Transcript

Happy New Year. Welcome to this extraordinary meeting of the County Council. I will now run through some housekeeping rules. Social media, in line with our guidance on the use of social media, I'm happy for anyone attending today's meeting, including members of the Council, to use social media, provided that 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. I would also like to mention that this meeting allows for participation by video conference via Microsoft Teams, that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, if the chat feature is enabled, please do not use it. Its use limits the transparency and open discussion we aim to maintain in a public meeting. Microphones, members will have to indicate that they wish to speak to the chair, and when called, use microphones 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 a fire alarm sounding, everyone present is asked to leave for 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 your nearest exit. Speaking rules, those that can, please stand when addressing the chair and council. Speakers 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, the clock will change to amber. When a member's time is up, the clock will flash red. Voting for the item of business will be done electronically unless a recorded vote is called under standing order 28.1. Conduct. Members, may I take the opportunity to remind you of the need to be respectful and courteous with each other. Members are to remain seated until I have concluded and closed the meeting before leaving the chamber. I hope that we can have a civil meeting and conduct the necessary business of the council today, without disturbance or disruption. Item one, apologies for absence. I ask the assistant director, Vicky Herbert, to report apologies for absence. Thank you chair. Apologies for absence have been received from Liz Bowes, Chris Farr, Marissa Heath, David Lewis from Camberley West, Andy Lynch, Mikaela Martin, Rebecca Paul, Becky Rush, Joanne Sexton, Leslie Steeds and Mark Sugden. We do have a number of members attending remotely today. They have speaking rights but no voting rights. Thank you chair. Any other apologies? Declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of indescribable pecuniary interest, significant personal interest or previous interest that members wish to make at this point? Item three is the English Devolution White Paper on pages seven to 30 of the supplementary agenda published on 31st of December 2022. Before I begin this item, I would like to ask the monitoring officer to set out the legal position in respect of the role of the council in this issue. Thank you chair. Good morning members. The report before council today is requesting that the council note the leader's response to the letter from government. The function for responding to the minister's letter and the white paper is one that falls within the responsibility of the leader and cabinet, as set out in the local government, as set out in the local government, the local government act 2000 and the local authorities function and responsibility regulations. This is also set out in our constitution under part three under the responsibilities for the leader and cabinet. The matter of the elections to be held in May 2025 and the powers to make an order postponing or more strictly changing the year of the election does not fall to the council. It is the power of the Secretary of State as set out in the 2000 act. The ask in the letter of the Secretary of State is to look for a request to have been made by an authority before considering whether to use these powers as set out in the act. Thank you chair. Thank you. I have been advised that there may be a request for a recorded vote, which I would be happy to accept at the appropriate time, understanding order 28.1. I now call the leader to introduce the report. Thank you chair and happy new year to members and indeed to the members of the public. I have brought the published officer report to council to enable elected members to express their view on the government's proposals for mayoral devolution that they set out in the white paper published shortly before Christmas. The Labour government's intention is clear. They are seeking universal coverage of strategic authorities. No one should be in any doubt as to the government's commitment to delivering that ambition. On page 35 of the white paper it says, in order to ensure a complete national layer of strategic authorities is in place to devolve further powers to in future, we will legislate for ministerial directing, which will enable the government to create strategic authorities in any remaining places where local leaders in that region have not been able to agree how to access devolved powers. It is against that background that we are having this debate. In my view, the primary issue is what is in the best interest of the residents of Surrey and that must be in the forefront of our minds throughout this debate. Secondly, we need to understand the benefits that mayoral devolution will bring to this county. The government, as we know, is focused on growth and they believe that devolution has delivered higher productivity, which in turn means more money in people's pockets. The annex to the report to council sets out the differing powers for the different levels of authorities. Devolution will enable policies to be tailored to local situations with decisions to be made by those who know the area best and communities will have a greater decision, greater say in decisions that affect them in devolved areas. The White Paper also recognizes that given mayors are the government's strong preference, the deepest powers will only be available at the mayoral level and will include flexible allocated funding with a long-term investment fund, together with a strong voice for Surrey residents on the Council of Nations and Regions. Mayoral strategic authorities are going to happen. On that basis, I can see no convincing arguments as to why we should not engage with the government at the earliest opportunity to seek to secure the best deal we possibly can for our residents. Mayoral devolution requires the establishment of unitary councils. How the 12 authorities in Surrey are reorganized, and of course all 12 authorities will be abolished as part of that reorganization, will be a matter for detailed discussion and consultation with residents. But we need to recognize that there are significant levels of debt within a number of the authorities, and the creation of unitards within Surrey would need to take into account the financial sustainability of those new authorities. We will, of course, request that the government write off those debts, particularly in Woking as part of our submission. At a meeting of all the district and borough leaders and chief executives yesterday, there was agreement that the unitaryization was going to happen. Excuse me. And I'm pleased that they agreed my proposal to set up a cross-party steering group which will start work immediately on the interim submission that all two-tier councils must make to government by this March. We now need to focus on what is the best model for all our residents recognizing the communities they live and work in. In the letter from the minister dated the 16th of December 2024, he has indicated that he is minded to lay secondary legislation to postpone local council elections from May 25 to May 26 if areas need reorganization to unlock devolution, which we do in Surrey. This council has no powers to delay the election. Only the government can take that decision. But I believe what we now need is clarity and certainty for both residents and staff as soon as possible on what a mayoral strategic authority looks like. And we could only do that if we secure a place on the government's accelerated reorganization program. As this council is aware, ultimately any response to a government white paper is an executive function. And I have therefore called an urgent cabinet meeting this afternoon where we will reflect on the points made during this debate prior to making a decision to send the draft letter to the Minister of State. I have no doubt that we can secure more for our residents if we actively engage on a cross-party basis with all key stakeholders. We owe it to our residents to try to control this agenda as much as possible. Because if we don't, then a solution is going to be imposed on us and one which we have no opportunity to shape. Thank you. Now the item is open for debate. Council follows. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, officers, members, and members of the public. And Happy New Year to you all. Certainly this is a Christmas gift that many of us did not want from the government. But, members, this morning is a morning ultimately about choices. Although, of course, not yours, the democratically elected councillors of Surrey. Yesterday, the districts and borough leaders of Surrey met with the leader of the council, several of which, including me, are, of course, in this room this morning. This group contains Liberal Democrat leaders, Independent leaders, and one Conservative leader. That group made itself very clear and issued this joint statement yesterday, which has been shared to the press and to all of you this morning, which said essentially this. We understand that local government reform is necessary. We accept and broadly agree that some unitary council combination would make sense for a variety of reasons. But we believe the pace, the haste, and the lack of plan should not just be folly, but a clear threat to services our residents need, and we do not accept that elections must be cancelled. And, of course, despite what many Conservatives in this room and outside keep saying, the government aren't asking us or making us cancel elections. The Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in an interview this morning that councils are not being forced to act this way, and this mirrors what we have been told on multiple occasions by MHCLG as recently as yesterday afternoon. The timetable remains as is, and the work is going to happen, and we can do everything that the leader is proposing to do whilst holding the scheduled elections, which he neglected to mention when he talked about the statement and the agreement yesterday in that meeting. The leader has argued that leaping in here brings benefits, but nobody has outlined what they are. And honestly, whatever they are, unless they include defined government intervention on debt and adult social care, nothing is worth taking that leap because then any successor authorities will be immediately in serious trouble. I have no basis to concede that the legal authority