Transcript

I will now run through some housekeeping rules. Social media, in line with our guidance on use of social media, I am happy for anyone attending today's meeting, including members of the Council, to use social media, provided this does not disturb the business of the meeting. Mobile phones, please turn mobile phones on silent. Webcast members, please may I remind you that this meeting is being webcast live, although I have the right to suspend filming if the need arises, and it is open to the public. Microphones, members will have to indicate that they wish to speak through the chair, and when called, use your microphone to speak. Please remember to turn this off after you have spoken. Fire drills, there are no fire drills expected, so in the event of this fire alarm sounding, everyone present is asked to leave by the nearest exit and assemble at the top car park. Reporting to a member of the building management team, staff will be on hand to guide you to the nearest exit. Speaking rules, those that can please stand when addressing the Chair and Council. Speeches will be time-limited as usual. We will be using the timer light system. A clock will appear in the corner of the screen when a member has 30 seconds remaining. A clock will change to Ember when a member is up to the clock will finish read. Voting, for the majority of time, will be raising your hands or by verbal assent. We will be using electronic voting for original motions. I will confirm how voting will be done for each item as we go through the agenda. Item one, apologies for absence. I ask Assistant Director Vicky Herbert to report apologies for absence. Thank you, Chair. Apologies for absence have been received from Amanda Boot, Chris Farr, Will Forster, Trevor Hogg, Carla Mawson, Rebecca Poole, Mark Subden, Ashley Tilling, Julia McShane and David Lewis-Camberley West. We do have several members attending remotely today. They will have speaking rights but no voting rights. Thank you. Are there any other apologies? Item two is the minutes, pages 13 and 15 of the agenda. May I sign the minutes of the Council meeting held on 8 October 2024 as track record of the meeting. Declarations of interest. Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest, significant personal interest? We just look at interest in that. Members wish to make this point. Item four is the Chair's announcement. We just witnessed this morning the re-signing of the Army Covenant, which is an excellent thing to do. All my announcements are in the agenda front seat. So I'll leave that to that. Item five, Leader's Statement. I called Tim Oliver Hobie, the Leader of the Council, to make a statement. May I remind you that members can make comments as well as ask questions on the Leader's Statement and the Leader may respond at the end. Mr. Chairman, members, welcome to the final Council meeting of 2024. A tumultuous year for the country, and indeed in many ways for this Council, with big changes, substantial challenges, but also huge progress. Public service is never easy, nor will it be. We set ourselves the highest of standards because we truly care about the outcomes we're here to deliver for residents. Caring for our most vulnerable, supporting those who need us most, helping people in their everyday lives, making Surrey a better place. Both members and officers strive every single day to deliver that, in challenging circumstances. And as we enter the festive period and the year draws to a close, I'd like to recognise that hard work and dedication. Mr. Chairman, at November's Cabinet meeting, the draft Council budget for next year was approved. We, of course, need to await the final details of the local government finance settlement, expected on the 19th of December. But we are on track to set a balanced budget, as we have done each and every year of this Administration. But that task gets more and more difficult, as demand on services keeps rising and costs increase faster than our income. Over the past few years, we have demonstrated strong and stable financial management, guiding the organisation through the most challenging times for local government. But even the strongest authorities, like ours, are not immune to the national and global financial challenges. All of our key services – social care, children's services, highways maintenance – are facing huge increases in demand. On top of that rise in demand, the cost of actually delivering those services – wages, materials and other overheads – is increasing at a much faster rate than our income from government funding or Council tax rises. As with most budget setting processes at this stage of the financial year, we have a gap to close in order to set a balanced budget. There are various ways in which we have identified we can do this, and all those options are being closely considered pending confirmation of the final finance settlement by government next week. But we will set a balanced budget, as we have done in every year of this Administration. But the financial headwinds for all councils in Surrey get stronger as the government sets out its agenda for the next few years. It is going to be even more essential that we remove costs from service delivery as they press on with the review of the funding of local councils. The primary criteria they intend to use for determination of appropriate funding will draw heavily on the deprivation index, as well as the ability to raise money locally through council tax. The Labour Party's equivalent of leveling up. Whilst I accept that both of those metrics are relevant, they ignore the differential demands faced in ageing rural populations, and the higher costs of delivering services, particularly here in the South East. We will lobby this government as we did previous governments to accept that you cannot ignore the demographics and genuine needs of our local population, and forcing us to increase year-on-year council tax paid by Surrey residents for redistribution to other parts of the country is simply unfair and inequitable. Whilst some positive noises have come from ministers in their first budget in October, by acknowledging the fundamental issues in children's care, adult social care and SCND, it is concerning that the rhetoric seems not to be followed by investment, and I suspect that their focus may be elsewhere. Failing to properly address those creaking systems with money as well as structural reform would continue to fail the most vulnerable people in society. We stand ready to help the government, and I hope that they are as serious as we are about tackling those challenges head-on. Neither central nor local government can do that alone. But we will do what we can, and continue to look forwards, challenging ourselves to be the best we can be, responsible with public money, and delivering really effective services that people in Surrey can rely on. To do that sustainably, in these challenging financial times, we must be strict with ourselves. Is every penny we spend being invested well? Is every decision we make truly delivering better outcomes for our residents? Yes, some difficult decisions will have to be made, and we will stop doing things that perhaps don't meet that criteria. However, our main focus will be driving improvements and transforming the way we do things, so our service, our organisation, is fit for the future. Embracing new opportunities, new technology, using data better. Working across partners to deliver better, more rounded support. Better collaboration internally too, ensuring we are all focused on delivering our core missions and shared priorities. Continuing to strive towards our ambition that no one in Surrey is left behind. One council, one vision. Thanks to strong financial management and a determined approach, we are in good shape to deliver the transformation this council and the wider local government sector needs. We will make bold decisions to transform how we operate, so our services can continue to improve and remain sustainable into the future. That journey of improvement has been paramount for this council under this administration. We have never lost focus on that, and indeed we never will. At the end of November, I was delighted that we could announce that our Adult Social Care Service had been given a good rating by the Care Quality Commission. The inspectors highlighted a number of strengths, including the passion and dedication of our staff and our work to keep people independent in their own homes. I would like to thank all our staff in Adult Social Care publicly for their hard work making a positive difference to the lives of thousands of people in Surrey. I would also like to thank our partners and providers, as well as unpaid carers in Surrey, who are all pivotal in our aim of supporting people to live independent and fulfilling lives. Mr. Chairman, we won't stop here. We want to keep improving and raising the bar for our residents. We face significant demand across the county with more than 24,000 people receiving some form of Adult Social Care. As we all know, we have significant pockets of deprivation in Surrey, and the ZQC have highlighted that we are doing some really innovative and creative work to meet the differing needs of our population and help people keep their independence. We know that there are areas where we need to learn and develop, and we are committed to doing that, and we are already actively working to address all feedback from the CQC through our comprehensive improvement plans. Our new Executive Director of Adult Social Services recently started with us, as you know, so with her focus and commitment, we are well placed to build on this assessment. Another area where we have made real progress is in our mission to deliver a sustainable economy here in Surrey. We are focused on providing support in areas where it can have the biggest impact, whether that's high-growth businesses, investing in our key sectors, supporting our disadvantaged residents, or providing opportunities to students. In April, the Government transferred responsibilities for business support to the County Council from the local enterprise partnerships. For the first time, we have a universal comprehensive service covering the whole of Surrey. And since launching that very month, we have provided free expert advice on the levers of growth to more than a thousand businesses of varying sizes via the Business Surrey Gateway. Work to expand this continues, working with government and the business sector to help drive better use of innovation and technology, delivering new opportunities with partners like our leading further education sector, including the newly launched Future Studios at Royal Holloway, which provides a cutting-edge space to nurture Surrey's growing creative industries. The festival of skills, which took place in October, and provided more than 2,000 students with the chance to connect with dozens of employers, universities, colleges, and training providers. Surrey's Connect to Work program, working with business to develop an employment support program that enables disadvantaged groups to have an active role in the local labor market. This is what can happen when we are given the right tools and powers to really make a difference in our county. Mr. Chairman, it won't have passed by members that the Government is due to publish a white paper next week outlining its ambitions around devolution and the potential reorganization of local government. It is clear that those ambitions could be advantageous for Surrey, and we will, of course, engage with ministers and civil servants about any plans that could help deliver benefits for the people of Surrey. I believe there is general consensus in government across our council partners and residents that the current structure of local government here and elsewhere in the country is not the most effective. Different tiers of local government, different scales and responsibilities can be confusing for residents and result in too much bureaucracy, inefficiency, and barriers to progress. I have long advocated for a real examination and review of how local government is structured to make it more efficient and more effective for residents. It is not an easy thing to deliver, and there is not always an obvious or simple solution. That is why previous governments have perhaps not addressed it boldly or seriously. But it does appear that this government is serious about reorganization and genuine devolution from the centre. Whilst, of course, we need to wait to see the detail, I am sure that all members will want to engage constructively with government on this, and also with our district and borough and parish council colleagues, with a central focus to deliver better outcomes for Surrey and its residents. I think everybody here and everybody involved in local government across the UK would be an advocate for further devolution, from Westminster and Whitehall to local regions and communities. We are told that the proposals in the White Paper will be bold, with a particular emphasis on the creation of mayoral combined authorities, alongside greater devolution of powers from Westminster. But as local government is just one part of an ecosystem, we also need to see at the same time reform of public service, including, in my view, amongst other things, more democratic accountability of the health system. Members, we should relish this opportunity to deliver something meaningful for the future of Surrey together. Councils, communities and residents themselves know what they need and want. We know together how best to deliver it. We have together the skills and motivation to deliver it. With true devolution, we can have together the power to deliver it. Mr. Chairman, on a slightly lighter note, as this year draws to a close, we can look back with pride on many of the things we have achieved, but also look back with lessons to learn from and improve. But our main focus must be looking to the future, with the potential for bold strides forward for Surrey. We want to be, and indeed must seek to be, in control of our own destiny. We can deliver that brighter future, but we must roll up our sleeves and work for it, and grasp the opportunities in front of us. I'm confident that the next year will be a good one for Surrey. I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a peaceful New Year. Thank you. Thank you, Leader. I call Catherine Power. My group and I wish all of you, and all our staff, residents and businesses, a Happy Christmas and all the best for 2025. It will bring change. It is just a matter of what and when. Can the leader share any insight into what change will be coming to Surrey, in terms of local government or organisation or devolution? Has the leader had any meetings with the Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government with either his CCN hat on or as leader of this council? And can he confirm that the Surrey elections will proceed in May as planned? The struggle to balance the council's books is on again. I feel strongly we continue to leave some of the most vulnerable behind. And the draft budget again states these groups will be most affected. In tough times, we must focus on working efficiently and effectively with partners, being sure we are funding needs not nice to haves, and supporting early intervention prevention to prevent further escalation of statutory demand. I remain unconvinced the draft budget does this. Last week's select committee flagged big differences in the mindsets and attitudes of officers in adults and health versus children. They faced very similar challenges. The impacts of historic failings to invest in early intervention and prevention, rising statutory demand and higher costs. Together, they account for 834 million of our 1.242 billion revenue budget. The Executive Director of Adults, Wellbeing and Health Partnership talked about working in partnership, embracing technology, enabling and empowering people to live their best lives. The tone and content of the children's meeting was very different, all about Surrey's statutory responsibilities. Ten days ago, I met a group of local secondary school pupils, parents. All suffering from anxiety linked with autism. Children in various stages of dropping out of their mainstream settings and the EHC process. These children and their families were not living their best lives. Parents talked about simply struggling to keep their children alive. I am now working on several practical local support ideas and none of them are signposting. The increased focus on early intervention and prevention is something my group and I have long called for and is welcomed. The concern is so much of it is signposting. Is signposting really early intervention? Particularly when there is no additional funding going into the charities or voluntary sector organisations we are signposting to. In February I proposed positive intervention particularly in the areas of deprivation in reception classes but this was rejected. The scheme around the school is helping. And I asked, when I asked, when I asked a recent members briefing if reception teachers would say if that intervention had been successful, the officers' response was, I think we probably know that reception teachers are likely to say it is more difficult. They are now dealing with Covid babies. There were issues about speech and language delays, other developmental delays, behavioural challenges, increased ADHD and autistic conditions. I am therefore looking again at the budget to find some ways to fund more early support for reception classes, particularly in deprived areas. Those who use the DDRT service like it and value it but my group and the select committee have questioned the financial sustainability of its expansion and if this should be a priority. Particularly at a time when the administration has had to remove non-statutory transport such as home to school transport for under 5s and over 16s except in exceptional circumstances. I believe there is a better model, I touched on it at the last council meeting and I will be following up on an alternative strategy over the next month. My group and I still believe that getting rid of the local committees was a mistake. It removed a key working interface at a time when we needed it most. We need to properly integrate services with our districts and boroughs and this must be addressed. I also feel strongly we must move to a mindset of continuous improvement, not transformation. If something goes wrong and doesn't deliver as expected, we must review processes and make changes in weeks. The end-to-end EHCP process review and fixing Unit 4 is heading towards two years. Still so many issues and parents are still not reporting any improvement in communication and worse we have nearly 2,000 children and young people not in school. We must also reset how we work with the voluntary charity and faith sector. We are desperately trying to fill the gaps created in services that councils and the NHS have pulled back from as non-statutory. They need buildings and control over those buildings. The strategy of Surrey taking back control of Surrey owned buildings being used successfully for youth services is just not right and will lead to some being lost altogether. And finally, your fund, Surrey has funded some amazing projects and I firmly believe that whilst worthwhile in these financially challenging times, we must focus capital spend on must-haves, not nice-to-haves. Particularly supporting those groups most impacted by the draft budget. Thank you, Chair. I now call for fellows. Good morning, Mr Chairman, officers, members of the Council. As the Armed Forces Champion for the Borough of Waverley and as the son of a retired soldier myself, may I start by welcoming the re-signing of the Armed Forces Covenant this morning. I have seen first-hand the need for support for serving Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their family. And in my day job in the defence sector, I see highlighted almost every day where employment support for those leaving the Armed Forces and entering civilian employment is vital and must continue. Now onto county matters. I do seem to go through this cycle in thinking about what I intend to say at this point when the opposition can speak. And right after the last session of Council, I often wonder what on earth they will say. But in the meantime, between each session, as ever, Surrey provides. Today I want to reflect on some of the democratic processes here at Surrey. Even university degrees in political science doesn't prepare you for local