could be a unitary authority because he considered that single local authorities, responsible for all local services had greater democratic accountability and this viewpoint crossed all political boundaries.

Mr Jenkins moved an amendment at the meeting, which was formally seconded by Mr Johnson.

The motion, as amended read:

(Note: additional words underlined and deletions crossed through)

Any unitary authority model proposed in this investigation must include an equitable level of democratic local representation.

Furthermore, this Council resolves that any future reorganisation of local government must ensure that Surrey and its local communities retains a significant influence on the ~~regional and~~ national agenda.’

The amendment to the original motion was accepted by Mr Robert Evans and Mr Essex and therefore became the substantive motion.

11 Members spoke making the following points:

· There should be a focus on cost effective and efficient government and not the proposal for a re-run of the unitary issue - this would incur set up and transition costs.

· Continued co-operation and working with partners was the way forward.

· Stop complaining that this County Council was underfunded and examine other options that may be available.

· Reducing the number of borough and districts may save costs.

· The motion was not asking Members to vote for the unitary authority model but only to investigate it as a possible option.

· That any consideration of a unitary model for Surrey was premature and that residents may want a debate on this issue first.

· The current two tier arrangement worked well, with Borough / Districts dealing with local issues and the County Council dealing with wider, more strategic issues.

· Stability of borough boundaries was essential.

· Spelthorne Borough Council did support the unitary option in the 1990s but times have moved on and it was acknowledged that some decisions needed to be made at County level.

· The current arrangements were not perfect but any unitary alternative would not save money or result in improved funding for Surrey.

· Surrey County Council did a significant piece of work on the unitary option in the 1990s, and this demonstrated that having three / four unitary authorities across Surrey would cost more. There was a 76% vote to keep the two tier option.

· Continue the working in partnership with other local authorities and bodies, as ‘One Team’, to ensure efficient and effective working.

· The Council should be concentrating its efforts to obtain more devolved power from Central Government.

· This motion was only asking the Council to consider how devolved powers were organised locally and it was important to re-consider and investigate the unitary option in 2014.

After the debate, the motion was put to the vote with 7 Members voting for and 51 Members voting against it. There were no abstentions.

Therefore, the motion was lost.

Item 8(v)

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

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

Therefore, the Council agrees:

· That the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should not be a member of the ruling group; and

Mr Essex made the following points:

· That this motion was about democracy and that Chairmen of Scrutiny Committees may be more effective if selected from opposition parties because scrutiny should be representative of the Council’s backbenchers.

· He highlighted the number of Special Responsibility Allowances held by the Administration, as opposed to the opposition parties.

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Robert Evans.

Six Members spoke on the motion, making the following points:

· Reference to the Local Government Act 2000 and the Central Government model, where their select committees did have opposition chairmen.

· That there had been select committee chairmen from the opposition in previous Surrey County Council Administrations.

· That this Administration had considered senior scrutiny roles for opposition Members.

· Using opposition Members for scrutiny roles was good practice and would strengthen the structure of the County Council.

After the debate, the motion was put to the vote with 20 Members voting for it and 34 members voting against it. There were no abstentions.

Therefore, the motion was lost.