of the leader to take the decision in Part B, but I will remind him, of course, that just because he has the power doesn't mean that he needs to exercise it. He could have given you a meaningful debate on this this morning. He could have given you a meaningful vote on this this morning. But, of course, he doesn't trust either you or the people of Surrey to give him what he wants, so he's not going to do that, is he? Now, with our plan, we could also see council assets over the county being sold to address the debt in other places. The idea that playing fields in Godalming are going to be sold to pay off the debt and racked up by Conservative woking is not something that my residents particularly want. And looking at unitarization, everywhere it's happened, it's taken more than a year. As a Democrat, I cannot stand by and watch the Conservative administration of this council seek to cancel elections on entirely false premises and entirely at the decision of the leader of this council without any real plan. This is a choice. Cancelling the elections in these circumstances is not in the interest of residents. Members, I urge you to urge this leader of the council to trust you, to trust the people of Surrey to have elections because they do not impact the timetable of what's happening here and agree with nearly 3,000 residents who have signed a petition in nearly four days. Thank you. Time's up. I will call a recorded vote, understanding all the time. Thank you. Time's up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councillor Pollan. Thank you, Chair. Is change to the way government is structured needed? Yes. Is funding change needed? Yes. The demand and cost for adults and children's social care must be addressed. The SEND system and Surrey's strategy are failing far too many children with unmet needs and urgently needs to be resolved. We desperately need more social housing, proper infrastructure and support for residents, not a strategy to promote developers maximising their profits on the remaining prime building plots. Many councils across England have unserviceable debt, particularly Woking. Does the White Paper set out to resolve these issues and create a sustainable long-term basis for local government? No. Does it address the fundamental issues of local government finances and debt? No. Is it a highly aggressive timetable that sets councils on a path that is like rearranging the debt chairs on the Titanic when you've already hit the iceberg? Yes. I've spent the 16th to the 31st of December going through a detailed analysis of Surrey. It's conurbations, it's economic areas, the way it's split today. What did I find? The ground rules of the White Paper fell well short of what is likely to create a successful, workable, long-term solution for residents or businesses in Surrey. I found the government intend to rewire the relationship between towns and parish councils and principal authorities, strengthening expectation of engagement and community voice, but no mention of how it will be done. Some of Surrey has towns and parishes, but not all. Will we leave a democratic gap? When the papers were issued on the 31st of December, I expected the pros and cons to be weighed out. What I found was very little detail and a unilateral decision to go with the devolution priority program and our councillors being asked to note this once-in-a-lifetime decision, not Happy New Year. I wrote to the Cabinet on the 1st of January attaching my detailed analysis asking for reconsideration. Yesterday, when I asked what would happen if the May elections were postponed and there needed to be by-elections, the response was, due to the complexities of the situation, we're going to need clarification from the Electoral Commission. The White Paper sets an impossible timescale that hasn't been achieved by any successful unitary authority. We must combine multiple financial systems in less than a year and the ongoing Unit 4 issues tell us that's simply not possible. Yesterday, I wrote to the leader suggesting the letter should ask for a less aggressive timescale, still delivering rapidly but allowing for elections in May and giving a year for an interim local government reorganisation plan to be delivered, with the post-unitary elections in 27 and 28, and I sincerely hope that is included. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Hazel Watson. Thank you, Chairman. I welcome the draft letter from the Leader of the Council to the Minister of State for Local Government and Devolution. I believe that this Council should grasp the opportunity to obtain greater devolution of powers to Surrey, as well as the reorganisation of local government in the county. Devolution, which means greater decision-making powers at local level, can only be welcomed. In addition, local government reorganisation is needed in Surrey to make decision-making and implementation more joined-up and efficient. The current local government structures in Surrey are over 50 years old and well past their sell-by date. In a digital era, it does not make sense for 11 councils in Surrey to separately collect council tax, and for boroughs and districts to collect waste whilst the county council disposes of it. In my view, reducing overheads and unnecessary administrative costs by introducing unitary authorities is preferable to cutting services for Surrey residents. Surrey is one of the last 21 counties to be reorganised into unitaries. This county needs to catch up with the other counties that have already introduced unitary councils, so that Surrey residents can reap the benefits. Any delay in the process could lead to uncertainty and affect staff retention in the districts and boroughs, which could damage services. Also, any contracts entered into by districts and boroughs which reach the end of their terms could be difficult to renew given the imminent abolition of the councils. These pitfalls must be avoided. Given the significant advantages to Surrey residents, we should support the leader of the council's proposals for devolution and local government reorganisation in response to central government's request. I note that the leader of the council's request to postpone the county council elections, due to take place in May 2025, will enable the county council to work with the leaders of Surrey's districts and borough councils, businesses, the police and health authorities, the voluntary community and social enterprise sector, and Surrey's residents. I welcome this collaborative approach and believe that there should be no delay in achieving the benefits of devolution and local government reorganisation for the benefit of Surrey residents. I also note that the decision being made by the cabinet this afternoon and the proposal that will be submitted by the end of March are within the current term of this council, and therefore this council has the democratic legitimacy to make this decision and the proposal required in March. Furthermore, this council was elected when the 2020 local government reorganisation in Surrey had been and was continuing to be debated. Thus it is well placed, having been through that process, to be making the decisions now asked of it. In fact, much better place than any new councillor that could be elected in May. In conclusion, I am well aware that delaying the elections is part of the standard process in delivering local government reorganisation. Thank you. And I confirm my support for the proposals put forward by the council. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Liz Townsend. Thank you, Chairman. I am surprised by the emotive language being used about this, talking about being forced to act, about missing out on opportunities, when the government has made it very clear that that's not the case. Surrey Conservatives have been pushing for a mega unitary authority for a long, long time. And during those years, they have not consulted. They have not consulted with residents. They have not consulted with businesses. They have not consulted with district and boroughs. And they have not even allowed debate in this council here on what is a really important matter. And again today, elected representatives have had the right to vote on this matter withdrawn, and it has just been taken forward by the Cabinet and Tim Oliver. We are just being asked to note this important action. And the rights of 1.2 million people in Surrey have got no right, they are having their right withdrawn, for them to say whether they want this to go forward and in what form they want it to go forward in. The leader could have allowed us to vote, and he has withdrawn that choice. But now, ironically, he wants to be given time to consult, to consult with those district and boroughs. I'm afraid I have no faith in his desire to consult. And I think he would just railroad through his own plan, as he has done so far. But this is not a single issue. Voting in May is not a single issue. There are other things that families of children with additional needs want to vote on. They want to vote on the performance of this council as well. They do not want that right to vote in May taken away from them. So the restructuring, that can go ahead anyway. We do not need to go forward at this aggressive rate. Steamrolling forward, we can have the elections. A proper mandate would be given to the next administration for them to carry this through. But also, more importantly, residents will be allowed to vote on the performance of this council, the performance of their roads, the performance on the finances, and more importantly, the performance and the failures for families and children with additional needs. And if Tim Oliver really wants to act in the best interests of the residents of Surrey, then he should ask them first. Thank you. Thank you. David Lewis. Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm speaking in support of the leader's proposed response regarding a joint program of devolution and local government reorganization. Last year's general election resulted in the formation of a Labour government with a large majority. The government determines the political agenda and legislates accordingly. Against this background, the leader must respond to the minister's letter of the 16th of December. Local government reorganization is going to happen. We must decide whether Surrey County Council is going to engage with the government and determine an outcome which is in the best interest of our residents, or sit back, as many Liberal Democrats and Independents want, and have the government impose a suboptimal solution on us. Many opposition members have objected to the possible postponement of this year's County Council elections. I would argue that a postponement makes sense and will save this authority significant costs. A postponement will enable us, as a Council, to work out the best possible devolution model for Surrey's residents. Collectively, we have a great deal of experience. We know the challenges of running a strategic upper-tier authority. And many of us are also current or former borough district councillors. We understand the role of these second-tier authorities. If the elections were to go ahead in May, there would be many new members in all the political groups without experience or knowledge of how the Council works, but responsible for determining a new model of local government. This would be irresponsible. There's also the issue of cost. Elections are expensive. The cost for County Council elections is estimated to be £2.5 million. That equates to £2 per resident. If the elections were to proceed, the new Council would exist for only one, possibly two years, and then elections would have to be held again, both for the boroughs in 26 and the new authorities in 27. This would be at yet more cost to our residents. Postponement of the elections is a decision for the government, but surely postponement is a prudent approach at a time when local government finances are under enormous pressure. In addition, much of the Council's work must be put on hold during the election per day period. This year, this is time that should be spent formulating our response to the government and working with our partners to agree the best model of local government for Surrey. This work needs to begin now, and we cannot afford to delay it. Mr. Chair, I believe that we should be masters of our own destiny, and as such, we need to engage in finding a sensible devolution solution that works for Surrey's residents. I support the approach that has been proposed by the Leader, and I would urge all members to do likewise. Thank you. John from Essex. We support the overall move to unitaries. Yes, to saving money and better services, as long as it improves democracy and localises services. But this proposal, with no option set out, risks centralising services with one or two unitaries, perhaps based on a still unpublished PwC report. We should first negotiate and agree with government how they will take on Woking's unserviceable debt, not create unitaries in special measures from day one. Boundary choices should be based on sensible geography, small enough for good local services, maintain sufficient democratic representation, including for planning. We should not rush to opt for two unitaries based on the government's discussion document rule of 500,000 population, which is mainly based on current urban and metro areas. Surrey's rural areas point to three smaller unitaries. We should start with a plan for three unitaries, so plan jointly with our boroughs and districts first, and then right to government. The mayoral proposals put forward at the same time must properly consider a wider sub-regional area. Transport links and health authorities cross beyond Surrey. Strategic economic planning is sub-regional. Full consultation with neighbours and stakeholders needed before we define boundaries. Instead of pretending we are ready to submit an agreed final proposal to government by May, which is what they are asking, without time for proper public consultation, we should have elections this year, whilst working up the full complexity of issues and options to be agreed. Then have a proper public consultation, cross-party councillor discussions and agreement with boroughs and districts, before a preferred option is submitted to government at the earliest, as they require in October. Rushing this biggest change in local government in Surrey since 1974 risks poor decisions that fail to deliver what is best for Surrey. So we do not support this proposal to fast-track and cancel elections. There is no justification. We say sort out our plan first democratically, agree it and then submit it once it is agreed. This is not an oven-ready plan and it still misses key ingredients, including democracy. Surrey should instead co-sign a letter to government with all boroughs and districts when we are ready. Just because the leader has the mandate to submit the letter, doesn't mean that he shouldn't seek it to be jointly agreed before submitted. We need to ensure the process going forward is co-owned and democratic from the start, with and for our residents. Thank you. Eva Kinton. I'm not surprised by the local government reform plans by the Labour government. The Labour Party has always favoured giving power to a few party apparatchiks and this so-called local government reform is not a devolution of power, but rather the concentration of local government in the hands of party political mayors and the end of local government in any meaningful way. Localism, differences of policy reflecting local characteristics and community identities, don't sit well with the centralism of Labour governments. I note that last week twenty Labour councillors in Brockstone resigned from the Labour Party with the councillor leader saying, I cannot support another centrist government intent on destroying local democracy and dictating national policy from the high pedestal. Enough said. However, what does surprise me is the reaction in Surrey. The Labour Party, whose record of winning anything in Surrey is even worse than Tottenham Hotspur's ability to beat Chelsea in a football match, must be delighted that they have found a poster boy in Councillor Tim Oliver to champion the Labour government's local government reform plans. For not only is it being hastily pursued by him alone, but is being done so according to the local government chronicle against the wishes of the National Conservative Party. Chair, if ever there was an argument against placing power in the hands of party political elected mayors, it is the ability of this leader of the council to kick-start the process that will see Surrey County Council and all Surrey's boroughs and districts go down the path to abolition, with no meaningful scrutiny by members, no engagement with our residents and no electoral mandate given to the Labour government or to Tim Oliver. I don't buy this. I am doing this as the best way to protect the residents from a worse fate. Strong leaders fight for what is right, not for what is marginally better than surrender. Our residents deserve better than this, and the least and that best interest of our residents is that they should be consulted now and should also be able to exercise their democratic right to vote in the May 2025 elections. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. In almost 20 years as a county councillor, I have lost count of the amount of times I have been asked which council is responsible for what service. And after explaining, the response is usually, well, I don't know, it's confusing, isn't it? Our local borough bulletin has a standing item explaining the two-tier system. Some services looked after by the borough, some by the county council. Our residents, particularly our most vulnerable, should not have to interpret an explanation and refer to a list to navigate the essential services they rely on. Lifelong residents are still confused about who is responsible for what. This government has recognised this ambiguity, the challenges local government and our communities face, and has put an ambitious offer on the table. Setting out a new approach for the whole of England to build empowered, simplified, resilient, sustainable structures for local government. Recognising the achievements in the ten years since the first mayoral agreement outside of London. The government is very clear about the direction of travel. To ensure that everyone in England can benefit and ensure the efficient running of public services. To create a simple local government structure for our communities. Give clarity to our residents and economies of scale. Deliver efficiencies at a time when finances are stretched and the public purse under pressure. Meet the challenges our communities are facing and have faced sometimes for decades. Provide new powers and significant funding to bring new, much needed opportunities to our communities. Delivering an enabling approach, mayoral devolution and universal coverage of strategic authorities. Surrey needs reorganisation before it can fully benefit from devolution. This is a phased approach and we want Surrey to be at the front of the queue. We have been invited to provide a commitment to delivering both reorganisation and devolution to meet the most ambitious time frame. Subject to meeting the outline timetable, the Minister has stated that he is minded to lay secondary legislation on the table. To postpone local elections from May 25 to May 26 to enable the planning for devolution alongside reorganisation. We are committed to engaging with the government to seek the best deal for our residents on the accelerated programme. And to tread the critical path at pace to the optimum local government structure for our Surrey residents. Thank you. Will Foster. Thank you, Chairman. The Liberal Democrats and I have actually long wanted to empower local government by having devolution. We have supported reorganisation of councils. But there is not a consensus for Surrey County Council to deliver its vision of devolution and reorganisation unilaterally. The six Liberal Democrat MPs in Surrey are against the postponement of the elections. All 11 borough and district leaders in Surrey are against the postponement. MPs and council leaders and many others know this and think this because we think our residents have the right to hold those in power to account. But postponing those elections is a fundamental mistake. It takes that democratic right away. And it's very foolish to do so when there is no certainty on if or how devolution or reorganisation will happen, let alone when. Having met Angela Rayner and Jim McMahon only yesterday, I honestly cannot see the government agreeing a devolution deal for Surrey when there is so much division. This division was so unnecessary as well. It's why Surrey has got backs up of its partners and key allies. It's turned allies into foes. It didn't have to be this way. There could have been a consensus that the leader chose differently. This has been a complete failure of leadership and bridge building. The council is so keen to be in the front of the queue that I fear Surrey County Council will poorly negotiate with the government so we don't get the fair deal for Surrey that we deserve. Instead of suggesting we could have three unitaries, they're not pushing that at all. We could be left with one giant West Surrey Council that stretches from Staines to Hazelmere being so remote. And then the elephant in the room in finance from my area that other colleagues have mentioned is Woking's unsustainable level of debt. Woking is in £1 billion negative equity. By not banging the drum hard enough, by being too keen to be on the front foot, this council could shuffle further Surrey taxpayers with that debt. But that fits as that debt was provided by someone the leader appointed as cabinet member for finance in this organisation. Finally, with so many issues facing Surrey County Council, child safeguarding, pothole roads and special educational means, I worry defolution and reorganisation could be a distraction. There was no mention in the leader's speech of risk. And that, I think, is a great shame for our vulnerable residents. I will not be supporting the leader's bid and postponement of elections, Chairman. Thank you. Orteza? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping for a quiet start to 2025. However, the government, in its infinite wisdom, thought it would be sensible to release the devolution white paper a week before Christmas, and then give local authorities until the 10th of January to respond. But I am not entirely surprised to be here, because we all know that the status quo is no longer feasible. We, as an authority, will lose approximately $50 million in the fair funding review. The review is clearly not very fair for thorough residents. Those claiming we can carry on without change have not been paying attention. Now, devolution may well be a transformative journey vehicle, but the vehicle driving it forward is how this government sees devolution. Its criteria is very much fixed in terms of size, devolved powers, elected mayors, etc. And it comes with local government reorganisation. There cannot be any devolution without local government reorganisation. Our goal is to ensure devolution offers the residents of Surrey a real opportunity to have decisions made, whether big or small, made much closer to them, where less bureaucracy means quicker, simpler processes, and where councils can deliver even better value for money for residents and businesses. Once devolution presents a promising path forward, it is essential to navigate the associated local government reforms carefully, ensuring they truly benefit our residents and communities. Those that are using this as an electioneering issue are doing a disservice to their residents on this issue. We have seen petitions about manipulating democracy, battle cries on social media about democracy must win. In the words of Andrew Young, there can be no democracy without truth. And the truth is that if we want devolution, it comes with a process. That process is common to all councils around the country. Ultimately, it would be for the government to decide whether Surrey's elections in May are cancelled. If they decide not to include Surrey in the first front, then that would be their decision. If they decide to do so and postpone an election, that again is their decision. Let's liken it to like travelling in a car where the government controls the accelerator and the brakes. Better therefore that we take control of the steering wheel rather than leave that to chance and to the government. The truth is change is coming and we need to get ahead of it to ensure residents are best served by this. That is how democracy works. Thank you. Robert Evans. Thank you very much, Chair. I was rather hoping you'd call me immediately after Councillor Kingdon and I could have responded immediately to his head in the sand anti-government rant. But nevertheless, I don't know exactly how long possible reforms for Surrey have been discussed. There were certainly proposals in the 1960s, the Redcliff-Maud plans, although I wasn't involved in them then. I was elected to Surrey County Council in 2013 and it was being talked about then. Soon afterwards, Surrey Labour had a day conference to discuss unitary authorities and it was in our 2017 manifesto when we said we would reduce the tiers of government. At the moment, there are 12 boroughs and districts or 11 boroughs and districts and county council. There are 12 civic centres or town halls, 12 chief executives in Surrey. A message we repeated in 2021 with a plan, a worked out plan for three unitary authorities of between 300,000 and 400,000 people, bringing decision-making closer to residents. Powers devolved from central government. So, this is not a new idea. It is not, as some suggest, being hurriedly foisted upon us or steamrolled through. Those who are suggesting that haven't engaged for the last 10, 20, even some people here, 60 years possibly. It's been around a long time. I supported the plans, the previous plans, when the previous minister floated them in 2019 and I support them now, because I believe they're in the best interests of residents. Not for personal reasons, or Councillor Kingdon, look up. Not for party political reasons, keep looking down then. But because I believe changes, the right changes, will better serve the people and residents of Surrey. A modern democracy, not one based on the Surrey of 1889, when interestingly the county's population was around the figure of 350,000, about what we're talking about for unitary authorities now. The White Paper says devolution is fundamental to achieving the change the public expects and deserve. And it goes on, and I quote, It will only do this if the public knows what the local leaders are empowered to deliver and are able to hold them to account. For most areas, but not all, it suggests, Councillor, a population of about 500,000 for unitary authorities. But there may be different exceptions where it makes sense. And I do think it makes sense for Surrey. Sense because voters will know who is responsible rather than as now, as has been said earlier on, where it could be the borough, it could be the county council, it could be Highways England, it could be the Environment Agency, it could be who knows what. No one, least of all me, wants elections postponed or delayed unnecessarily. But we already have a hybrid and confusing mixture in Surrey. A third of elections, one year in some places, all out in other areas. Thank you. We can choose coming colleagues, we can choose to be part of the decision making, or we can stand back and let others make decisions for us, having it foisted upon us. I will be supporting a 21st century democracy for Surrey. Thank you. George Potter. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, it feels a bit like being on QI's round of general ignorance, in terms of some of the things that have been said. Just to be clear, nobody, as far as I can tell, has said that they are against moving to unitary authorities. Nobody has said they are against embracing the offer of devolution. But I will point out that the devolution on offer is merely a return to a mere fraction of the powers the local government enjoyed as recently as the 1980s. But what has not been talked about, and what is the elephant in the room, is this issue of what this means in practice. The government's white paper makes it clear that we have two options. You don't have to cancel elections in 2025. You can have them and go through the process and submit your plans six months later for the places that are cancelling the elections. So it's not a simple devolution and cancelling the elections or nothing. There is a range of options available. One comment was made of suggesting that, well, if we have elections, it would mean new councillors who don't understand how the council works. Well, unfortunately, the councillor mentioned that, he said that, doesn't appear to understand how this council works, because the pre-election period does not stop work being done. It simply stops decisions being taken by full council. There is no reason why work on unitaries couldn't go ahead whilst the pre-election period was taking place. But the key thing is here is that none of us, none of us, has any kind of mandate whatsoever from the people for the decisions that will need to be taken over the next 18 months. We mentioned the possibility of more power going to parish councils and town councils. I support that, sure, but where I live, we've got Artington Parish, the smallest parish in the country, with 250 residents. A mile away, you've got Godaming Town Council, which is so big it runs its own leisure centre and car parks. We need to figure out how we're going to make devolution of powers work to parish and town councils. We have to work out how services are going to be delivered. Are we going to have a giant West Surrey planning committee, or are we going to have area planning committees? There are a huge range of decisions to be made which are going to impact heavily on people's lives. And none of us were elected with any mandate to decide those issues whatsoever. None of us were elected with a mandate beyond the four years. And as has been mentioned, there are many areas where this council has been failing. I don't need to list them, we all know them. Highways, tourism services, the list goes on infinitely. The point is, people deserve to hold their leaders to account. And in our system that is every four years. Let us have, there is no reason, and we are hearing here that the leader said, he himself wouldn't be standing again at the next election. So why have we got councillors who aren't planning on standing again, so keen to prolong their period in power without submitting themselves to the ballot box? If it is disgraceful, it should not be allowed. Thank you. I am against this following. Trevor Hawke. Thank you, Chair. I am going to move to bring everyone's attention to the urgent need for us to do more on two areas highlighted in the white paper. That is the environment and health, particularly health inequalities. In both cases, stronger and more strategic approaches are needed with the appropriate additional powers with regard to the environment, pressure from developers and housing quotas is rapidly doing more and more damage to Surrey's green belt and our environment generally. We need to move to a much stronger strategic approach over a larger area instead of the individual district and borough approach. The current piecemeal approach to planning just isn't good enough and lacks the resources needed to deal with well-funded developers. With regard to health, while many in Surrey enjoy longer and healthier lives than the average, we have well-identified pockets with serious health inequalities and we also have some horrendous waits for treatment. We urgently need powers to put resources where they are needed and to end the situation where those who live on one side of the road live ten years less than the other people who live on the