government. And as it turns out, other parts of local government don't prepare you for Surrey. Though we call them select committees, one should not confuse them with the parliamentary system. These are local government scrutiny committees. And it still baffles me that such committees are chaired by the administration itself. And since the last full council, I have for the first time had an opportunity to take part in a full call-in process. It was a good discussion of the issues at hand. And the committee voted to refer the decision and the questions regarding lack of evidence in decision-making back to cabinet. Decision-making should be evidence-based. And the committee essentially concluded that a highway scheme had been thrown out based on non-technical comments relating to a tiny fraction of the overall scheme. Those non-technical comments are, of course, things we need to take under advisement and we need to take them seriously. And the select committee understood this. And they asked that the technical merits and the comments be evaluated to the same level as the rest of the scheme. There was a broad cross-party consensus that this was a valid point. And the select committee duly referred it back to cabinet on those grounds. And my thanks and enduring respect to those members who voted a cross-party to do so. It was then a shame to observe what happened to cabinet afterwards. And I will take the more liberal of the timekeeping that was displayed in the press, and I'll take sorry lies, at 90 seconds. I would honestly label that content of the process. You will know I didn't mention the topic because it's actually almost irrelevant at this point. This is actually about good decision-making and evidence-based decision-making, regardless of what that subject actually is. You will understand then, perhaps members, why I'm opposed later in this meeting to even the possibility of referring the motion on send to cabinet. This is a matter that should be heard at this session of full council for all members to debate. These are subjects of import for the whole county and its residents, and they should be debated here, amongst all of us, and not in small groups, such as the cabinet. Several weeks ago, the gang of 11 district and borough leaders in Surrey, plus the council, met in Runnymede for one of our regular sessions. And you can perhaps imagine that with 11 districts and borough leaders and their chief executives, that's lots of different views and perspectives that rarely agree on almost anything. And to be honest, that's just the politicians, the chief executives of their own group entirely when it comes to agreeing with things. But on the matter of the lack of consultation from the county on cuts and changes to the family support program, we were all agreed that we had not been consulted. But no, via the county council equivalent of, what, the Jedi mind trick or something of that nature, it was indeed all of us who were wrong, all 11 districts and borough leaders and their chief executives. All of us were incorrect. We, of course, had been consulted fully. We just, none of us could remember it or evidence it. And in this growing democratic deficit here at Surrey, a deficit that escalated, and I agree with Councillor Powell, with the throwing out of the local committees without a replacement, that we add into the mix the question of local government reorganisation and the white paper due in the lead. In my opinion, the worst outcome for this county and its people would be a single Surrey unitary governed here from Reigate. Yeah! We need to work together to look at other options and go back to government with these. We need to resist further powers without financial support to deliver them. Any changes need to be alongside local government's finance reform. And you're correct, Councillor Oliver, it is not an easy thing to do. And the last government essentially ignored the growing crisis for the last 14 years. I am glad the new government are taking this seriously, although at the moment I'm not seeing signs that they have grasped the issue of local government funding, particularly in the rising cost of services. I know the other district and borough leaders would also want me to urge you to continue to work with us in this endeavour. We have some significant challenges ahead and I hope we can address these in an open, transparent and fair way. Challenging the government where we need to, working with them to address those clear challenges where we can. We need to ensure that decisions are made as locally as possible, based in evidence. No one left behind as a statement that needs to be real. At the moment it is simply not. In the climate that local government has to operate, this is frankly not surprising. But that is a reality that needs to be faced and not ignored and we are now needing to help those people more than we ever did. Those services are now not really hitting the people they were intended for. Indeed we see many examples now where services have been effectively reduced to a formula or part of a spreadsheet to make it very clear that a statutory service actually exists on paper. But the cost is when those services aren't getting to those people at all. It is how county councils and other bodies justify continue statutory services when in fact they are barely providing them at all. Now, I am very concerned about the draft budget as well and I echo Councillor Powell's comments on that. And I think the trajectory set by that budget is one where even more people will be left behind and even further behind in the process. Now I will end there members, thank you to all of you here officers and members on behalf of my group. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And I will see you all four I am sure will be incredibly interesting in 2025. Thank you members. Thank you. I will now call Robert Evans OB. Thank you very much. I would like to thank Santa for the leader for his seasonal speech. As ever, full of good cheer and lots of treats especially if you dig deep enough. He spoke about challenging times. I haven't been on this council as long as some members here. I think it is nearly 12 years. But it seems always to be challenging times. I look forward to the occasion when local government is not facing such challenging times. I would like to also associate myself and the whole of the Labour group here with the thanks to the staff, the officers, the cabinet and all colleagues here in this room and those who are watching online. The leader spoke about increases from the Chancellor's recent budget. Councillor Follows wasn't sure of the figures but the budget figures are an extra £127 billion for local government. I wonder if the leader has any insight as to how much of that might be coming Surrey's way. That's the figure in the front of you. I will come back to you on that one leader. But in the government's statement on local government finding, in words that I think could have been lifted from one of Councillor Oliver's speeches, it says the government, we are therefore committed to fixing the basics to enable local government to focus on its priorities, delivering for residents and providing high quality, vital frontline services that people rely on every day. So I think we should welcome that and move forward. The leader spoke a bit about devolution and reorganisation and I think members here will know my view and the Labour Party locally in Surrey's view that having 11 boroughs and districts in Surrey County Council, 12 chief executives, dozens of chief executives and if you include parish and town councillors. Over 1,000 councillors is not necessarily the best way to deliver services and so a review I think would be welcome to look at it. Has the leader in his discussions with anybody had any insight as to if there has to be an elected mayor? And I've got reservations about an elected mayor for Surrey but whether it would be for the whole of Surrey or Surrey and Sussex together. And what would he favour? Would he favour still the line of one Surrey unitary authority or dividing Surrey into two or more unitary authorities? Finally, can I say last week I know a number of members here and I attended the Stars in Surrey occasion at Guildford. And I think that was a very, very worthy evening to pay tribute to the hard work and enthusiasm of people, not people in this room but people who make all the services in Surrey work as they do. The unsung heroes of this county and I add my thanks to them and seasonal wishes to everyone. Thank you very much. Round of applause. And now Paul on Jameson Essex. Thank you, I won't try and follow that but I will share the messages of goodwill and leader your desire for greater devolution and democratic accountability in health. However, next week the government may publish its devolution or should I say local government centralisation bill which has been rumoured to want to impose mayoral authorities in overly sized local council areas including here in Surrey. It would appear that a lot of the motivation for this so-called devolution includes the desire to strip or water down council's planning powers. Blaming councils for being blockers when the land banking viability test and lack of funding for affordable homes that has held back development specifically social housing was the last government's making. And has been proposed to be further entrenched by this government. There have been rumours in the press that Surrey might become one unitary or indeed one combined authority. Can you confirm whether any discussions have been in place, that would be devolution I guess, of the tool between council and government prior to the expected release of the bill. And can the leader please confirm his support for and with the boroughs and districts run by all the different parties here in one way or another to keep democracy as local as possible and specifically confirm that if unitary are forced on Surrey what is the maximum size of unitary authority that this council's leadership would support. Okay draft budget. New bus routes please. We've got extra money please can we have some new bus routes. SEM and children's pressures. This year Surrey County Council is ending its supporting families programme contracts with our districts and boroughs. And has started a new intensive family support programme. Also providing targeted support to individual families. Can you confirm whether that new programme is bigger or smaller than the previous programme. Will be supporting more or less families. And climate change. You failed to mention this in your budget discussions. I understand you plan to reduce funding in this area. Instead of losing staff and waiting for government to progress this agenda. Can we not continue to lead the way and direct those resources usefully into other areas of carbon reduction. And finally I would like to offer praise for Surrey. For Surrey's team for getting on with the repair work for the library in Redhill. Dealing with the RAC. And ask whether there have been any discussions with the borough council to collaborate on this matter. If there's any assistance the county council could offer Rygate and Banstead. Now the county survey work is complete. The design work is complete. A contract for repair work and for works is in place. Perhaps the council could offer a subcontract to us for the repair works. Collaboration perhaps now regardless of whatever plans there might be for unit trees later. Thank you and I wish you all a happy Christmas. Why now open this for debate to all members. You have three minutes. Lord Potter. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just that. I have to say, I do often feel as though I'm suffering from deja vu when I come to these meetings. Because after the best part of four years, the speech at least on view is always the same. It's sort of a, we're in good financial health, things are getting better, no one left behind, there are challenges but we're doing a great job. It's the usual speech from Councillor Oliver and I don't doubt the sincerity of his words but it's getting a bit divorced from reality, don't you think? I mean every year we end up with the budget saying we're going to achieve all of these efficiencies in year and we're going to get the books balanced and make things sustainable. And then around this time of year we see the budget papers which say, oh actually these efficiencies, these savings haven't managed to materialise so we're going to have even bigger savings to make next year. We have the same rhetoric about how we're determined to improve services and how the services are getting better. Meanwhile, parents of young people with disabilities and special education needs are still saying that they're being treated with outright contempt when they raise concerns, when they say that our school hasn't been contacted to discuss the educational plan for our child. We are still having obscenely successful appeal rates against decisions by this council when it comes to special educational needs. We are still seeing dishonesty in what parents are told. We are seeing parents being gaslit and told one thing when they have clear evidence of the other. We are seeing young people continuing to be failed. Now I don't lay the blame for that solely at Councillor Oliver's feet or solely at the feet of the cabinet. This is indeed a national crisis. But it is absolutely a fact that Surrey, as in so many areas, seems to always manage to find its own unique way to make problems worse above and beyond the scale of the situation nationally. And it would be one thing if we had some honesty turning up and saying, you know what? Our budget is struggling. We are really struggling to find efficiencies. It would be one thing to turn around and say, we know that things are still not good enough and we're not making the progress we wanted to make so we're going to redouble our efforts. But we don't get that. We get the same predictable la-la-land rhetoric, which is that everything is going to be fine. Yes, it's difficult, but we're getting better and better every single day. And it's completely divorced from reality. So, my Christmas request to the leader is this. Whatever he's drinking, please can we all have some? Thank you. I have no more speakers. Leader? I do think members need to moderate their language in this chamber. I have to say, accusing people of dishonesty is completely unacceptable. So, I'll just deal with some of the issues that members have raised. I, like all the rest of you in this room, I'm sure, are speculating on what the devolution, English devolution white paper will say next week. I do not know any more than you do, other than what I have heard the minister say last week at a meeting of the LGA board. And the one meeting that I had with the minister in my capacity as the chair of the county council's network. The district council's network have had two meetings with the minister. And, indeed, he attended their parliamentary reception a couple of weeks ago where he made further utterances around what is in the white paper. We need to wait to see. But it is clear that this government, not just in relation to devolution, but as in relation to planning, that they are going to move forward aggressively, I think it's appropriate to say. With reform. And I think we are all being warned that we either embrace that change or there will be disincentives if we don't. So, I understand that from what the minister said last week, there will be an oral statement in the House on Monday and the white paper will be published. At that point, of course, the district, the 11 districts and borough leaders have met twice in secret over last week. I wasn't invited to those meetings. So, you talk about collaboration and cooperation. It would be helpful, perhaps, if I were to join you in those meetings, but that is a matter for you. In terms of the budget, it is work in progress, inevitably. At the end of the day, this council has a finite amount of income. It has to discharge its statutory duties first and foremost. That will always be the case. And as we know, some of these other areas, I'm afraid, are discretionary. And we will do the best that we can. I would invite any member of this council to attend the three sessions where you have an opportunity to talk through the budget. The one in November, I think, to respect to Catherine Powell, I think she was online. But I don't remember seeing the leader of the Liberal Group in that meeting. He certainly didn't ask to speak. We will have a second hit at that in January. And then, of course, we will have the full budget meeting in February there. And, of course, you have the opportunity through the select committees to participate. But I do warn you that the funding review that is going to be launched next week by this government will have a significant impact on counties like so. And you've seen the rural grants being removed. And you've seen other areas where rural counties will be significant losers. And we really, really, collectively have to make our case to the government that deprivation is not the only criteria. And that actually need and cost of delivery is just as important when looking at redistributing money across the system. Because there won't be new money coming in. To Robert Evans' point of that, my recollection was that the government put in 1.3 billion, not 127 billion, into local government, to which 600 million was ring-fenced to be distributed via the adult social care formula. That broadly is worth about 9 million pounds to us. Although there is some uncertainty whether the guaranteed funding of 9 million that we were expected will be honoured as well. And also I think, although I think we're probably okay, this council over the last few years has had a negative revenue support grant in the region of 17 million, which the previous governments have waived. And I very much hope this government will as well. So it isn't at all clear what the final settlement will be. Of the 700 million balance of the 1.3 billion has been ring-fenced and redistributed to councils that have high rates of deprivation, apparently have high rates of levels of deprivation, and we won't see any of that. So 9 million is the most that we can expect from the new funding. On SCND, it is a national issue. The system is broken. The last government, I think, and this government certainly have acknowledged that there needs to be change. There needs to be reform. It doesn't work for families. It doesn't work for children. It doesn't work for schools, and it doesn't work for councils. This council has done a lot in terms of improving the service, and that was independently verified on the last inspection. It isn't ideal. I know it isn't. And every day the team work harder and harder to deliver the best service they possibly can to families. There's always going to be disputes with families, disagreement with families, over what they believe is in the best interest of their child and what perhaps the professionals believe. So the government have already made it very clear that actually their focus is on creating more places in mainstream schools. That is something that many parents have objected to. But that is what they want to do. They want to reduce the dependency on specialist schools that have those set aside for those children that absolutely need it. They are also going to finally address the independent sector and the level of cost that they impose on us. So those are good news, good news, but actually it will take a while for that to work its way through the system. Just on George Potter's point about the national, on the level of appeals, successful appeals, 93.6% of those that went to tribunal in this county were successful. 