other side of that road and in significantly poorer health towards the end of their lives. In both cases, the faster we move, the more powers that we can gain, the more opportunity we get to change our residents' lives for the better and that's what it's all about. John O'Reilly. Thank you, Chairman. It's been an interesting and indeed intriguing debate so far. I ought to start off by contrasting the measured maturity of Hazel Watson compared to the rather pitiful politicking from George Potter, Paul Follows and Will Foster, playing sort of liberal democratic games on something as important as this. It really isn't good enough. But that's freedom of speech. Chairman, we've got to be real here. We've got to be brutally honest. This government, which I do not support, notwithstanding the peer and the praise that Robert Evans has just given it, has behaved, I think, in an appalling, authoritarian, arrogant manner in which it's going to be forcing councils like ours and our residents to make very difficult decisions. But the brutal reality is they are going to do it. They have a huge majority in Parliament and their timetable will be adhered to. We can put our heads in the sand but that means we'll just drown ourselves or asphyxiate ourselves in our own self-delusion. So it is going to happen. The second reality is that this council is doomed. You know, this council will not survive and probably the other 11 boroughs and districts will also not survive. So we are talking about a new structure and framework. And to those who are saying the elections should go ahead, it is quite clear, the minister's letter has said, that those authorities where elections do go ahead, they have still got to provide submissions by autumn, leaving only a few months. So what's going to happen if we have elections? It will be essentially a zombie council in the twilight, lurching through its own oblivion maybe a year or so later, when elections will take place for the new authorities. Now for those councillors, and we'll hear it next week or next month on the budget, opposing what the administration is proposing. And yet they're still willing to pay £2.5 million on a zombie election for a council that will do nothing. How in any sense can that be justified? No, we have got to work much more closely on two viable options. One is a two unitary, the other is a three unitary. Now here I am with Jonathan Essex and Robert Evans. My preference as an individual councillor is for three unitaries. But let's get together to work out in the next weeks or so what is best for the residents of Surrey. That's the duty that we are, that we hold to our residents. And that is what we must discharge by voting for this motion. Thank you. John Tilling. Thank you Tilling. Thank you Chair. I think the problem with the devolution white paper is actually it has very little to do with devolution. True devolution is placing responsibility at the most appropriate local level. And this paper says really very little about that. It prefers to dwell on centralisation, the antithesis to devolution. And most of us living in towns can see the legacy of when we did have devolved town councils. In our parks, our gardens, our recreation grounds, our allotments, our war memorials, the paddling pools, the playgrounds, the cemeteries. They were done when our towns were shaped by town councils. And most had a recognisable, approachable, accountable town mayor. Now, I think we can all understand that efficiencies can be made from combining boroughs and districts into single tier authorities. But to propose that Surrey becomes a strategic authority, which is two or three local authorities beneath it, is really replacing a two tier system with another two tier system. We need time to actually work with Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, possibly Hampshire, for a truly southeastern regional strategic authority. Not what Councillor Oliver is proposing. And we need to address how we bring local matters back into the hands of local communities. So I think it's disappointing that the leader's rather self-interested letter very poorly addresses the flaws and the omissions in the white paper. It has no reference to having listened to the views of Surrey residents. That can only be done through the democratic process of holding Surrey elections, not by postponing them. Ernest Mallet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say that, first of all, thank you to David Lewis for actually putting some sense into this situation, particularly on the question of elections. anyone who was around and I think there are two of us in this council who were councillors in 1972 the similar situation was placed on us then and it was a government edict then which was a conservative government under Edward Heath and it is an edict now this is the thing that members who are speaking about all sorts of aspects they would like to see don't seem to understand the government has issued an edict in fact the two or three edicts are combined in their letter and we don't have a choice anyway even if that choice made sense so that's the first situation the second situation particularly on this business of elections is that people just don't understand what will happen what will actually happen is that what is scheduled to happen and what will happen is that we're scheduled to have discussion on the form which a new system should take for a year and then a shadow council whatever system is decided will be elected so from Surrey's point of view we're a dying we're a dying council and what will actually happen is we'll still have authority for a year and at the end of that year a shadow council will be in position and what you will find which nobody really knows other than those of us who went through this before is that some 90% or very large figure of your staff will disappear they'll disappear to the new shadow council and Surrey will then have the problem of existing for a year trying to struggle and deal with the problems that it has and there'll be mainly there'll be mainly staff who are retiring at the end of the period so you know we have no first of all we have no alternative secondly this nonsense about delaying not delaying the election is just simply that complete nonsense having an election and putting new people in as certainly John O'Reilly has put has no no meaning whatsoever and so you know there really is no object no alternative but to do and agree with what the government wants to do and get on doing what the government is directing thank you thank you thank you chairman it's an honour in some ways to follow Ernest Mallett Ernest as he's just sort of admitted to us was a member of the Asia Urban District pre the main reorganisation in 1974 in the same way that Stephen Cook he was a member of the Horsforth Urban District and David Harmer was a county councillor in I believe Bedfordshire records of that are a bit more difficult to find we have been looking at unitarisation and redoing local government since 1995 at least in my memory we have been through this system backwards and forwards several times several people in the room have suggested we needed agreement from everybody well can I say to you frankly having been through this in various guises as a leader of a district and other various roles it won't exist there is no agreement Surrey's geography politics and styles don't actually come to an agreement at the end of the day the minister will end up deciding and I think we need to be honest about that with people we also as Ernest just flagged we'll have two authorities in place at some point during this process the government is obviously very clear it's going to happen we will have a shadow authority and the existing county council the existing county council will wind up probably by the 31st of March 2027 as a good guess but might be early for a lot we'll see but at the moment we have districts going bankrupt you know districts are in serious trouble financially there are problems with various services out there we cannot just sit here I thought Robert Evans his comment about the ostrich was pleasantly true you can see what he meant we have to take change forward I have sit and listened to Robert several times give very eloquent speeches in front of unitization with some question marks in my mind however now the change is coming Angela Rayner and her colleagues are determined we are going to have a uniform national structure which is unitization with mayors we need to get on the bus we cannot just sit and hope something will turn up in the words of a famous Texas politician the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos we need to embrace change it is coming we have to accept gracefully as gracefully as we can it is coming and that means doing what happens elsewhere postponing elections for an authority which won't exist we are not going to be here and neither will the 11 districts and that is something which is going to take a little while to explain to people though actually my electorate are much more aware about it than I thought pleasantly surprised change is coming we have to accept it it is not going to be perfect it is going to be very messy in places Angela Rayner isn't going to want to send a check to Woking anyway so we have to go forward Robert King thank you very much chair and happy new year can I first note that the leader has organized this meeting despite nothing you have to do so and welcome the opportunity to speak as a member of this council but also a really new borough council and a new co-leader can I welcome the government's commitment to transferring more powers from Westminster to local people who are at the coalface of where decisions matter and where ending the hoarding of power in Westminster could unlock growth and the potential English regions like the southeast and counties like Surrey have an abundance as been said the fragmentation of responsibilities and functions we hear from our residents is often frustrating with the generic term the council often being used to describe a range of functions carried out by boroughs the county and parishes where they exist as a borough co-leader I find it frustrating that certain maintenance functions public realm improvements or wider visions for our towns and communities sit between our borough and the county decision makers often making them slow the commissioning of goods and services more costly and challenging at attracting the best talent in our staff given our proximity to London and wider existing unitary authorities Surrey Labour has long supported reorganisation and appropriate unitaryisation thanks to a large piece of work conducted by my leader Councillor Evans on the three