93% of the rest of the country, 93% of every other council across the country had the same outcome. So we are no different from anybody else which shows that the system is broken. And part of actually addressing reform in FCND has to be looking at the way that tribunals operate. So we are no different, I'm afraid, from anyone else. Not good, but we are no different from anybody else. Just back on Catherine's point about DDRT and picking up Jonathan Essis' point about more bus routes. I am a big supporter of DDRT. I do believe that it is an integral part of a broader public transport system across this county. It helps address social isolation and I do think that it will be self-funding. That is where we need to get to. We have had government grants that have helped us roll that out. And I do think that is something that we should be doing. It is very difficult to get around this county. And indeed, as Robert Evans continually reminds me, that it takes him two hours to get from his home through my junction, Junction 10. And we do need to get more vehicles off the road and have more shared transport. And just on Catherine's final point around your fund, Surrey, this is public money that we are spending. And it is absolutely right that we put money back into our communities. It is about empowering our communities. It is about giving them what facilities that they want wherever possible. And I do believe that that money has been very wisely spent. I am not going to comment in detail on the call-in that George Potter orchestrated. There have been two years of debate around that particular scheme. There have been many, many consultations. There have been public meetings. And there have been independent reports. The Cabinet have spent many hours looking at the evidence. And it is quite wrong and inappropriate for the Select Committee, I believe. And I would say that to some of my members, to suggest that we haven't considered the evidence. And it was for that reason that there was no further debate about the point. And we upheld the decision. I think Paul Followers then talked about financial support from local governments. Indeed, I do, I think actually fiscal devolution should also be part of the wider devolution point as well. I think the other points I probably have picked up or we will pick up. At the end of the day, you know, of course, how we spend the public's money is, you know, we do need to, you know, yes, of course, you know, this is, I do stand up regularly and I do tell you where we are doing things well. But equally, I've been very open in areas where we have not been doing well. So it is unfair, I think, to suggest that I just spread good news the whole time. It is actually about being realistic. This is, it is challenging. It is challenging for local government, you know. And we are not one of those councils, fortunately, that is in a Section 114 where we would have even less control over these men. So if people do have views, then please pass those back through the select committee. We will take those on board, you know, and we will get to a point, I hope, in February where we, across this council, though most of the opposition groups either abstain or vote against the budget, whatever we do. But I would encourage you all, please, to attend the next Cabinet meeting and make a refuse loan there. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Leader. Can I just remind members to be a bit appropriate with the language. This is a public meeting and we do need to be certain of that. Item six is approval of county council absence. The report on pages 51 to 52. The recommendation is on page 51 of your agenda and is that Councillor Mark Sugden continues to be absent from meetings until March 2025 for reasons of ill health. The council looks forward to welcoming him back in due course. Are we agreed? Please raise your hands. We agreed. Item seven is the Surrey County Council electoral review. Final report, pages 53 to 56 of the agenda. The report can be found on those pages. The item is open for debate. Any debate? No. The recommendations are on pages 55 of your agenda. And the council is asked to note the final recommendation of the electoral review process. We recognise the efforts of the cross-party task group in shaping Surrey County Council's response. Note that the new county division boundaries will come into effect in May 2023. Are we agreed? Sorry, 2025, sorry. Are we agreed? Please raise your hands. Agreed. Item eight is the appointment of independent persons, pages 57 and 64 of the agenda. The item is open for debate. Any debate? No. No. The recommendations are on page 58 of your agenda and are that the county council notes its thanks to the two retiring independent persons following the end of their term of office. That county council appoints Belinda Knight and Dean Shears as independent members for a four-year term. Are we agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Item nine is members' question time. Notice has been received of 26 questions. I have noticed that the questions that are being put to council are becoming lengthy and multiple sub-questions. I would like to take this opportunity to remind members to be succinct in order to assist with the smooth management of the committee. And also, if a question has been asked by someone else, please try and avoid reiterating. There will be five minutes per question for supplementary questions. Please be brief. Questions must be framed as questions, not sub-statements, and must be relevant to the original questions. Question time will be limited to 45 minutes, at which point I will finish the question as we are on the closed item. Any question not covered during the 45 minutes, a written answer has been tabled, and members can, of course, follow up with a relevant cabinet member outside the meeting. There will be an additional 15 minutes for members to ask questions for cabinet members and deputy cabinet members, based on the cabinet member, deputy member briefings, from pages 37 of the Second Supplementary Agenda. These will be taken on first-come, first-served basis, and there will be no supplementaries. Moving on to the questions. First question is from Mark Sugden, which is answered by Mac Furness. Mark? Yes, thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to the cabinet member for the reply. I do have a supplementary question. For many months, I've been trying to get to the bottom of, will there or will there not be a second weed spraying? This is the closest that we've got, and maybe there will be one. Can I just ask the cabinet member, based on the reply, are funds being set aside in the draft budget to enable a second weed spraying to take place, should it be necessary? Thank you. Any other supplementary? Matt? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Sugden, for your supplementary question. I can confirm that there is sufficient budget available for a second weed spray, if it is required, based on the growth next year. Thank you very much indeed. The second question is from Vice Chair to, again, Matt Furness. Do you have a supplementary? Yes, thank you, Chairman. Can I thank the cabinet member, and also the public transport team, who spend a lot of time being very kind, and explaining the different difficulties of dealing with TFL, non-TFL, and other issues around Leatherhead and Fetchum and surrounding bits of the patch, and also their DTR team, who are very, very helpful and have actually fixed several issues with it, which is great. The question I was going to ask is, this is great, but thinking about what Jonathan Essex said earlier, how do members engage with the future bus delivery grant and the money coming through the system? The cabinet member would like to work out how we should engage with him on that. Any other supplementary? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Hall, for your supplementary question. We have been very lucky to receive, because we were not expecting to receive the amount of money that the government has allocated across the country for bus improvement. Any improvements that members are wishing to see, if you can let myself know, or the passenger transport team, we will seek to incorporate it in our bus improvement plan, and provide that. I am pleased to say that we are just launching our next generation of electric vehicle buses with Falcon. These, you have heard an email from me today, outlined. The government is also pressing us to see if we can accelerate further EV and hydrogen buses, and are looking to seek to fund that at a greater rate. So, it is fantastic. Our 50 million that we have put in, the government has recognised that we are leading on decarbonising our bus network, and are looking to seek to put their funding in as well. What I will say is, I am pleased that the bus cap is continuing. It is disappointing that it is at £3, because that will add, potentially, an additional £500 plus to a regular commuter's journey a year. I am pleased, however, that the cap is staying. It is important if you look at my response. Over 75 bus trips in Surrey were made with the fare cap in place. It shows that people understand it, and it is encouraging bus use here. But if members have any areas in which they would like to see improvements in buses, please do get in touch with myself or the passenger transport team. Thank you. The third question is from Robert Evans, too much fairness. Robert Evans, do you have a supplementary? Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to thank the Cabinet Member for his response. But I wonder whether, in all seriousness, he would look again at the wording on the form, because I think it verges on being insensitive to people who are disabled and who have a bay outside their home. When the lines are faded, they are almost asked, are you still disabled? They find this fairly insulting and demeaning. And could it not be revised so that there has a line to say, is there any change in your circumstances? But to go through the form, ten years after you've applied, or however it could be, with a disability, almost saying, has the disability got better in those years? Well, of course, in most cases it won't have done. So they do find it a little bit demeaning. And I wonder whether the Cabinet Member would look again at the wording. Thank you. Any other supplementary? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Evans. Yes, we'll look at the wording again. Question four is from Catherine Pollard to Claire Curran. Do you have a supplementary? Yes, thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank the Cabinet Member for her response. If the MDT panel database is operated by Surrey County Council, but does not record who was present at the panel or the information that was shared at the panel, is this information stored elsewhere? As surely, in order to be open and transparent and ensure we are making high-quality decisions, we must know which experts were involved and what information they used to make their decisions. As the Cabinet Member will recall, there has been at least one case in my Division where not all the available information, including the information provided by the School, was presented to the panel. Thank you. Any other supplementary? Member? Thank you, Chairman. I'm sorry, I do not, as Cabinet Member, have the full details of the operational arrangements that are made around these panels, but I will seek that information from officers and I'll respond to the counter in writing. Question five from Hazel Watson to Natalie Brenwood. Would you have a supplementary? Yes, thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to thank the Cabinet Member for her response to my question. My supplementary question is, I would like to know how long individual properties have been held vacant. Thank you. Jonathan Essex? Thank you. May I just add a question? It says in the answer that the amounts, the revenue costs include rates. Does that include the business rates incurred on the empty property? And if not, can you confirm how much that is, please? George Porter? Thank you. Thank you. I don't expect the Cabinet Member to have this information on hand, but would it be possible to be provided with the total book value of the 60 sites that are planned for disposal? Thank you. Cabinet Member? Yes, I would, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much for the extensive response on this subject. The CQC Commission did find that families feel stressed and angry due to inconsistent support, and noted that the system is difficult to navigate, with some parents feeling bounced about and confused. Can the Cabinet Member, taking into account the further budget reductions in this area, give us any hope or give our families any hope of a better future? Thank you. Kevin. Thank you, Chairman. Yes. I was somewhat heartened to hear the Government Minister's announcement that there would be more money made available for schools and councils, and for the SEND system generally, though we are yet to find out what that will mean and what the implications will be for our high needs block and for our general fund. As the member will know, we are running through the SEND Transformation Programme, which has at its heart the aim that we will deliver better services for families and children with additional needs and disabilities. And I'm really committed to the success of that program, as I hope all members in this chamber are. Much of the difficulty that parents have around navigating the system is a systemic challenge and not necessarily attributable to the operation of this council. But what we are also committed to is far better communications with families so that right from the outset they are much clearer about the process that they will be going through and engaged in throughout their child's journey through the SEND system and to providing far better information, advice and guidance as to where they can find sources of information. I hope that's helpful. Question seven is from Stephen Cooksey. Do you have a supplementary? Yes, thank you, Chairman, and thank the Cabinet Member for her response. Could I ask the Cabinet Member to explain why the development costs of this project were not estimated more accurately before the scheme was agreed, announced and planning permission was sought? And what costs have been accrued in developing the now abandoned scheme? Could she also explain why major changes such as these are not notified to local members or discussed with them either before or after decisions have been taken? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Given that the County Council will be becoming responsible for adult education and the lack of adult education provision in Dorking, will the Council consider reopening the former adult education centre as an adult education centre? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the Cabinet Member for her response. Question eight is from Liz Townsend to Natalie Bramwell. Liz, do you have a supplementary? I do. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the Cabinet Member for her response. However, this building in Cranny has now been empty for nearly ten years, and for the past four years I have been asking about its future and being told that the plans are confidential and yet nothing seems to have moved on. Please, can the Cabinet Member confirm to me why residents cannot now be told what the Council is proposing on this site? It is at the heart of a residential area, and it is causing a great deal of uncertainty, and to be honest, with the information that I have, I cannot justify in my own mind why this information should not be given to residents. Thank you, Chairman. Any other supplementary portfolios? Councillor Edwards. Thank you, Chairman. You were looking the wrong way. Can I just float to the Cabinet Member whether demolition ought to be considered in pending further investigations and approval on the site? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I need to consider, and I'll pick that up with Mike Tech's Director. Thank you. Question nine is from Steve McCormick to Matt Furness. Do you have a supplementary? Thank you, Chair. Thanks to the Cabinet Member for the update. I'm bringing a similar motion to Epsom and the New York Borough Council this evening, and I've made good progress locally, engaged with the Epsom Business Improvement District, supporting with residents, with restaurants and business owners. I would kindly ask if we could set up a series of meetings in the new year to review progress and see if we can make some actions on the motion that we brought in October, please. So if I could ask the Cabinet Member for that, that would be most helpful, please. Thank you. Councillor Furness. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Coulack. Yes, as I said, we will be providing further details in the new year. I'll happily get a meeting set in the diary for present to me towards the end of January so that we can update and set the ball rolling for meetings with these companies. Question ten is from Catherine Bott to Furness. Catherine, do you have a supplementary? I do. Thank you. I'd like to thank Councillor Furness for his answer. Could I know some additional information on why those six areas, six pilot zones, were selected? On what basis were they selected? And what are the questions that you are wanting to answer through those pilots? And what's the timescale, please? Thank you. Any other supplements? No? Yeah. Vice Chair. Thank you, Chairman. As he's asking if other places would like to join it, can I lobby in the nicest possible way, because Councillor Caron and I are beginning to struggle with this slightly, for Fetchum to Leatherhead? The Fetchum Residence Association are writing, as he knows, copious emails, and it must be 18 months, perhaps longer than that, since he did a site visit with us. So can I lobby that? If you have something to add, we'd love to be added. Councillor Furness. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for those supplementary questions. Just taking the Vice Chairs first, yes, we're very happy to consider additional areas. I think it is important to note, though, that we are getting the funding through the active travel department at government level for this, or community infrastructure levy. It would be very good if Moor Valley released some community infrastructure levy for schemes such as this. Councillor Bart, just on your point, these six zones had local political support, which is always important for cycling and walking. There was also plans pretty much in place. A number of these were shelf-ready from previous schemes that have been drawn on, or with the L-Swift, they also were in an advanced state that we could do this. The key point about the pilots is to demonstrate that the concept does work. It is also for the team to learn about how to implement these schemes with public support, and also to see what, effectively in design terms, what works and what doesn't, and that we need to come back and do things. If you would like a little bit more analysis, I'm very happy to arrange a meeting with you and the team so that they can run through lessons learned that they have from these pilots so far. Thank you. Question 11 is from Jonathan Essex. Do you have a supplementary? Yes, I'd like to thank the Cabinet Member for his response and for recognising the need for capacity improvements for regional station and that BCIP hopefully will enable this to happen. In light of this, would the Cabinet Member agree to meet with me and Network Rail and the Borough Council to see what we can do? Thanks. Any other supplementary? Thank you, Chair. The simple answer is yes. Question 12 is from Robert Evans to Claire Curran. Mr Evans, do you have a supplementary? Yes. Thank you, Chair, and I'd like to thank the Cabinet Member for her response. Would the Cabinet Member agree with me that initially, on initial inspection, the figures seem quite low and encouraging, but when you add in those for which the activity is not known, there's 27,000 young people in Surrey not in education or employment, and this is just 16 to 18. If the figures were for up to 21 or even 25, as sometimes is quoted, it could be even more. What measures are in place or proposed, or what does the Cabinet Member intend to do to try and address this situation and improve the life chances for young people? Thank you. Any other supplementary? No? Claire? Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I have been in contact with the Service about the relatively high numbers of young people where the destinations are not known. And I would like to say that this is typical of information that's collected at this time of year, because obviously we are just after a transition period when obviously some young people have left one provision and moved into other provision. And I am assured that in a typical year, you would see the numbers of not known reduced very significantly as we move after Christmas, and it is clear what destinations the young people have moved into. Also, I have been only able to give figures for those young people aged 16 and 17 because they are classed as children, and thereafter they will be adults in the general employment figures. However, the two important categories, that is children looked after and the destinations the children looked after, are very closely monitored through the virtual school, and of course children on education, health and care plans, who have a pathway into adulthood because they are very closely monitored through their plans. We do have duties as a council to prevent young people becoming NEAT and to encourage those, enable those who can re-engage with education or move into training and employment. There is a year 11 transition service which provides targeted one-to-one support for those young people who are recognised as being at risk of becoming NEAT at the end of year 11. That starts from the January at the end of year 11, which also would tie in better with those children whose destinations are presently recorded as unknown. That also extends to all looked after children and any who are not enrolled at mainstream schools. And post-16 we offer particular support to children and young people who are care experienced. But I'm sure that the member will be aware that there was an announcement by the government minister of a new national youth strategy, which is to come into place. And with an offer of additional money though, how much of that will make its way to Surrey, not only for additional youth facilities but also for new buildings. And the creation of a new youth guarantee to ensure that every 18 to 21 year old in England is earning or learning. But I would just like to say that we do have, through our skills strategy and through our lifetime of learning strategy, particular focus on pathways into employment and training or education for young people. And it is very much a focus of the service. Thank you, Chairman. Question 13 is from Catherine Powell to Musahit. Catherine, do you have a supplementary? I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her response. And I know she isn't well, so if she doesn't want to respond today, I'm happy to take a response in writing. And I admire her courage for coming in. I am, however, having spent several decades looking at strategies that are required for climate change adaption, slightly depressed by the concept of risk assessments will be undertaken by services. But I am reassured by the fact that they will be completed next year. Can the cabinet member please advise when the review is expected to be completed next year? And also whether there has been any allowance in the budget to address the requirements to change services and facilities to adapt for climate change. And if it will need to be taken out, or if it will need to be taken out, contingency or reserves will be used. As I suspect some of these changes will not be optional for very long. Any other supplementary? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Councillor Powell, for your kind words. So, basically, the work at the moment, as you know, is looking at the risk that this Council faces from climate adaptation. So, we need to go through that work, and part of it will be setting out what we think the financial impact of that will be and prioritising it. I would say that flooding is one of our top priorities, and I know there's another question later about that. So, that's been incredibly significant, and the team have been refocusing on prioritising that, basically. With trees, I don't think it's so much that we just take a reactive response. We shouldn't do. We do have a legal duty to keep people safe. And if you feel there are specific areas where there is danger, I would ask you to please let me know, and I will speak to the team as well. Obviously, you can accept that a lot of the focus has been on our Steibach over the last year or so, which has taken a huge amount of resource. But we need to keep people safe, and I do recognise your point. As it gets wetter and wetter, trees are likely to become more unstable, and it's something we need to focus on in this strategy coming forward. In regards to timelines, I think that was your first question. Sorry, I'm a bit breathless. We're hoping to come forward within the first sort of part of the year. So, probably April, May time, the first sort of outline of what we're thinking. Thank you. Question 14 is from Hazel Watson to Claire Curran. Hazel, do you have a supplementary? I have nothing to add, thank you. Any others? Question 15 from Lauren Spencer to Mr. Heath. Spencer, do you have a supplementary, Lauren? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Cabinet Member for her response. Is the Cabinet Member disappointed by the decision to reduce the resources in this area, and especially the impact on net-zero planning with the districts and boroughs? And does she agree with me that this will undoubtedly jeopardise the delivery of net-zero by 2050? Any other supplementary? No, thank you for your question, Councillor Spencer. No one's ever pleased to have budget cuts. Who wants budget cuts? I'd like all the money I could have in the world, thank you very much, to expedite this process. But we have to be realistic, and you also have to recognise the many other things we're trying to prioritise. Climate adaptation, as we've just spoken about, nature recovery that we've spoken about, and all sorts of other pursuits we're taking under the environment agenda. We know that reaching net-zero is going to be very difficult. I've made no bones about that, but the districts and boroughs are possibly in an even worse place than us in reaching net-zero as well. We know we have huge challenges, and I've committed to doing a piece of work now that drills into that, and really sets out what we need to overcome this. But the biggest problem is not so much staff, it's funding from government, and that is what we need to go after. And the government has committed to being very serious about reaching net-zero, so I'm looking forward to seeing the money coming in. Thank you. Question 16 is from Stephen Cooksey to Natalie Bramwell. Mr Cooksey, do you have a supplementary? Dr Chairman, I don't have a supplementary. Any other supplementary? I do, thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you for the answer provided. And I'm very pleased to see that you have taken the approach that Waverley suggested of small-cell networks using public assets. And I do hope that you will also be helping to support us in the pilots in Godinning and Cranley, which we are progressing. However, digital connectivity includes wider mobile phone coverage as well, and this has been almost completely overlooked in this answer. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the issues being experienced, particularly in rural areas, and the infrastructure that is required there. I see there is a throwaway comment at the end saying currently the mobile network operators are more interested in the more commercial areas of the county. And that is something that we all already are very aware of. However, is the cabinet member admitting that my residents in Cranley and Newhurst are facing a future of no coverage or very limited coverage, and they will continue to be unable to make emergency calls, carry out daily but essential tasks like online banking with two-factor authentication, or to receive updates about important hospital appointments, and that this council can do nothing to help to accelerate better coverage for them. And also, why has the £4.5 million in LEP funding not already been distributed and allocated to improving this necessary service for my residents and others across Waverley, and no doubt in other rural areas as well across Surrey. Thank you. Any other supplementary now? Castle Furnish? Thank you, Chair. A little bit of a pivot on that supplementary, considering the primary question was about broadband connectivity rather than cell tower connectivity. However, what I would say is that the excellent newly elected MP, Jeremy Hunt, is doing a lot of work in the area of Cranley and Newhurst, particularly around mobile phone signal coverage. I would suggest that the County Councillor maybe raises that with the MP, who is actually having meetings with BT and Openreach and so forth, to improve mobile phone signal in these areas. Thank you. Thank you. Question 18 is from Steve McCormack. Do you have a supplementary? Thank you, Chair. No supplemental. Thank you. Any other supplementary? John. Thank you, Chairman. In reply to Mr McCormack, portfolio holder says outside of London pavement parking in itself is not an offence. I think Mr Furnish knows where I'm coming from this. When, if at all, are he and maybe the leader of the council going to impress on the government to take action to allow councils to enforce where vehicles are blocking and obstructing the pavement? If you can give an answer to that yes, all our Christmases will come at once. There you go. Thank you, Chair. I thought I was about to miss a supplementary on that question, but no do. Thank you, Councillor. I'm pleased to say, and I will circulate the letter again, after the last council meeting I did write to the government based on Councillor McLeod's question at that meeting. The government is still in consideration and they will release the results in due course. I will happily circulate that letter to all members as well, but we will continue to press them for these powers because the amount of infrastructure and work and effort that goes in to prevent pavement parking is disproportionate to having that simple power. Thank you. Question 19 is from Catherine Bart to Marissa Heath. Catherine, do you have a supplementary? I don't. Thank you for the answer. Any other supplementary? No. Question 20 is from Jonathan Essex to Claire Curran. Jonathan, do you have a supplementary? Thank you, Mr Chairman. I don't. Thanks. Thank you. Any other supplementary? Question 21 is from Catherine Powell to Marissa Heath. Catherine, do you have a supplementary? You do. Thank you. I'd like to thank the cabinet member again for her response and again repeat that she doesn't have to respond now if she feels unable to do so. I'm glad that the gap in data being collected and mapped on Surrey's GIS system is acknowledged as a gap. Please can the cabinet member advise whether in our role as the local lead flood authority, we could start to ask for data on Sud systems associated with new developments in a GIS compatible format so that it can be uploaded when the resources are available. This is standard practice across industry. whether as officers are currently identifying culverts and soak aways in trying to resolve existing flooding problems that are not currently mapped on the Surrey GIS system, that they can capture them on a markup that can be shared with the GIS team when resources are available but also used in the intervening period. Again, this is standard practice in industry. And whether in addition to reporting wet spots and localised flooding via FixMyStreets and the councillor's email, local members could be able to provide information on what seemed to have been lost infrastructure when highways were restructured a few years ago to a dedicated email that could be worked through over time. Thank you, Councillor Powell. I must say, by the way, I'm not contagious. I should have said that in the beginning. You're all thinking, Jesus, why should you come in to protect us all? I'm not. I'm just wearing a mask because you probably don't want me to cough on you either. In terms of the suds, it makes sense that we do that, Councillor Powell, so I'll ask the team to pick that up. On reporting the wet spots and the local member information, if you'd let me take that away and speak to the team to check that they've got the ability to do that, first of all. Because, as I said, they've got a lot on, but again, it is something that makes sense. So, yes, I will take both of those away and come back to you, OK? Thank you. Question 22 is from Steve McCormick. Do you have a supplementary? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I do. Thanks to the Cabinet Member for the response, and I look forward to the update of the Order and Governance Committee in January. My supplemental question relates to the teachers, assistants, and residents who have been impacted by incorrect payments, missing payments, inability to access payslips, and lack of timely support or reply. Can the Cabinet Member assure me and our impacted residents, as we enter this festive period, that no one would be out of pocket from this mandatory global system update, which was required and implemented by Unit 4, which caused this system-wide outage and unavailability of the system from 23rd November to the 26th November. Thank you, Chair. Any other supplementary? No? Steve? Yeah, thank you, Councillor McCormick. I mean, the problems that were experienced with the upgrade at the end of November were regrettable. Every action that could be taken by the team here in Surrey to test the changes in advance were made, and the issues that were experienced were simply down to Unit 4 rather than anything that we could have predicted or could have forecast. In terms of residents being out of pocket, yes, there was some slight disruption at the beginning of the week after the upgrade took place, but we continue to work to stabilize the system, and I'm not aware that as a result of the outage that occurred that any resident will be out of pocket, that if they are, or if anyone is out of pocket in terms of payroll issues or anything like that, we have very robust processes in place, and I would suggest that they are followed, and the necessary compensation and payments will be made to ensure that we, and those individuals, are returned to the correct level, and stability ensues. So, yeah, I'm confident that no one should really be unduly impacted by this. Thank you. Question 23 is from Catherine Blatt to Claire Kerman. Catherine, do you have a supplementary? I do. I think my question was, why do we have two systems for measuring distance to schools? We've got a system that measures straight line distance, and we've got our GIS system. And as a person, as a counsellor who sits on the home to school transport panels, every so often some case will come up right through to stage two panel, with all the effort and expense that's associated with that, from parents that have got into the situation where they thought they were going to the nearest school, but they can't have transport, because it's not their nearest school under our transport policy. So, please could I ask the Cabinet member to review the information that we do put on the website, to make sure that it is as clear as it possibly can be to help parents. It is a small number of parents, but the parents who get into that position. Thank you. Any other supplementary? No? Claire? Thank you, Chairman. Yes, as I've said in the answer, the reason why we have two systems is because, I'll admit, it's not an ideal situation. It's because our schools' admissions are governed by the schools' admissions code, and that home to school transport eligibility is set out in home to school transport legislation. The two are separate things, and they use separate systems, and as a local authority, we don't have opportunity to change that. So, the best that we can do is, as we said on the website, try to make the explanation as clear as possible. I'm afraid we cannot change one to accommodate the other, because they are governed by separate legislation. While I am answering this question, and because the member has mentioned home to school transport appeals panels, may I remind this chamber that some time ago, we did agree that stage two appeals panels would always have member representation on them. We are now in the unfortunate situation where we do not have enough available members to ensure that these panels can take place within the statutory timescales. So, could I please take this opportunity to appeal to all members to consider whether they can make themselves available to sit on these panels in order to meet the needs of children and families? Because if members will not make themselves available for these panels, we are unable to hear appeals within the timescales that this council has set out. Members wanted to be part of the appeals framework, and we have facilitated that, but please, therefore, members, make yourselves available to hear these appeals, or we will have to review the arrangements that we make in future in order to be able to deliver a really good service for children and their families. Thank you, and thank you for allowing me to take that opportunity. Question 24 is from Jonathan Essex. Jonathan, do you have a supplementary? No, I don't, but I'd like to thank the Cabinet member and his reply and the link to the plan. Thank you. Any other supplementary? No? Question 25 is from Catherine Barth to Matt Furness. Catherine, do you have a supplementary? I do, thank you. What's my supplementary? Yes, I would like to know, how does the guidance to our contractors align with the other aspects of the Natural England guidance on hedges, which is more than just when you cut the hedge. It's quite a long there about how you cut the hedge. So, yes, is there more detailed guidance to our contractors on that basis? Thanks. Any other supplementary? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Barth. I'll have to provide you with a written answer on that level of detail. Thank you. The last question is from Jonathan Essex to Natalie Brunwell. Jonathan, do you have a supplementary? Thank you, Chair. I don't, but I'd like to thank the Cabinet member for her work in this area and for the work of her team. Thank you. Any other supplementary? No. Thank you. Thank you for the smoothening of questions. Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet members' briefings. Members, do you have any comments, questions on Cabinet members and Deputy Cabinet members' briefings? If you wish to speak, please make it clear, which Cabinet member or Deputy Cabinet members' briefings you are responding to. Thank you, Chairman, and my comments are directed at Denise Turner-Stewart, who I completely appreciate was not able to attend our Select Committee meeting last week. But will she agree with me, and I'm sure she will, that the transformation of our library services over the last few years has been exceptional? It has been one of the most successful experiences this Council has achieved. And will she accept that this is so much different from an agenda six or seven years ago where library closures were on the agenda? So, on behalf of certainly my residents in Hersham, where we've also had our lovely library upgraded and our footfall is at now 55,000. Will she, on our behalf, congratulate the service for actually a magnificent achievement that should go publicly rather than just being sung at a small committee meeting somewhere else in Woodhatch? Thank you. Please. Thank you, Councillor O'Reilly. I was sorry not to be able to attend your committee. It will have a very important family matter to attend. And I'm very pleased we have Ms Mills here, who, with Sue Wills as head of that service, was able to enjoy the session. I know that there was a lot of very positive feedback, and we've just recently circulated yet another briefing just to make sure that members are fully aware of the exceptional work that's going into transforming our 52 library asset base, which we fought long and hard for, and members who have been in this chamber for many years will know how close we came to rationalising our libraries and how fiercely we defended our libraries. And now we're on a journey to create hubs in every single community. Every borough and district will have a central hub. Some of those hubs are due to be open imminently, and we aim to keep you as informed as possible to make sure that you fully understand and appreciate that that investment will be spread into every locality, particularly consistent with our towns and villages approach, and I'm really grateful that you've given me the opportunity to reinforce the tremendous work of the service. And I also have to commend the land and property team with Natalie Bramall, because without the land and property team, we wouldn't have been able to do half of the work that we've been able to do. But I'm really grateful for your comments. Thank you. Can I just add that the extended Albers, the Albers library opening has really been taken really well. And also not only that, libraries are now offering other things as well. So there's been a great uptake on the use of the library space. Chris Townsend? Thank you Chairman. Yes, I'd like to agree with Professor O'Reilly. And I'd mentioned Susan, who's actively involved in the library, who's the senior manager there. I think she's brilliant. That's not the point I was going to raise. The point I was going to raise was I mentioned use centres last time, and there was due to be a meeting with all the use centres to ascertain those that are working well and those that weren't, those we might close. The leader agreed with me that we need to look at this properly. I don't know which cabinet member to talk to. I don't know whether it's the children's and family's one or the property one. But I don't really care. I want an answer. When is that meeting going to actually take place with those use centres so we can ascertain how to go forward and actually provide the services that those use centres want to, to our young people? Thank you. Thank you Chair. Thank you Councillor Townsend for your question. I am aware that Matt Ansell is planning to meet with all the providers in the use centres. And I'm happy to chase that up and look for a date, but I know that that is his intention. Hopefully that will be okay. Thank you. I'll take that away. Catherine Powell. Thank you. Could I, looking at Councillor Furness's report. Oh sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. You don't even know. Second time lucky. So my question is for Councillor Matt Furness. I read with interest his briefing and note the impending implementation of a school street on Bullers Road after Christmas. However, there have been very firm commitments that since this is the first school street in Surrey, there would be a meeting and a briefing with residents in person to show them the school street software at least a month before the school street is implemented. Can the cabinet member please confirm that that is still the case and what the plans are to set that date? Who was that for? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Powell. I'm very happy to talk to the team and get a date set so that we can run through with you and your residents about the school street. I'm not aware of a date being set at the moment, but when I speak to the team we'll get something in the diary. Catherine Bard, did you want to ask a question? I haven't got you down. Well, since I've got the opportunity now, thank you. Again, it was for Councillor Furness to say, in his next report, is it possible to have an update on LTP4 and Vision Zero? Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councillor. Yes, I'm very happy to do that. Last Friday, we actually launched Vision Zero as a partnership with Surrey Highways, Surrey Police, the Rescue Service, as well as National Highways. It was a well-intended event. Police colleagues are fully on board here, and I'm pleased to say they have been very supportive and were demonstrating a lot of the new equipment that they're planning to use, including our new average speed cameras, which we're coming into almost our tenth programme for the past few years. So I'm very happy to give an update in the next report. Fiona? Thank you, Chair. I've got a couple of questions for the Cabinet Member for Property Waste and Infrastructure. So, Surrey has invested over a million pounds in the Guildford e-bike scheme. So can the Cabinet Member please tell residents why the Council allowed a new e-bike model, which the supplier acknowledges is less secure than the older model used in the rest of the country, to be rolled out in Guildford? And why are we, Surrey County Council, perpetuating the supplier's narrative that the issue is down to vandalism, anti-social behaviour and criminality in Guildford, rather than the inadequate security of the new e-bike model? So, who's holding the supplier to account? Thank you, Councillor, for your question. I agree. Yeah. And actually, my learned friend, Councillor Furness, has just said, actually, it's me. So... I was just going to say that it's actually listed under your portfolio, Councillor. So much is. So, perhaps I can address the same questions to Councillor Furness. Thank you very much, yes. I'm not quite sure what happened there with the formatting, but, yes, we have been picking it up with the contractor in particular. It has been unfortunate, I would say. The model that they have chosen to use has this slight flaw. I won't say what it exactly is, but it does enable some people, if they do damage the bikes, to be able to undock them without paying. A number of the bikes are... The whole set of bikes are now being upgraded to prevent this issue from happening again. We are not paying for any of that. A lot of our contribution was an initial capital contribution. We are not paying any revenue contribution to it. And it was to get it, see it through the winter, which has the lowest uptake. So, it was effectively a subsidy to do that. I am pleased to say, if you do read, it has been a very big success. They were expecting maybe one journey a day to be used. They are currently at three to four journeys per bike per day. So, it is unfortunate that this particular issue has occurred, but it is being remedied. Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Thank you, Chairman. I am spreading my favours around here. Firstly, to Denise Turner-Stewart. Can I ask her if she is aware of how pleased the residents in the Heatherside part of my division are with the contributions from your fund, Surrey, in helping create a safe environment for school children and also works on the community centre, which are ongoing. And there is another grant coming down your way very shortly. So, that was the one question there. The second question is for Natalie Bramall. Firstly, can I just say how pleased I am to see the progress made on the SEND provision, which is contained in here. She may have had some feedback from a recent resources select where we were discussing land and property. I think we might have gone slightly off-piste, but it is interesting to see that the targeting 26 million pounds of capital receipts, can she at some stage just let us know how we are on track in relation to the receipts which are going to be by 31st of March next year. And finally, in relation to Lakeside Frimley, it is not quite in my division, although it is moving slightly, as much as a building can move slightly with the boundary changes. Would she be kind enough to keep me informed of the access from the DfE, because that school has transport implications on my division? Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Denise, that was the first one to you, I think. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. And I would like to thank you for your determination in really recognising a local situation that affected many children and families in your local area, and using your Fund Surrey funding and working so closely with the officers to find, as I say, a solution. It was really important when we created the additional funding for your Fund Surrey, trying to make sure that every division benefited with the opportunity to work with your communities and to address their needs. So I am really grateful that you have highlighted that. Thank you. Chairman, may I jump in very quickly and thank the officers in turn for their perseverance and understanding of me pushing the envelope, sometimes a bit too hard. Thank you. Natalie. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Just to confirm, I will ask Clay Curran to update you as the Cabinet Member for Children and Families Lifelong Learning on Lakeside in Frimley. Yes, I did hear that you slightly stepped out of the boundaries with Land and Property Officer. And we have picked that up, so I will get some answers to you on that. And we're doing really, really well on our disposals, I'm really pleased to say. I think over the last few years we're now up to about 150 million. We do it every 23, 24, 22, 23. And cabinet meeting, last cabinet meeting and cabinet member decisions, I took through just on that one day, there was £9.1 million worth of receipts. So we are on track, and depending on some of our disposals coming through, we'll certainly hit it or achieve it. Thank you. Thank you. Steve Banks. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just wanted to add to the statements there. Thank you, really, to Ringway for their efforts this weekend, because we had some quite exceptional weather. I put in a call around about 8 o'clock, and at that point they'd already dealt with 100 emergencies regarding fallen trees. And just to update colleagues, really, that over the course of the weekend there were actually 230 trees that were cleared from our highways. And although we still have a couple of outstanding jobs, I think it's about 37 jobs that are still being cleared, but Ringway did go the extra mile to put on additional resources, and I think we're all very grateful for the results. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Evans, you've got one minute. Thank you very much. I'd like to ask a question of Councillor Jonathan Hulley, because I don't think anyone's ever asked him a question before, and I wouldn't like him to be left out. Under his list of criteria for which he's responsible, it's signs and street works. Does this include cleaning of road signs? Because I notice across the county a large number which are really dirty, affected by overgrown vegetation. And if he doesn't know the answer, will he give us an assurance that he will personally go around in the new year with a bucket and some soap and water and clean all of those across the county? Thank you, Councillor Evans. I'm delighted to be answering your question. In fact, I think it's my debut as a deputy cabinet member. Can I just say yes to your question shortly? But I think it's right that I give this opportunity to you to hear from me about the work of the task and finish recommendations that were agreed by this council just over two and a half years ago. You know, we have pumped in 2023 and 2024, three and a half million in revenue towards the task and finish recommendations, which includes removing signs from our network and cleaning those signs as well. We've also pumped in 2024 and 2025 a further five point million in revenue to do just that work as well, as well as taking steps to deal with refreshing of lines on our roads and also to implement Fix My Street, which I think has been a great success. Good work done, but more to do. Thank you. Thank you. That's actually 15 minutes. We've gone over 15 minutes, so those people that want to ask questions, councillors, please take on with the relevant cabinet members as for the meeting. Item 10 is a statement by members on local issues. I have received notes of six statements from members. There is a time limit of two minutes per statement, and these are put without discussion or reply. Thank you. At the end of last month, the cabinet decided to scrap the proposed London Road walking and cycling scheme in my division. Whilst I'm unhappy with the decision, I'm not here to speak today because I disagree with that decision. What I am here to highlight is the astonishing poor governance on display in how the decision was made, including multiple cabinet members demonstrating that they lack basic reading comprehension skills, with many misquoting the safety audit or demonstrating that they simply had not read or understood it. Mr. Potter, can we please stick to some... I was on the impression that statements were heard without interruption, Mr. Chairman. But this is, like I said earlier, we need to be professional here, and you are a councillor. This is a public meeting. And I'm stating my opinion about an issue which is affecting my division, and as the Constitution states, I'm entitled to make that statement without interruption. And I would ask that you uphold the Constitution, as is your job as chairman, please. I am looking at the Constitution as a chairman. I'm allowing you your statement time, but stick to a proper statement in the Council chamber. Carry on. Yeah, the clock's... Right, can we... Please reset the clock, given that you've interrupted me halfway through and it's kept on running. And I'll start again from the top, shall I? Yeah, thank you. At the end of last month, the Cabinet decided to scrap the proposed London Road Walking and Cycling Act scheme in my division. Whilst I'm unhappy with that decision, I'm not speaking because I'm unhappy with that decision. I'm speaking about the poor governance on display in how the decision was made, including Cabinet members demonstrating an apparent lack of comprehension of reports in front of them, including misquoting the safety audit or demonstrating that it simply had not been properly read or understood. I will not dwell on the disgraceful but unsuccessful attempt to dodge scrutiny by trying to claim that Colin was not permissible, but I will point out that when the cross-party scrutiny committee referred the decision back to Cabinet with detailed points for them to consider, Councillor Oliver dismissed the item in less than 90 seconds without even a vote, let alone a debate on the detailed points made by the select committee. The scheme was proposed to address serious recognised safety issues in my division, as well as to reduce congestion on a key transport route required to help absorb the impact of a strategic site of 1,800 homes on the edge of my division. Yet in turning down the scheme, which was their right, the Cabinet has offered no alternative proposals. Pedestinary safety issues, housing delivery implications and a deadly gap in the cycle network have all been left unaddressed. The Cabinet did not even discuss what would happen to the £6 million of Active Travel England funding that they were choosing not to spend. My residents are rightly asking what this means for the future, what the implications will be, and the lack of the answer to that question is a direct result by the poor governance, by the Cabinet, and the failure to consider the implications and address the implications of their decision. That is not good enough, that is not how responsible governing and decision-making should work, and it is an embarrassment to the residents that this is the best we can expect from our Council. There is no right to reply to this. There is no right to reply to this. I call on John Sir Hally to make a small personal statement. Thank you, Mr Chairman. This month, as has been alluded, the Your Fund Surrey turns four years old. And in recognition of that milestone, I wish to highlight two community facilities and two communities who have benefited from funding from the Your Fund Surrey Small Community Fund. The community of Lyon near Chertsea have recently benefited from a brand new community pavilion on Lyon Village Green. With £44,000 of your Fund Surrey funding, they now have a fantastic community facility that will serve to enhance community engagement and foster local connections. Could I take this opportunity to congratulate the Lyon Village Hall Committee, and in particular Katrina Bertenshaw and her colleague Kate Hopkins, for their work in delivering this fantastic new facility for that community. And Mr Chairman, a short trip east of the Lyon pavilion will take you to the White Lodge Centre near St Peter's Hospital. The White Lodge Centre delivers services and support that enable children, young people and adults to provide support that they need for a range of disabilities to help them lead fulfilling lives. This fund, the small fund, has awarded them funding to help them deliver much-needed improvements to their Pathways Children's Centre on this site. Could I take this opportunity to congratulate Leslie Bowens and her team for securing this funding and making a difference to that service which supports so many young people and adults across this county. And finally, it's right at the four-year anniversary of this fund to recognise the work of the community investment team here in this council. They work so brilliantly and so professionally to allocate this funding to our communities. And so know this, your work and this fund makes a real difference. I call Trevor Hogg to make a short statement. Trevor Hogg is online. Trevor. Thank you very much, Chairman. Vacant and abandoned retail properties seriously damage communities and cost local economies dear. Across Surrey, there are many small businesses or community organisations who would really love to rent vacant or abandoned properties. If only they were on the market at a sensible rent. It was that fact which drove me back in 2019 to propose the idea of rental auctions of vacant or abandoned retail premises. I'm grateful that successive governments have taken my suggestion seriously. The rental auction regulations came into law on 2 December 2024. A high street's order by a borough, council or unitary designates appropriate roads as retail areas. Individual premises can then be subject to the rental auction process if they have been empty for a year or more. In most cases, the costs fall on the landlord and the eventual tenant, while local councils can take advantage of new burdens payments to avoid incurring costs. There is therefore every reason for local councils to make use of the legislation. I urge members to ask their district or borough to seek out opportunities to bring empty or abandoned premises back into use through this new legislation. Thank you, members. I call Paddy Weirth to make a personal statement. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise today to recognise and celebrate the incredible contribution of Spelton Little Pickers, a group of over 1,000 dedicated local residents who work tirelessly to keep our community green and clean. Their recent recognition with the King's Award for voluntary service is a testament to their unwavering commitment to our environment and I urge everyone in this chamber to join me in upholding their remarkable achievement. In my division of Lower Sambria and Haliford, we are fortunate to have legendary litter pickers like Mr. Neil Maitland Walker and Spelton litter picker trustees like Shirley Lane, whose dedication serves as an inspiration to all of us. The volunteers give their time and energy selflessly, not for their own accruids, but out of genuine love of our planet and a desire to live it better for future generations. Volunteers like them are the backbone of our community. Their selfless action not only enhance the beauty of our surrounding, but also foster a sense of unity and shared responsibility among residents, recognizing their effort is essential as it highlights the profound impact and dedicated individuals can have in addressing environmental challenges and improving our quality of life. Let's take this opportunity to honor their contributions and encourage others to join them in building a cleaner, greener earth for all of us. Together, we can make a lasting difference. Thank you, Members and Chairman. Thank you. I'll call Joanne Saxton to make a personal statement. Thank you, Chair. Felton Road is within my Ashford division and following my election in 2021, residents raised concerns about it safely. In response, I arranged a meeting with residents, council officers and the police to acknowledge the road's history of collision and serious injuries. Both our officers and the police agreed that action was needed to protect our residents. I commend the officers for their hard work and commitment in developing a scheme that will significantly improve the safety and the quality of the lives for those that live along this road. Thank you, officers. Thank you, officers. However, I find it totally unacceptable that another Surrey County councillor representing a division in Spelthorn should actively campaign against Surrey Highways Road Safety Scheme, which residents requested and were supported by the police in a road that is not in her division. Regrettably, this is not the first instance in which this Cabinet member has intervened in my division. Personally, I will continue to support Surrey Highways in making the road in my Ashford division the same. And I trust the other county councillor will do the same. Thank you. Members, members, personal statement, short statement, officers making. And please give them the courtesy, listen to their statement, whatever the statement is. Yeah, it is. We have our opportunities. I'm sorry, Chair, but that is a direct personal attack. It's a theme this morning, Chair. I think officers should intervene and that should be corrected. It is, it is not, yet. I'm going to call Catherine Powell now. Thank you, Chair. I'm reading this statement on behalf of a headteacher at a school in my division. Since the introduction of Unit 4 ERP in Surrey schools, it has been beset by issues. Changes have created significant additional work for