unitary model unlike many in this chamber myself and Councillor Evans ran on that in the 2021 elections for a three unitary model I do not and continue to be opposed to a single unitary my residents have little connection to communities in the south of the county and particularly in more rural parts I'm sure many residents in boroughs in the Surrey hills would feel a similar affinity to Runnymede and Spellthorn not regularly travelling to them and not working at them both Runnymede and Spellthorn distinctively more urban have a greater GVA output than other areas which therefore affects funding formulas and means deprived communities in Runnymede may miss out if we get unitaryisation wrong despite being in full support of the devolution agenda and the courage of this new Labour government has actually shown in giving the communities power not just words personally I do struggle to understand for my residents the idea that we would request a suspension of elections in the county without a clear understanding of what it will be replacing how the new arrangement would affect services and what a future authority would offer to my residents in Runnymede I continue to be in full support of the devolution agenda and indeed support what the leader said on a genuine cross-party discussion to achieve the benefits for our residents and delivering what the government wants to which is an actual transfer of power to local people I do remain skeptical however on the merits of suspending an election without a clear plan of what this will be replaced and how the authority will indeed cease to exist and a new one set up in accordance with what the minister states very clearly in the white paper which is the desire to transfer power to where it matters our local residents Julia McClain Thank you chair we all acknowledge that devolution is going to happen and as one of the leaders at the Surrey leaders meeting yesterday I indicated my support for us working together to begin that process but the arrogance the arrogance of speakers from the administration who think that the electorate should not be given their democratic right to vote because they might not like the outcome is astonishing even for the Conservatives they might say that they want to do the best for our residents but this failing administration an administration that has let down so many of our residents especially the most vulnerable is clearly trying to cling to power and are putting themselves before those whom they claim to care about the leader has not put forward a coherent argument for delaying sorry but for denying sorry residents their democratic right to vote because there isn't one we must work together as I said at the very beginning and like what I committed to yesterday we must work together for the benefit of those we serve but we must not deny them their right to vote in the elections in May Jonathan Halley thank you Mr. Chairman let me start by saying that there is actually legal precedent for delaying elections here in Surrey indeed in 2020 Surrey county elections were delayed because of the Covid pandemic and there was general consensus then that that was the right thing to do indeed the current crop the current crop the current crop the current crop of councillors must recognize that the previous meeting to the chair for five years councillor we must recognize that there is absolutely a mandate by this council to do the right thing by the people of this county and that is what we're going to be doing but Mr. Chairman let me say that if we collectively bury our head in the sand and not sign up to the accelerator program that all we are doing is failing the residents of this county because to ignore what is coming is to ignore the political will of the Labour government on page 80 of the white paper it states I quote we will expect all councils to work with us to bring about these changes as swiftly as possible the government are serious about the devolution agenda and if we don't cooperate we will be simply left behind and as Councillor Hall said to develop the bus analogy if we don't get on the devolution bus that bus will simply run over us in future remember Mr. Chairman the last time there was wholesale and comprehensive local government reform in England including in Surrey was in 1974 under a Labour government now let me say to you this that in politics it is right that you need to anticipate where the war will be not where it has been local government reorganization is coming to Surrey I ask all representatives of this council particularly the leaders of the opposition to accept the offer of the leader to join that working group so that we can work together across the party divide to co-design and co-develop a local government reorganization plan that works for the residents of this county that recognizes also that while we need to accept a form of mayoral model there's an opportunity to design real decentralization of power to town councils and to parish councils and perhaps even to neighbourhoods as well now is the time for us to come together Mr. Chairman there will be plenty of time in the future for us to peel away into our respective camps and to fight future elections but now is the time to work together to develop something that works for the residents of Surrey let us look to the future Mr. Chairman because the current situation and circumstances simply will not do thank you thank you Chris Townsend point of order Mr. Chairman so will the 2021 county elections postpone because as I recall they took place exactly on time and let me just take advice from the which standing order is that which standing order clarification of a statement made by a previous councillor any member wishing to raise a point of order must say at the outset of the standing order a rule of debate which he she believes has been infringed every point of order will be decided immediately by the chairman who's decision will be final so we can Chris Townsend thank you chairman always a good interruption before myself I haven't got notes I noticed lots of people who have walked up in speeches written down they're reading from them I've been listening to and I'm I'll be right up front many people know already I've been on about unitaries for a very very long time Tim Hall knows that from Mount Mulvaney days and I'm a fan one of the reasons is that we have nearly 600 councillors running Surrey nearly 600 I think it might even be as many as 600 we only have a few more running the country so so let's get it in perspective here so change is coming as every second and and the other point of the gentleman earlier just made the point of order said that there's everybody agrees with unitaries but I think my colleague on the right doesn't actually agree with them that he's one person that doesn't and he's made that point to me earlier so let's get you know some facts right there's some very wild assumptions been put over the last however many minutes hours we've been going very many assumptions made about elections etc etc I'm very torn between what I should do how I should vote how should we feel because I honestly believe that unitaries are the way forward for the people of Surrey for the country as a whole I do genuinely believe that I worry about the election scenario I do accept that you are voted in for four years and you have a mandate for four years it worries me deeply and I find that side of the argument very very difficult the mayoral situation I worry also about I don't think mayors are necessarily the right way you could say that to some extent Tim Oliver is a mayor at the moment because he's making decisions as a single person shall we say so it's a very very difficult argument running around in the background as has been mentioned a couple of times is some of the deficits that are floating around in Surrey and I don't want to mention the name again because I think it's totally unfair on those councillors that are work for that particular council and are trying very hard to deal with the situation they're in so that's another issue that we all have to deal with my point at the end of the day is whether we like it or not this government is going to do what they're going to do it's whether we run with the hair or go with the tortoise let's see where we go all that or do you stay with the devil you know or change to the devil you have no idea what's going to happen thank you Keith with them thank you chairman regularly since I've been a councillor which is 13 years I've issued a newsletter to residents in my area and in every single one of those newsletters there is a section headed which council does what because frankly when you talk to residents very few people actually know the difference between what the county council does what the borough council does compared to what the parish councils are involved with and I've had to explain that which is not a bad thing but this is part of the discussion that we're having today about unitaries I think the summary my summary of the discussion so far would be saying to the government look government if you are going to do this then at least get on with it and don't leave Surrey in a position of paralysis and limbo for two or three years let's do it get it sorted out and done and I would go with that because the longer you leave things the more potential there is for paralysis the other aspect I wanted to mention is that almost every single day in those 13 years I've had contacts from residents about with their concerns about whatever subject and therefore to me it is utterly ludicrous that we should be wanting to spend two and a half million pounds to run an election on the 1st of May for a council that will not exist a year later that will be replaced by whatever other body when that two and a half million pounds in this coming year's budget could be spent on other things and just to finish there is precedent for elections to be postponed because I recall very clearly that when David Munro was the police and crime commissioner for the county of Surrey different reasons admittedly but because of Covid at the time those elections were deferred he had a four year term of office he ended up doing a five year term of office because the government postponed those elections and then when they were held and Lisa Townsend was elected as his successor she had a three year term of office instead of four and subsequently at the then next election her re-election back to a four year term of office so these things are not the end of the world they are giving councillors the ability to look at these matters trying to come to some sensible solution trying to engage with a new government that has its agenda whether we agree with it or disagree with it that's the government's agenda and I think that collectively our responsibility is to try and get the best outcome and if that means not having an election on the 1st of May which I had assumed that I would be standing and seeking re-election so be it if it happens I will still stand and seek re-election and put myself in front of the electors for their approval or otherwise but let's not get diverted down the road of politicising as unfortunately the Liberal Democrats always do and have always done John Brackett Thank you Chair we seem to have been talking a lot about history back in the 1930s Epsom and Yule became a borough and it became independent and has been independent ever since so I see this as a direct attack on the independence of Epsom and Yule we even had a London vote whether we wanted to join London our residents voted against they were given a voice which they are being denied at these elections another elephant in the room by-elections the leader is looking for areas of concern what happens by-elections the ITV recently run an article about MPs being local councillors the situation there there may be members in this chamber who thought I've done four years I want to do that's it I've had enough I don't want to re-stand how are we going to address that it doesn't matter which council does what it's how well they do it how well they deliver it picking up on Councillor Townsend's point one of the points I was going to raise was exactly the point of a mayor a mayor is a red line for me I don't believe we should have a political mayor for Surrey in any way shape or form the other thing that concerns me is the government oh we can make all this money available to you if you choose this option hold on this money is taxpayers money that they're sitting on they're blackmailing counties to become unitaries that money should be released and to assist local boroughs districts and counties that are in financial problems at the moment I'm sorry but I do believe that the election should take place and I will not be supporting this thank you thank you Mr. Chairman as Councillor Robert Evans has pointed out to us this is not new this has been around for a very long time it certainly was part of the agenda of the Thatcher major government and every government since and therefore it cannot be a surprise that an incoming Labour government with a large majority wants to carry on that process and wants to do it quickly and frankly as Hazel Watson has extremely well articulated after 50 years the borough and districts frankly have had their day they probably were a good idea in the 1970s but life moves on and it's a pity that some councillors don't want to move on with that and every time there's a local government reorganisation there is always an extension to the existing council that's going to be replaced that is inevitable it cannot change and it will be the case with us as well so that's a spurious argument as well I mean it just seems to me that all of that including the Labour manifesto statements by ministers white papers briefings to the local government association have just passed some people by but that's the reality of where we are and I just want to say a word about the Liberal Democrat stance with the honourable exception of Hazel Watson frankly it lacks substance it's self-serving inaccurate with spurious finger pointing in their media stuff and some of it frankly is offensive and would do credit to the sort of statements we get out of Donald Trump he'd be very pleased with what the Liberal Democrats were saying and what they think we've heard from the leaders of Guildford and Waverley that they want a plan and they want consultation yes in attempting to merge the two boroughs they had no plan they had no financial analysis or cost analysis and no consultation at the elections as to whether anybody wanted it or not and my analysis being a Guildford member here and a member of Guildford council is nobody I've ever spoken to outside the Liberal Democrat group in Guildford wants it at all I think already there has been some devolution to this council from the last government with the economic development portfolio coming to us and therefore it is reasonable to assume that there could well be more devolution coming to us and that's what the government are promising and that's what they've done in areas where there are unitary authorities and elected mayors and I just think we need to be part of this process not sitting there moaning about the past but actually using our experience to plan the best future for Surrey that we can have and we can do that and Surrey can thrive under the system being put forward now if I just say that please be respectful as I did state in front of the meeting respectful to the other speakers when they're speaking thank you thank you thank you that's the standing order 18.1 the chairman and the cabinet has a five minute Stephen Cooksey please yes thank you chairman chairman I noted the very beginning of this debate that the leader of the council referred to the discussions that took place yesterday with the 11 leaders of the districts and boroughs and what he said was that there was a broad agreement and there was that we needed to accept restructuring strategic authorities whether we like them or not we needed to accept them that there was an agreement there should be collaboration cooperation and coordination and the working group should be established now all of that happened what the leader of the council failed to do was to mention the fact that all 11 leaders agreed that the election should also take place and the arguments that he put forward were rejected by all 11 leaders now those 11 leaders represent residents right across Surrey in the same way as this county council does but there was absolutely no intention on behalf of the leader to offer any sort of compromise to that at all and that worries me chairman about the future because if in fact the leader simply has a view accepted by his group and that regardless of arguments against is what he's going to do then what does collaboration actually mean does it mean that the county council's administration has actually set forward a proposal for restructuring or whatever and that it will do exactly the same thing it would simply push that forward and ignore any opposition to it and that worries me about any future collaboration that might take place Chairman Lee there is as I said acceptance there needs to be restructuring there needs to be a strategic authority but there are a whole range of fundamental issues that we haven't made any agreements about and which there is an awful lot of discussion about and the timescale that he's set isn't going to resolve those problems we need to be able to discuss these amongst ourselves we need to involve our residents and if the timescale that is set by the authority is implemented there's no way that that will happen and there is complete agreement across all of the leaders that these elections should go ahead and that should not be ignored thank you very much mr chairman we're being asked to note that the leader intends to respond to the minister expressing an interest in pursuing a joint program of devolution to the most ambitious time frame which may lead to the postponement of the 2025 county council elections and I have to say that I'm right behind the leader on this particular issue he has in my mind the right levels of experience skills and integrity to provide the strategic leadership this council will need and this is really important chair in fact vital having this level of experience in place during times of upheaval to get the best outcomes for the people of Surrey putting their best interest first I do understand the concern caused by the potential delay of the local elections but given that devolution will be happening to us and the government have made that clear we have two choices delay the elections and let the current team of councillors set in motion the next stage or we have elections now followed by a short period where a new team will quickly have to come up with an idea and set in motion before having fresh elections for the new authority the next year anyway elections are expensive and residents have told me clearly that one set of elections when they know exactly what they are voting to elect is much better than two elections particularly with each predicted to cost council taxpayers in excess of two million pound so this strikes me as the most sensible and pragmatic way forward drawing on the collective knowledge and experience of existing councillors for a short extended period of time I'd also chair like to acknowledge councillor Chris Townsend's reflection on officers I think they need to be taken into consideration as we look at this time of turmoil and uncharted territories so chair I'll end by saying dither and delay won't help the residents of Surrey a plan for delivering a new simplified form of local government with the benefits of devolution wealth thank you Andy McLeod thank you Mr Chairman I'll be voting against this recommendation and before I explain why I want to say something positive actually I'm quite encouraged that there's a remarkable consensus this growing in the last month or so about the need for local government reorganization I was meeting at Waverly yesterday evening similar meeting to this in which all five political groups agreed that this was necessary and I think that applies within this council as well so what am I concerned about I'm actually concerned about firstly there's a very big crisis in local government at the moment local government isn't actually working the number of crises throughout the whole country which also apply in Surrey there's crisis of funding there's crisis of debt crisis of planning crisis of social care crisis of special education needs local government restructuring is not a magic bullet to actually solve all that but it should actually help if done properly and that's my big concern will this actually be done properly it could very easily go wrong and that's actually what I think the proponents of this timetable have to actually answer in fact nobody's actually against doing this but is the way people propose is it actually going to work I think a more reasonable time scale is what's necessary as has been set out by Catherine Powell and her speech and also referred to by other speakers why could it very easily go wrong first restructuring like this in my opinion requires public support and there's a great deal of scepticism in the general public about all political parties and cancelling the local elections is not going to help the one thing that I'm actually getting comments from the public