schools. We had at least hoped the system would work. Despite sending many emails, I have just received blanket emails with apologies, assurances things would be sorted and that changes were necessary. The updates two weeks ago are a backward step. Heads now need to open individual tabs and constantly refresh to approve payroll changes and updates before it just scrolled through. We can take that on the chin. But what we cannot take is the slow or non-existent response from the Surrey payroll when issues come to light. A single parent member of staff who recently paid for their own teacher training has suffered ongoing issues with her pay since qualifying as a teacher. This month, she was paid £90 on her payslip. An emergency payment has been sent through, but as it is an emergency payment, she cannot get the credit that she is due of around £800. She cannot challenge this because she does not have a correct payslip. The school has purchased shopping vouchers for the member of staff more than once so she can put food on the table for her children. This is an unacceptable situation for a professional working for a large authority. Schools have effectively been forced to sign up for a system with no consultation and pay significant costs in service level agreements for this service. I have asked for compensation or removal of the SLA charge until the system is running properly, which I believe is fair and reflects the impact of this haphazard approach in introducing and implementing Unit 4. Thank you, Chair. Chair, I'm just going to give notice and I'm going to ask the monitoring officer to review Section 9 of the Constitution. This is an abuse of the process where, because Section D says every statement is being put without discussion or reply, that is not fair if there are allegations or comments about members of the Cabinet or members of this Council. That is not what this provision is for. So I will ask the monitoring officer to review that section. Thank you, Chair. So on reviewing the Constitution, members need to be mindful of comments they make with regards to other members. A point of order was made. I've spoken to the Chair. If members wish to make a point of order after a member's speech, just please clarify and stand up and we will ensure that you have your point of order made at the end of a member's speech. Apologies for the confusion. I have clarified that with the Chair and we will address it. But emphasis, please be mindful. This is a public meeting. You have to abide by the Code of Conduct and it's important that we adhere that and uphold. Thank you. And the Nolan principles. Do you have a point of order? Yes, point of order under Section Standing Order 9-1. It's quite clear what it says there is member statements must, which must be a matter on which the Council has powers notified to direct, to medicate services by the morning. All the people who have stood up have spoken on items that are of direct interest to this thing. More importantly, what has happened is, several times, and it's very clear here, that you, Chairman, have been shouted at, talked over, and you have had difficulty. So if we're looking at standing orders, can we also look at the way that the standing order relates to your ability to control this meeting and not to be shouted down by councillors? Thank you very much. Thank you. I have been advised by the Monitoring Officer and one's been taken. So thank you for all that. Let's get back to the business of the meeting. Item 11 is the original motion, 90 minutes for deliberation in total. I have received notice of four original motions, Understanding Order 11.5. In consultation with the group leaders, I will reorder the motions and take the motion standing in the name of Jonathan Essex. Last. Motion 1, standing in the name of Catherine Barth. Under Section, under Standing Order 12.3, Council has to decide if it wishes to debate this motion today. Does the Council wish to debate this motion now? Members, an email was circulated this morning with an updated proposed alteration by Catherine Barth to Motion 1, under Standing Order 20.3, standing in her own name. Published in the second supplementary agenda, front sheet, pages 2. Council must agree to this alteration in order for it to be debated. Are we agreed? Catherine Barth to move the motion. You have six minutes. Thank you. Point of order. I didn't receive this email. It was sent out yesterday. The email was sent out yesterday. Not today. Thank you. Apologies for that. That was enough yesterday. Catherine Barth to move the motion. Thank you. I'm proposing this motion because, like many other councils, this council's confidence in being able to meet our net zero targets is faltering. We work at the front line of people's lives, and our ambition, as we say, is to shape places, to bring communities together, to keep people safe. And we aim to create conditions for well-being and prosperity, and climate change threatens all this. Currently, we are just on target for our 2030 and 2050 net zero goals, which is, of course, positive, and it's the result of hard work by officers and councillors. But we have now finished the straightforward wins, like putting LEDs in streetlights. And our plans for solar energy, which is central to our targets, have become bogged down in connectivity and financing problems. And we haven't made meaningful reductions, really, in transport emissions yet. And yet, councils are the best-placed organizations to tackle climate change. Studies by the Local Government Association have shown that councils have a direct impact on more than a third of our area's carbon emissions, and an indirect impact on 80% of their area's emissions, through our work on transport, energy, planning, procurement, land and environment management, and through our unique and special roles to be conveners and enablers. All independent experts are calling on the National Government to go further and faster in empowering local councils to act on climate change in their areas. And the list includes the National Audit Office, the Government's Independent Climate Change Committee, and the Skidmore Review. Local councils tackling climate change is better value for money. A report commissioned by the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology showed that councils can deliver net zero at half the cost of a national approach, and further deliver three times the benefits of tackling climate change in terms of growth, jobs, skills and health benefits. And as that report confirms, councils receive no core funding for their climate work. So this council, like others, is forced to compete with other councils in a complicated system for small, siloed pots of money. And instead, we need central government to support our climate work with resources, powers, flexibility, certainty, clarity, and access to technical support and data. 2024 is now almost certain to be the year that global average temperatures breached 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. And this council, of course, needs to maintain its own efforts on climate change and continue to lead locally. And I would suggest redeploy resources to tackle fuel poverty and get to grips with transport while solar energy is so difficult at the moment. But, in addition, we now need to set out what support we need from central government and then use all our skills and influence, along with other councils, to get that support. So I leave you with the thought that the choices that this council makes now around its net zero commitments are going to reverberate for hundreds of years to come. Thank you. This is seconded by Lance Spencer. Lance, do you want to speak now or do you have to be right? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You may recall I gave a speech back in 2021 on this very subject. It was just before COP26 when Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister and the UK led the world in climate change thinking. Well, that's what Boris told us. He did, however, identify the crucial role of local government in delivering net zero emissions. Now, my grandson, who I mentioned in my last speech then, was born in 2019, the same year this council passed the climate emergency motion. I observed that when he would be 21 in 2040, he might ask what we were doing in the 2020s when so much information was available on the impact of climate change. Back in 2021, it was calculated there was less than 5% chance of holding the global temperature below 2 degrees above the pre-industrial levels and less than 1% chance of keeping below the 1.5% degrees agreed in the Paris Agreement. According to the Copernicus Climate Change Service in 2023, it was the warmest year on record and 2024 is on track to surpass it and become the documented hottest year. The global average temperature for November 2024 was 14.1 degrees, making it the second warmest November on record. In 2021, Surrey had a comprehensive plan to achieve net zero for Surrey County Council by 2030 and for all of Surrey by 2050. The Greener Futures team at Surrey County Council has done great work keeping Surrey on target today. And since 2019, carbon emissions from Surrey County Council specific activities have reduced by 38%, which is 6,700 tonnes of carbon emissions per year. Alongside this, this has saved the Council 4 million pounds annually, which we can spend on other key services. However, that 6,700 tonnes is just 0.1% of Surrey's total carbon emissions of 6.6 million tonnes every year. We've implemented the low-hanging fruit, such as the LED street lighting, but the heavy lifting is ahead of us. From the work done so far by the Greener Futures team, it has become even clearer that without central government support and the devolution of statutory powers, we will start slipping behind on our plans to deliver both the net zero target for Surrey County Council activities by 2030 and the much tougher target of hitting the overall net zero by 2050. At the COP29 conference, Ed Milimand again highlighted the importance of local councils in delivering the net zero targets. He stressed the need for central government support and funding to empower the local authorities. I want to be able to tell my grandson, should I be lucky enough to be around in 2040, that we did act decisively here in Surrey to bring down the carbon emissions. Surrey County Council is perfectly placed to enable the delivery of these targets, given statutory powers and necessary funding, so that I would commend this motion to you. It's open for debate now. The first speaker is Ms. Saheed. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the motion. I agree with pretty much most of the things that my colleagues have said in this motion, and I have no issue with the resolutions in it, we have made a decision recognising the difficult place we're in with the net zero targets that we're going to bring forward our plan. So it was due in 2026. We're bringing it forward now to completely review it, to consider where our risk spots are, what we need in order to meet those targets. So the commissioning of a report is already commenced, if you like, under that piece of work. And we did, under the Skidmore review, write into that asking for the statutory powers as well, and we have since then also pushed for that to be given to us. It would help us have a stronger case. But of course, as you have said quite rightly, Councillor Barth, the small siloed pots of monies with really short bid times, I myself am fed up of them. I see our offices working relentlessly, and they've been very successful in winning funding. And thank you for your kind words about the team, which I completely endorse. They have done an incredible job. But we can't continue to work like this. This needs long-term planning and really big, significant change. And therefore, we need the funding to come with it. So I have no issue in supporting the motion today. Thank you. Any other speakers? Do you want to reply? Do you want to say anything? No, I'd like to thank Councillor Spencer for seconding the motion and speaking very eloquently. And thank you for Councillor Heath's support, which is very welcome. Thank you. We're using the electronic voting, so all those in favour, please press the green button on the microphone in front of you and raise your hand. Thank you. We're doing hands as well just to make the numbers, just so we can see if it's first time. Yeah? So if you raise your hands as well, please. Yes, please. All those against. All those against. Any abstentions? One. Woke's now closed. So, quick question, Mr. Chairman. I'm also getting a button coming up with the option to vote for my absent neighbour. I take it we should not be doing that. No, you shouldn't be doing that. This is just the first time we tried it. The results are 69-4, 0 against, and 2 abstain. Thank you. That's carried. It's the second or the third motion now, isn't it? Yes. Third motion, standing in the name of Liz Townsend. Under Section, Understanding Order 2, 12.3, Council has decided, has to decide if it wishes to debate this motion today. Does the councillor wish to debate this motion now? Yes. Councillor Curran. Chairman, thank you. I'd like to move that this motion be referred to Cabinet. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Which standing order? Rule 28.1. I request a recorded vote on the motion to refer, and I believe I have the appropriate 10 members to facilitate this. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Liz. The mover, Liz Townsend, you have two minutes. Could speak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two minutes is a derogatory amount of time to commit to such an important matter. It feels as if debate is being stifled by the same culture that is failing our families. Many of us continue to receive harrowing accounts of the experiences of parents of children with additional needs, trying to access their legal rights to an education. I am proposing one change within our control to make a fairer system that puts the child and their families at the heart of decision-making. It has not been straightforward, even for me, to get information about why parents and children are not able to attend life-changing panel meetings. Why are families being prevented from being present at this critical stage? Why are those decisions being made behind closed doors? Why is the family's caseworker not automatically invited? I am shocked by the lack of transparency and accountability. Parents are their child's best advocates. They understand their children better than anyone. Having parents and children present ensures their voices are heard directly, providing crucial first-hand insight into their child's strengths, their challenges, and their aspirations. The SEND Code of Practice legally requires local authorities to involve families in decision-making processes. And the children at the very heart of this complex process deserve to be heard. They should be included in decisions about their own support. The children themselves are the ultimate experts on what makes them feel safe, supported, and understood. Their opinions matter. The current system creates barriers and mistrust. I have no doubt that this change will lead to better outcomes for children, empower families, and build a more respectful and supportive relationship between parents, children, caseworkers, and the Council. Thank you. Thank you. Claire Curran. Thank you, Chairman. I absolutely recognise the concern of Councillor Townsend and the other members who have expressed concerns about the structure and the operation of the Education and Governance Board's so-called panels. I know that councillors have raised questions here at Council and at Select Committee, and I wanted to really reiterate the ambition that sound, impartial, and objective decisions are made for children and young people, founded on the statutory criteria and based on evidence and prioritising children's needs. But, Chair, you and other members may agree with my own view that the role of this Council is really more to consider issues of policy and strategy than to focus on a quite specialist area of the operational activity of one directorate. But I do recognise that the scope of the changes that the Council is proposing is completely in line with the end-to-end review and the work of the SEND Transformation Programme. But in this case, noting whatever happens in other authorities that SEND services and operational arrangements must be conducted in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the Children and Families Act and the SEND Code of Practice, both of which are hugely prescriptive, and I doubt whether any of us here in this Chamber have the specialist and wide knowledge of that area of legislation. Therefore, we need to refer to and take advice from qualified professional officers. And additionally, it's appropriate also to discuss potential changes to operational arrangements with stakeholders because we're committed to co-production, and that is one of the tenets of our strategy. And therefore, I think it's appropriate to take this motion away for further consideration at a future Member of Cabinet. Thank you. Thank you. We will now take a recorded vote on the proposed to refer. This time, we will be taking a proper... Not only on the buttons, but it will be a recorded vote. Names will be called out. Thank you, Chair. Members, when I call your name, please state clearly for, against, or abstain. We're going alphabetically. The motion is... The proposal is to refer motion 11, little 3, to Cabinet. Maureen Atterwell. Four. We didn't need a second. We didn't need a second, though. We just referred. But if you need a second there, for the time's sake, yeah. We'll leave the second there. Ayesha Azad. Four. Catherine Bart. Sorry. Against. Against. Steve Bax. Four. John Beckett. Four. Jordan Beach. Four. Luke Bennett. Four. Dennis Booth. Against. Harry Bapari. Against. Liz Bowes. Four. Natalie Bramhall. Four. Helen Clack. Four. Stephen Cooksey. Against. Claire Curran. Four. Nick Darby. Against. Fiona Davidson. Against. Paul Deitch. Four. Kevin Deenas. Four. Jonathan Essex. Against. Robert Evans. Against. Will Fulton. Paul Follows. Against. John Fury. Four. Matt Furness. Four. Angela Goodwin. Against. Jeffrey Gray. Tim Hall. Four. David Harmer. Four. Nick Harrison. Against. Edward Hawkins. Edward Hawkins. Four. Marissa Heath. Four. Robert Hughes. Four. Jonathan Hulley. Four. Sarj Hussain. Four. Rebecca Jennings Evans. Four. Frank Kelly. Four. Four. Reesat Khan. Four. Robert King. Against. Eber Kington. Against. Rachel Lake. Four. Victor Lwanski. Four. David Lewis Cobham. Four. Scott Lewis. Four. Andy Lynch. Four. Andy McLeod. Against. Ernest Mallett. Four. Michaela Martin. Against. Jan Mason. Four. Stephen McCormick. Against. Cameron McIntosh. Four. Sinead Mooney. Four. Bernie Muir. Four. Mark Newty. Four. John O'Reilly. Four. Tim Oliver. Four. George Potter. Against. Catherine Powell. Against. Penny Rivers. Against. John Robini. Against. Becky Rush. Four. Joanne Sexton. Against. Lance Spencer. Against. Leslie Steeds. Four. Richard Teer. Four. Chris Townsend. Against. Liz Townsend. Against. Denise Turner-Stewart. Four. Hazel Watson. Against. Jeremy Webster. Four. For. Budi Wirasangi. For. Fiona White. Against. Keith Witham. For. For. The result is 42, 4, 28, against, zero abstention. So, the motion is to be referred, is carried, referred to the cabinet. The third motion is standing in the name of Marissa Heat. Under standing order 12.3, council has to decide if it wishes to debate this motion today. Does the council wish to debate this motion now? Marissa Heat to move the motion. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, chairman. So, the motion and its recommendations are pretty simple, in my view, and are focused on us protecting Surrey farmers and our Surrey rural businesses. At Surrey County Council, we've committed, through our work on net zero, nature recovery and economic prosperity, to support our farmers. In a county like Surrey, where land is in such demand, farmers help us protect green space and stop urbanisation. And that's why it's important we speak out for them at this council meeting. Having met with and spoken to several of our Surrey farms, it's clear that the announcements under the recent budget has hit them hard, and they're questioning their future going forward. The NFU has pointed to some of DEFRA's own figures, which suggests that 66% of farmers could face higher tax bills now. As alluded to in the motion, farmers have been under other types of pressure over many years, and this is much bigger than Brexit, than COVID. It's the fact that the number of intensive farms in the UK has risen by a quarter since 2011, with many so big, they fit the definition of US mega-style farms. 85% of animals farmed for our meat come from intensive systems, and I state those numbers so you understand how small the ownership of our farms is now. They're mainly owned by corporates. We're losing family-owned farms at a rate beyond imagination, and the same is found across Europe. But in Surrey, we're fortunate if we don't have these destructive mega-farms destroying our environment. For now. We don't have specific numbers yet on how many Surrey farms are going to be affected, but why would we risk it? And also, under wider food security, why would we not care about farmers in Sussex, Kent, Hampshire, in fact, all over the nation? I can tell you a few things I see during my daily travels across this county under the role of Cabinet Member for Environment. A sudden increase in applications or consideration of solar, extensive solar on farms. Several farmers who feel the nation doesn't support them are considering giving up farming. A number of small businesses who are reliant on local farmers and are worried about their future too. And having looked at the books of several farms, I can tell you it's very hard indeed to make a living owing to unfair supply chains. Farmers receive less than 1% of the total profits of the food they produce. Low-scale farming is done because the farmer and the family see it as their duty, and that is something that we should be nurturing and not threatening. If we want to see a sudden selling off of farmland to wealthy landowners, who can either find their way around taxes or can afford to do this, then this is certainly the way to do it. And yes, I acknowledge the caveats. Farmers may avoid the tax by transferring property at least seven years before death, but obviously that doesn't work as the farmer cannot then derive any income. And some may be able to take advantage of the standard household tax allowances if the farm is owned by a couple, potentially pushing them up to tax three three million quid. But again, this does not cover much when you consider the value of surrey land and equipment values. A more progressive way forward would have been tax relief, reserved for those who provide the best environmental stewardship and other public goods. Exemptions targeted at those who are farming the land to produce nutritious food, while providing public goods such as habitat creation and flood protection. That is what would have worked for Surrey and our agenda as well, and the government needs to think again. Under the last government, we had the Rural Prosperity Fund, but this is due to its spire, and currently there's nothing due to replace it. Driving investment in rural areas is vital for both keeping the character of Surrey intact, but also driving economic recovery. The last fund indeed only covered certain areas, but I firmly believe we need new funding to go wider into all of our rural communities across Surrey. I've had the pleasure of meeting many businesses, rural businesses in this county, but a couple of weeks ago I met a family running Northfield Farm Supplies in the Dorking. And this is a business that was doing really well until it was hit by the increasing energy costs from Ukraine, and then got hit by the oil spillage on the A24, which meant closure. Supporting businesses like this should be an absolute top priority and a lifeline if there was some funding for them, and the government needs to consider how they help both small and rural businesses. With our interest in economic development, the county council should ask that the Rural Prosperity Fund is replaced and is available more broadly to our rural businesses across Surrey. When the government says there's no money, that doesn't seem applicable for public sector pay rises and additional funding for the NHS. Without British farming and without a rural economy, we may realise quite soon that it's the farmers who are up there as the GPs, surgeons and health workers, crucial to our health, crucial to our food security, and crucial to our Surrey countryside. I move the motion herein. Thank you. This has been seconded by Councillor Furness. Do you want to speak now or reserve your right? I reserve my right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Paul Fellows? I have moved an amendment that I hope you can now be introduced. Yes? Cool. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning again, everyone. Considering the last motion, I should perhaps start by suggesting that council hasn't got the competence to deal with this, and that I'm sure you haven't read all the legislation and are not completely up to it. But let's assume everybody's aware at council and it's still sovereign to debate and discuss issues of import. It may come as a surprise to you that I actually support this motion in general, but can't quite get there without some relatively minor changes. Firstly, I can't sit here and support a motion about farming that doesn't talk about Brexit more holistically. It was interesting that you mentioned it in your introduction, Marissa, but didn't mention it at all in the motion. Whatever the views on Brexit, leaving the common agricultural policy, leaving the single market, has made life harder and more complex for farmers. I know it's a little inconvenient for some of you in this room to admit that, but it is the reality. And the Royal Prosperity Fund is the shadow of the EU funding that it had previously, despite multiple promises that it would be at least equal. Other than the word Brexit, I've also added the word sustainable in front of the word growth. This is a council that has declared a climate emergency and so shouldn't be in favour of growth at any cost or under any circumstances. Now, don't get me wrong, I would love to meet whoever is running the Labour Party's politics shop at the moment and speak to them face to face and ask them exactly what planet they're on, in that they seem to be able to take any narrative, however positive or negative, and weaponise it for their opposition to do something about at their expense. But that doesn't mean that a government seeking to deal with tax avoidance is a bad or improper thing in its own merits. Indeed, I hope everyone in this room would consider the proper and appropriate objective for a government of any political stripe, particularly in this sort of funding climate, to look at things such as tax avoidance. Now, naturally, nationally, in my opinion, the discussion should have been about the thresholds where that tax applied, the level of which I'm not going to give an opinion on here, rather than the existence of the policy at all. But you only need to look at many of the people coming out in favour of this straight off. Nigel Farage, for example, who is about as much of a farmer as I am. Certainly it's possible he's spent more time in Clacton than on his farm, which would be slightly impressive in its own right. But it's also just worth noting about how agricultural land can be used in this way to land bank and to, therefore, commit tax avoidance. It took, basically, a change of minister for any actual changes to the MPPF to actually happen. Michael Gove said in two policy speeches that we should not be building on agricultural land. But whilst the minister for local government did not change those rules, and a subsequent minister did do a little bit about that, but there's clearly some more that could be done. So as a result, I proposed, I hope, some fairly reasonable modifications to this, calling for a review of the policy, because it is impacting farmers, and emphasis on the reasons for the policy being put in place, which was to look at tax avoidance, and also to reiterate our support for genuine farmers, i.e. people who were actually growing and farming projects and contributing to food security, and all of the other positive reasons which I completely endorse. It also calls on the government to further consider changes to the MPPF to reduce the desirability of this form of land-based tax avoidance, and finally for the government to try and improve its working relationship with the EU on matters of trade, so import and export policy, and also agricultural policy in general, which is a huge issue for all of our farmers, not just here in Surrey, but right across the country. Now I hope this amendment is taking the spirit that's meant to do as much as we can to collectively help farmers in Surrey. We don't do that by ignoring the wider issues, just because they're a little inconvenient. We don't help farmers by forgetting those things that are impacting their businesses and their livelihoods, and indeed to help with wider issues of food and energy security. And we also should not, I think, be allowing unchecked tax avoidance through land banking. Land banking has, of course, got other detrimental effects when it comes to things such as house building. We're seeing huge issues with commissions granted non-eating bills, so there are clearly other issues in this process as well, as ever all these things are linked. So I hope you would consider these moderate amendments within the spirit of what you're debating here today, in support of our farmers, both locally and nationally, and also to address the serious issue that does come around through tax avoidance through abuse of the land system. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. You'll remember this seconded by Lance Spencer. Lance, do you wish to speak now? I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I never thought in a million years I'd get to speak on this particular subject at a Surrey County Council meeting. Woking has, in its entire area, not just my division, one single farm. And across Surrey, there are far fewer farms than most other shire counties. However, my interest is based on being brought up on a small family farm in the West Midlands. I was the youngest of four brothers, which explains why I live in the south-east, and I did not remain on the farm with my brothers, who continued to farm there. It was a small farm of about 200 acres that my family has farmed for just four generations. My father took on the farm with his father in the 1930s, when farmland had no value at all. Food was plentiful from the British Empire. In the 1950s, he bought the farm there for the princely sum of £6,000, so £30 per acre. When he died in 1999, it was worth £2,000 per acre, and now it's probably worth about £10,000 an acre. In a good year, the profits would be less than the minimum wage, and in a bad year, the farm lost money. Such is the nature of British farming. Before Brexit and the subsequent trade deals, it hammered farming even more. I do find it odd that the party that has done more damage to farming the last ten years than any party for generations is now rather belatedly trying to support our local farmers. This is beautifully evidenced by Jeremy Clarkson on the Diddley Squat farm. If you've missed it, it's well worth binge-watching over Christmas. I highly recommend it as a way to learn how unprofitable even a large 1,000-acre farm is. Jeremy paid £4.45 million for his farm. In his first year, he made the princely sum of £144, and in 2023, he lost a lot of money in farming. So the only reason that people like Jeremy Clarkson buy lands is to avoid inheritance tax, which explains why the land value is so high compared with the negligible returns from farming. Of course, this means that the land can never be purchased by genuine young farmers, as no bank would ever lend money for such a financially unsound business. The legislation proposed by the government seeks to stop the land from being used as a financial instrument, but does not sufficiently take into account the plight of genuine family farmers, such as my brothers. However, the motion presented before us today, before the amendments, does not take into account the need to stop the land being used primarily for inheritance tax planning purposes. We absolutely do need to encourage farms to be handed down through the generations, as there is an extraordinary bond between the farmers and the land they cultivate. And the more locally sourced food we can produce, the better it's going to be for the environment and our local economy. This amendment seeks to address this issue with the motion, and I commend this amendment to the members here today. Councillor Heath, do you... Yeah. Do you mind if you support the amendment? No, I won't be supporting the amendment for the following reasons, although I have some points... No, no, that's enough. You're not supporting it. That's all right. Am I allowed to come back or not? You'll have to come back later. So, members, we're debating now the amendment, which is open for debate. I have two names already, Michelle and Martin. This is for the amendment. Speaking on the amendment? Yeah, yeah, yes, that's right here. I will have to speak against the amendment after looking at and talking to young farmers. You may think I have very little knowledge as I am a subdivision councillor for South Farmer. But my daughter and my niece went to an agricultural university, Harper Adams, and the majority of their colleagues are now in the supply chain to the food to your tables. At university, I saw these young people go back every weekend and every holiday to work on those farms. For no money, just to make sure that the family farm kept going. Farmers work 365 days a year at 24 hours. I know dairy farmers that get up at 4 o'clock in the morning and don't finish to about 10 o'clock at night. You're there to look after your livestock. Also, we talk about poverty in this area. But there's such thing as rural poverty and this will only increase it because farmers will be unable to pay their stockmen, etc. Majority of farms live on an overdraft. How on earth are they going to save to pay for the inheritance tax? I regard farming as a calling. It's rather like being a doctor. But you're not paid at the end of it. You get no pension. The only consolation is that you're leaving that land to the next generation who have worked hard and keep on working in it. They regard themselves as caretakers of the land for our community. And I hope that we can keep the aspirations going of the younger generation of farmers right through the country so they'll keep on giving us food. And actually, it's cheaper food than the rest of the continent. And we go on about Brexit. Brexit has allowed us to have our individuality out of it. You don't realise, Paul, that Werner de Leyden has brought in a new thing that they've signed a deal with South America allowing them to import cheap food into Europe. It's not going to help their farmers. I'm sorry, but I am against this amendment motion, but thank you. Do you want to turn it over to you? Thank you. Thank you. We've heard about farmers, the rural economy, supporting businesses, protecting the natural environment, the need for growth to be retained in the rural area and for that to be sustainable. Brexit is mentioned, but it's only really mentioned in the notes, this motion. So I just wanted to focus on the three proposed recommendations of the amendment to see whether I want to support them and why, and share that with you. Firstly, to distinguish between large landowners and family farms as proposed. Not to challenge completely the policy of the national government on IHT, but to make it sensible and fair. To distinguish between the avoidance of tax and the need to support family farmers. I would highlight one example that's already been mentioned by Lance, Strathhorn Farm. It's 1,000 acres. It was bought as a gig to avoid inheritance tax. But the new owner renamed it Diddly Squat to suggest it's small. 1,000 acres isn't small. The average family farm is an order of magnitude smaller than that. And I think it's clear that there is a distinction, and that distinction needs to be made. And we could make that distinction here today. Secondly, solar farms. We need them, but we need them in the right place. Not on grade one agricultural land, which is a flaw in the national planning policy framework that we need to address. This amendment sends a clear signal that we recognise the need to address this issue, including here in Surrey on our farms. And thirdly, relationship with the EU. If we're serious about climate change, we need to make sure that the heaviest things we buy and the things which degrade quickest are bought close to us. I did a piece of research looking at the UK's imports and exports in 2019, which was the Brexit year. At that point, 16% of fruit and 54% of vegetables consumed in the UK were grown here, the lowest level for over 20 years. The UK's got a climate suitable for growing apples and pears. Yet in 2019, we imported 438,000 tonnes more than we exported. The majority came from France, but the greatest carbon impact came from that imported the furthest, because it was flown from South Africa and New Zealand. Brexit and the trade rules affect climate change and our relationship with the planet. We need to make sure we buy our agriculture as locally as possible and work within the common market at least as much as we can going forward to address that. So I think all of these three amendments are sensible. The reference to Brexit is in the start in the notes where it belongs, and I urge you all to support it. It's a common sense amendment. Thank you. Councillor Lee. Thank you, Chairman. I recognise that for two members of this chamber, of whom I'm quite fond, this is a political motion. That's the difficult privilege of being in government as they find their party. But I don't want this motion made into a political football around the pros and negatives of leaving the EU as the attempt has been made. I would also point out that one of the recommendations I've added is to Claire for us, seeing as the government has already committed to a common veterinary agreement with the EU, which is likely to mean adopting equal standards and enabling ease of access to animal products and trade of all sorts. From my understanding, initial discussions are already taking place with the EU on that. I would also say that the motion puts in the changes around the notes on Brexit again. If we're going to talk of the EU, farming has been struggling for a long, long time, and much of this can be tied to the common agricultural policy. We've got much less than we put in. Let's not forget that it was not only was CAP criticised for encouraging farming practices that were significantly damaging to the environment, but the CAP benefited large landowners just for only more land, and it gave protectionism that damaged developing countries. I don't think that's either ethical or right. So I think my motion needs to stay as it is, which is clean and simple. It's about protecting our farmers, protecting our food security. Either you want to support Surrey farmers and our rural businesses, or you want to use this motion to make your ideological point around Brexit and other matters. As for tax avoidance, that is something all governments must manage and deal with, and I would advise the government to carry on thinking that one through. I think it will be evident in the vote on this motion if people really care about our farmers or not. Thank you. I have no more speakers, so four fellows to reply. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Just a few elements there. Councillor Martin, I didn't actually hear anything disagreeing with the motion at all. I mean, this is actually trying to strengthen it to make sure that food security and support of farmers who are actually farming and the thresholds themselves are something that we think about rather than just scrapping it and allowing people who are deliberately abusing the land policies of this country and the planning policies of this country to effectively avoid taxation. There will always be debates about Brexit and the benefits of that. I come from a background of academic study in the subject and consider myself educated sufficiently to make comments on the subject, and I'm standing by my comments on that. Give me a chance to. Councillor Kazahic, I completely understand your points regarding the cap. The cap has actually got serious issues with it, and it did, and it always did. I've always been somebody who thought that trying to reform a system rather than replace it outright when you've got no alternatives is always a good thing to do, and there are many aspects of the European Union that needed serious reform, its democratic side being one. But also things such as common agricultural policy. That is not to say that since leaving the European Union that farmers who were operating based on having cap money coming in have not been put at harm, partly because they were promised at several points that they will be getting the equivalent subsidy back from the United Kingdom government, which they did not get. European development funding money, there may have been a net outflow of funding from the United Kingdom to the European Union, but there was money spent in the regional areas, and particularly the rural areas, which again the government said as part of Brexit discussions would be restored and at least equal, but it has not been. And so we're in a situation where farmers are at a deficit because of Brexit. So you don't need to talk about whether you agree with or disagree with Brexit. Merely the point I'm making is that farmers are worse off as a result, and it needs to be a factor in discussing how we support farmers going forward. To ignore it completely is folly, because it's just a reality. The money that they used to get is not coming in, and the government are not meeting it. Now in terms of the rest about tax avoidance, I cannot sit here and understand how, when somebody says, we think that government should always be dealing with tax avoidance, why you would oppose a clause suggesting that we try and do more about it. I mean, at the root of the government policy here, however mismanaged their politics were, and they were dreadfully mismanaged, and I'm hoping our late party colleagues at least will concede that too, dreadfully mismanaged, just like the wings of fuel around and stuff, that actually the root of this was attempting to deal with large-scale tax avoidance. It is a policy designed to raise revenue in a country that needs more revenue to fund public services, and to stop those who are doing massive land banking from getting away without paying any tax. So from my point of view, the amendment is necessary to continue to support farmers who actually farm, on the sorts of farms that are below the thresholds anyway, who have been promised money as a result of leaving the European Union that they now don't have, among other things that they are struggling with in an economy that needs more money for public services. Thank you. All I'm saying here is review the policy, and make sure tax avoidance is at its core. Thank you very much, Mr. Chen. We will now go to vote. It's regarding the amendment. All those in favour, please press the green button, and as the system worked earlier, you don't need to raise your hands. So press the green button. If you have four, all those against, press the red. For the amendment, press green. For against the amendment, press red. And any abstentions, press yellow. We are voting on the amendment. The vote is now closed. 17 for the amendment, 47 against, 2 abstentions. So we're back to the original motion. The amendment is lost. The amendment is lost. And now we're debating the original motion. Any speakers? Denise? Thank you, Chairman. Surrey, our green and pleasant county, renowned for our abundance of woodland and beautiful working countryside. From Spellthorn and Runnymede in the north to Waverley and Mole Valley in the south, our farming and agricultural sector contributes over 500 million to the economy and accounts for 14% of national farming income, according to a University of Surrey report. Our farms produce a wide variety of produce, many kinds of vegetables, fruits, cereals and flowers. Our livestock farms, beef and dairy cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. In Surrey Hills alone, where 40% of the land is agricultural, over 800 people are directly employed in over 300 land holdings. 10% of the AONB is laid to crops or fallow. 23% are grazing. Our farmers are committed to safeguarding flora and fauna, providing wildlife corridors to enable endangered wildflowers and plants, insects, birds and mammals to thrive and stubble for ground-nesting birds, promoting, supporting and preserving traditional rural skills, hedge laying, orchard planting, coppicing and pond restoration. Our farmers today have farmed in Surrey for decades and are proud of the farming and stewardship they undertake to benefit the food chain and our environment. They wish to pass sustainable and viable farming businesses to future generations of farmers. Many of our farms get children engaged in farming and the countryside so they understand and appreciate it as custodians of the future. Through educational, environmental and local food projects, they teach our children the important link between what they see in a field and what ends up on their plates. A farming estate only needs to be valued at £1.3 million for their economic returns to be wiped out by inheritance tax under the new regime. Our farms are much more exposed to the impacts of these punitive inheritance tax measures due to high land and property prices in Surrey. According to the NFU, farms protected by the £1 million threshold are too small to be viable. Medium-sized farms hit by this liability will not be protected by the 10-year payment window, resulting in payments unmanageably large relative to the economic returns they earn, with a much more significant risk to these farms being broken up to pay inheritance tax payments than in statements from the Chancellor since the measures were announced. These measures are a direct threat to Surrey's farming families and community. We are fiercely protective of our farms in Surrey and our extensive rural economy. Our farming community has thrived for centuries in Surrey and has played an enormous part in shaping our landscape, our culture and our outdoor opportunities for employment, leisure, health and wellbeing. Our beautiful market towns were formed through the agricultural trade and host regular farmers' markets, providing a local, healthy and sustainable food source direct into our communities. We stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers in Surrey. We recognise and value the vital contribution that farming makes to Surrey's economy and identity. We have your back and we will with you. I wholeheartedly support this motion. It is of both local and national importance and provides an opportunity to recognise and thank our farmers who work so very hard day and night to bring high-quality British food to our tables. Thank you, Chairman. Robert Evans. Thank you very much, Chair, colleagues. The mover of the motion said you didn't want things to be a political football. And I understand there's a demand from some members in this chamber to have a pop at the government and a recent budget. I think some of them have been waiting 14 years for that. But for the motion to have any impact in this council chamber, surely it needs to be better organised, well organised, accurate and based on facts, not guesswork. This is a cut-and-paste motion which fails on all counts and in the time allowed, I will highlight them. Firstly, it fails to mention that one of the largest holders of farmland in this county, with over 2,000 hectares, is Surrey County Council itself, us. So that's a serious omission from the preamble. Secondly, the fourth point, and this was one that the move of the motion used, a phrase used again in the thing. Several farms, it refers to. And it ends, many feel. But how many? We don't know because the Cabinet members don't know themselves or haven't done the research. This inaccuracy and sloppiness comes up again in the sixth point when it speaks of the average size of farms as 88 hectares. But this is wrong. This is not the figure for Surrey. This is a figure for the southeast, a region stretching from Oxfordshire to the Isle of Wight, Berkshire to Kent. According to, and Councillor Turner Stewart referred to the research done by Surrey University, they say that the average farm size in Surrey is 50 hectares, much less than the regional average of 88 hectares quoted or just carelessly cut and pasted from the Debra website into this motion. Relative land values vary enormously across the southeast region, as does the type of farming. But Surrey University again concluded that while the make-up of Surrey agriculture is somewhat more diverse, the farms themselves are smaller owing to the high cost of land in the region. For example, a farmer who, say, inherited a farm worth £1 million 25 years ago now has an asset of an estimated £3 million or more, £2 million in profit or unearned income should he or she sell it. An ordinary Surrey householder or a wealthy Surrey householder in the same situation would expect to pay 40% inheritance tax unless he or she, quite legally, passed it on seven years before the death or set up in a trust, which farmers can still do, and the government has made awareness for this. Surrey farmers, like all farmers, can also use red diesel in agricultural machinery, which gives them a 50% reduction on the fuel. And then we come to the conclusions at the end. Well, the first two points are informing the Treasury, and of course we can do this. But the third one says to ensure that Surrey County Council continues and increases support for farmers and so on. What is this support? Has it been approved by Cabinet? How much is it going to cost? And is it in the budget? Well, if you want to vote for this motion, you will be supporting something not properly researched, inaccurate, impossible, and frankly, unbefitting of this Council. Your choice. Poor fellows. Withdrawn, Mr. Evans has covered the statistical inaccuracies I was going to cover. Any other speakers? Oh, Matt, you reserve your right. I think everything's been said, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we need to. Yes. Rissa? Sure. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Irvans, I can understand your positioning. You're from a very urban constituency, but I get round and speak to farmers on a daily basis in my day job, as well as the Cabinet Member for Environment. Many, dozens, hundreds, in fact. I joined the protest. I saw them all. And this is not just about Surrey. This is about putting food, affordable food, on the tables of Surrey's residents as well. That means the food grown across this nation is equally significant as Surrey here. So forgive me if my motion doesn't suit your requirements for accuracy. And I withdraw my comment earlier about fondness for you after that one as well. As I said, this is a lot bigger than Surrey. 50 acres average size, you point out. Well, there's still higher land values in Surrey as well. So that still means a problem for Surrey farmers here. So I still stick to my original motion, which is about protecting our farmers. And as I said, making sure that we don't see increased food costs as a result of this for all of our residents across Surrey. And when I talk about continuing and supporting our farmers, our local food production and rural businesses, yes, I hold numerous meetings with them. I go round visiting our farmers all the time. The officer group are there to talk to them as well. We deal with them on flooding matters. We try and help them with the issues they're facing. And I'm saying we should do as much as we can. We don't have funding to go out there and support them, which is why I'm asking government not to hurt them with this IHT demand and also to come up with some money to help our rural businesses. That is the thrust of the motion, and I stick with it. Thank you. We're moving to the vote now. So all those in favour, please press the green button. All those against, press the red. Any abstention, press the yellow. Voting is open. Voting is now closed. 47-4. 5 against. 16 abstained. That's carried. Motion 2, which is now motion 4, standing in the name of Jonathan Essex. Understanding order 12.3, council has to decide if it wishes to debate this motion today. Does the council wish to debate this motion now? Councillor Curran. Chairman, thank you. I'd like to move that this motion be referred to the Select Committee, the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning Select Committee. Jonathan Essex to speak for two minutes. Thank you. I would like this motion to be debated as one, as it's an issue of policy and strategy, which you've said earlier would warrant debate here. But if it is to be referred, I hope the Cabinet Member will now call on the Right Honourable Angela Rayner, MP, to direct more funding to prevention, not just early help for children's services. Budget constraints have led to our children's services work being targeted close to statue services, effective in reducing children being brought into care, but also reducing prevention and emerging need support to a wider set of families. Indeed, research has highlighted SureStart children's centres provided earlier support to families together for those who live near the centres. They reduced child hospital admissions and obesity, improved child mental health, led to 13% less 16-year-olds getting a criminal conviction and 20% less drug-related offences, and nearly a grade higher at GCSEs across all subjects, and increased centre support for five-year-olds led to less children needing an EHCP by secondary school age. Savings exceeded costs. Prevention works. So should this motion be referred to Select Committee, I ask for assurance that, without delay, we will explore a broader preventative approach to children's services going forward, that reaches our most deprived communities, especially as the cost of living crisis has pushed up child poverty in Surrey. So let's recreate enough centres within the PRAM pushing distances from our areas of greatest social need, and collaborate, and all commission our voluntary and community sector to work with us, so that we lead, and we assure it happens across Surrey. Thank you. Claire Curran. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I do want to start by saying I have a great deal of sympathy, and welcome, Councillor Essex, this motion, and I do hope that by referring it to the Select Committee, there will be the time for reflection, coordination, research, and resource to be directed to it, so that they actually can do some work on developing recommendations that will bring forward this Council's future policy around early help and intervention. I am a bit heartened by the announcement of the government recently in the area of social care, describing it as the biggest overhaul in a generation, and looking to rebalance in favour of early intervention, and also taking into account national findings of the family hub pilots and the pathfinder authorities around the national family's first initiative. I notice that the local government finance policy statement is hinting at changes in the funding frameworks around early help services, and I know that what Council of Essex is looking at calls on our family first early help strategy, but also covers things like our best start for Surrey strategy, and our early years strategy, the additional needs and disability strategy, the work around youth justice, the lifetime of learning, and of course, same transformation. I really think that also his ambitions touch on the work being done to encourage stronger communities. It's about the strong link with our voluntary community and faith networks across the county, about the health and well-being board's work around poverty, and also the towns and villages work being done by health colleagues. So I welcome this motion, and I hope it will produce something really fruitful. Thank you. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Under what? Under 28.1 again, as the Council seems to not wish to debate matters of children's services, SEND or anything else, I again request a recorded vote, and I believe I have 10 members to support. Okay, we're going for a recorded vote, so listen to your name and then please vote. Members, you are voting on the proposal to refer the motion standing in Jonathan Essex's name to the Children and Families Lifelong Learning Select Committee. Please clearly state for, against, or abstain when I call your name. Maureen Atterwell. For. Ayesha Azad. For. Catherine Barth. Against. Steve Bucks. For. John Beckett. Against. Jordan Beach. For. Luke Bennett. For. Amanda, oh she's not here, Dennis Booth. Against. Harry Bapari. Against. Liz Bowes. For. Natalie Bramhall. For. Helen Clack. For. Stephen Cooksey. Against. Claire Curran. For. Nick Darby. Against. Fiona Davidson. Against. Paul Deitch. For. Kevin Deanas. For. Jonathan Essex. Against. Robert Evans. Against. Against. Paul Follows. Against. John Fury. For. Matt Furness. Angela Goodwin. Against. Tim Hall. For. David Harmer. For. For. For. For. For. For. Nick Harrison. For. Edward Hawkins. For. Marissa Heath. For. Bob Hughes. For. Jonathan Hulley. For. Sarge Hussain. For. Rebecca Jennings Evans. For. Frank Kelly. For. For. Reesat Khan. For. Robert King. Against. Eva Kingston. Against. Rachel Lake. For. Victor Lewinsky. For. David Lewis Cobham. For. Scott Lewis. For. Andy Lynch. For. Andy McLeod. Against. Again. Ernest Mallett. For. Michaela Martin. I've had a day. Jan Mason. For. Stephen McCormick. Against. Cameron McIntosh. For. Julia McShane. She's not here. Sinead Mooney. For. Carla... Oh, she's not here. Bernie Muir. For. For. Mark Newty. For. John O'Reilly. For. Tim Oliver. For. George Potter. For. Catherine Powell. Against. Penny Rivers. Against. John Robini. Against. Becky Rush. For. Joanne Sexton. Against. Lance Spencer. Against. Leslie Steeds. Against. So... For. For. Richard Teer. For. Chris Townsend. Against. Liz Townsend. Against. Denise Turner-Stewart. For. Hazel Watson. Against. Jeremy Webster. For. Budi Wirisingi. For. Fiona White. Against. Keith Witham. For. For. That's 42, 4, 25, against, and one abstention, so it's referred. Item 12 is the report of the Cabinet, which is on pages 65 to 75 of the agenda. I call the Leader to present a report of the meetings of the Cabinet held on the 29th and 26th of 2024. Thank you, Chair. In fact, just, I was going to ask for clarification. It may be irrelevant now as the Liberal Democrats are going to call for a recorded vote on any time they don't get their own way. But on the electronic voting, it's quite small. So if you've got a fat finger like me and you push the wrong button, can it be reversed? Okay. That's fine. Just checking. Right, Chair, members, I present the reports of Cabinet held on the 29th of October, 2024, and 26th of November, 2024. The Cabinet recommendations recommends that the County Council approves the Coordinated Admission Scheme, which will apply to all applications, applicants, and schools for 2026. Are we agreed? Is there any debate on this? Open for debate? No? Are we agreed? Please agree. Agreed, yeah. Report for information and discussion. I call paragraph B to C. Paragraph B, your fund survey application, new Rowley Village Hall, Project Farnham. Paragraph C, London Road, Guilford Active Travel Scheme, independent technical assessment of Section 1 for consideration to proceed. I call paragraph D and H. I call paragraph D, reports from select committee, task groups, and other committees of the Council. Paragraph E, Bagshord Community Recycling Centre. Paragraph F, 2025-26, draft budget and medium-term financial strategy to 20-30. Paragraph E, equality in education, no learner, left behind, service, lifetime of learning strategy. I call paragraph H, right, homes, rights, support, older people's residential and nursing care delivery strategy. Paragraph E, I call paragraph I, quarterly reporting on decisions taken under special urgency arrangements, 1st of October 2024 to 2nd of December 2024. The Cabinet recommends that the County Council notes that there have been no urgent decisions since the last Cabinet report to the Council. The motion is that the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on the 29th of October 2024 and 26th of November 2024 be adopted. Are we agreed? Yes, we are agreed. Item 13 is the Minute of the Cabinet meeting, which is on the pages 73 to 86 of the Agenda and pages 5 to 30 of the 1st Supplementary Agenda. I now turn to the final item of the Agenda today and notification to make statement, question on the Minute has been received. That concludes the meeting. Thank you, members. I wish you and your families a very happy Christmas and prosperous new year, filled with joy, peace and good health. And hopefully, when we come back next year, we'll have a bit more stable and professional-like manners to address. Thank you. Thank you.