about this because they don't know about local much about local government is organised and they don't much care but they are very sceptical about the local elections being cancelled and they don't know why and that question needs to be answered I think we do need public support the second thing has been referred to there needs to be enormous cooperation between the districts and boroughs and the county council for this to work and that clearly doesn't exist at the moment and the times needed to make that happen also as Chris Townsend has said we have to worry about the officers there's enormous amount of work done to restructure the inter-new officers cabal to run the new unitary officers so my point to the leader he did say we considered the point is that he should consider the points have been made very serious about people I don't think it's fair to talk about people being political you need to answer the points they're making thank you chairman I have to run out of time I have to leave thank you thank you thank you chairman many years ago when I was a councillor at Surrey Heath I was an advocate for unitaries in those days I wanted to see a Blackwater Valley unitary transport housing employment all of that obviously it didn't happen so I became a Surrey County councillor somebody please advise me on whether I was right or wrong I consider myself to be a community councillor and one of the most frequent complaints made to me by the parish councillors is that they are often ignored as well as being underfunded especially when they see themselves very much as the closest interface with residents and before my whatsapp blows up I will say that I've not always been the greatest fan of parish councils however part of the reason being in Surrey Heath there are parish councils in the rural area but no parish or town councils in the urban area which I think is part of the overall problem in the division I represent I have neither the localism act was meant to correct the situation but change never happened page 100 of the white paper now I'm sorry I'm going to read this says that the government we will want to see stronger community arrangements when reorganisation happens in a way councils engage at a neighbourhood or area level we will also rewire the relationship between town and parish councils and principal local authorities strengthen the expectations on engagement and community voice I'm not sure of terribly good English but anyway I support that obviously I also support the potential for a greater holistic approach to house building and infrastructure spreading the load across the area that individual parishes and boroughs have to take I mean it is iniquitous some of the numbers that have been thrown on us I've chaired I've worked through I think I've chaired planning committee at borough and here for about 11 or 12 years and my colleagues must be completely fed up with me banging on about a need for a regional housing strategy and I see the way forward to be the unitaries will help in that and it will help our communities and at the end of the day it sounds a bit trite but we are here to support the residents and not our own ambitions or hurl insults as has been happening a little bit unnecessarily so I'm very much in favour of that I'm also a competitive person and I go on the premise that the person that comes first gets the greatest prize whoever comes second might get a bit four whoever comes third might as well go home they ain't going to get nothing because there would be nothing left in the pot for them looking beyond the boundaries elected mayor I don't know I'm not sure and I think like a number of people we've been a little bit hesitant about this I suppose if Andy Burnham put his hand up and said he fancied coming down here I would change my mind and I would support that I am supporting the proposal today thank you chairman can I just clarify something on the times that's showing up there standing order 18.1 allows 18.1 18.1 states that 3 minutes per member 5 for leader deputy leader appropriate cabinet members and committee chairmen so that's why you're getting this time on there Nick Harrison thank you chairman I just want to make a few points a lot has been dealt with I won't use my what I see I've got five minutes I guess I am chair of the pension fund committee maybe that gives me that sort of power I won't speak for all that time just want to make a few points of course going to unitary will not necessarily solve all these problems about where to go if you've got an issue we're introducing a higher level authority with or without a mayor so those difficulties will still exist I think it's clear from the discussions today that if we're to proceed as the boroughs districts and the county we do need more time to discuss three unitaries two unitaries or even one we do need that time I think we have seen today that there's understanding that this is going to happen come what may I'm not convinced that the prizes necessarily go to the first I really worry as a member of the borough council the only debt free borough council in this Rygate and Banstead how can I possibly explain to my residents that we are taking on these huge liabilities from the other boroughs and districts we must get a carve out from this from central government otherwise we cannot proceed the debt will be unmanageable we do need the time then to work it out and I am very concerned about the democratic deficit and one authority with at least half a million in the north of the county nearest to London we don't have parishes councils we don't have town councils and I think that's a real democratic deficiency that we must deal with a lot of the points I was going to make have already been covered by others and I'm happy to end it here I will not be supporting this proposal thank you thank you Rachel Lake Thank you Chairman Chris Townsend I haven't got any notes either so I'm following your example and it was because of you speaking Chris and I work on the same select committee it's chaired by the opposition very well chaired by the opposition there is no politics whatsoever goes on in that select committee in fact there never has been I sat many years ago because I wasn't grey when I came to Surrey County Council I didn't have a single grey hair I've been around a while I'm a recycled councillor but I sat and chaired another scrutiny committee that I was on with Hazel Watson and Hazel might remember that we put forward a recommendation to a cabinet and we were actually told it was too futuristic two two years two years later officers were incredibly on board enthusiastic and another eight months led to the creation of the contact centre where all residents for the benefit of residents had one telephone number to connect to Surrey County Council instead of being bounced from pillar to post when they phoned not knowing which department they wanted it brings me to the fact that in 2013 I stood for Surrey County Council and I had been a borough councillor then for seven years the leader of the borough council actually said to me if you're successful where will your priorities and loyalty lie to the borough or to Surrey County Council I have to say everyone it was the easiest question I've ever had in a political arena because my answer immediately was my residents right my residents I have always put my residents first but I have to stand on that when it comes to strategic things they put their trust in me that I go through the information and I vote on what I feel would be best for them and the future of Surrey and I've listened and I've listened to political about it we have no say when there'll be an election but the truth is Surrey has always fought its own corner there's never been a government of any political colour that's been good for Surrey for finances we know that you know that's not a political statement of any sort because we've never had a fair deal and I'm sorry I'll never change my mind about that but what we are good at is getting in and sorting things out and getting the best that we can for residents and if that means that the government will ask us to delay the elections then so be it personally I'm not that happy about it mind thank you I just want to start off with these figures that are flying around yesterday in the newspaper article by the leader you mentioned that the election would cost a million councillor Mooney just doubled that and then we've had another couple of members that mentioned 2.5 million and if we can't even work out how much an election costs it's no surprise our finances are all over the place but back to the business let's not sugarcoat this as something else the election is being councilled in May will be a complete stitch up for the residents of Surrey interesting listening to some of the views this morning as the cancellations of the May elections will be a golden ticket for some in this chamber to live to fight another day without facing the electorate what about the residents who have been failed by this council in several areas these past few years I want to have their say in May on many important issues we have no right taking their voice away the choices are clear cancel the election to save the skin of the Conservatives and Labour in Surrey or let the elections go ahead in May as they rightly should and we receive a new mandate from the residents to take forward with collaborated ideas on the unitary proposals without a fresh set of elections none of us have the mandate to remain in this chamber past May I will be voting against this recommendation thank you I have a number of speakers still to speak so after this there will be no more speakers next speaker is Fiona White thank you chairman and just for the record so there are no misunderstandings I am in favour of unitary authorities I am not opposing the principle of unitary authorities in Surrey they make sense so let's not have any nonsense about people disagreeing with what the government is trying to achieve my difficulty is and it's been mentioned before in this debate we've talked about unitaries in Surrey for quite a long time where have been the discussions with the districts and boroughs and might I add the town and parish councils because there will be an impact for them as well in the run-up to this debate today they've started very recently we've got no idea of what devolution would really look like in Surrey how many unitary authorities there would be how they would work with town and parish councils and what sort of powers town and parish councils would have as a result there have been no discussions at all with town and parish councils as far as I can see and actually I chair my parish council so I've got a pretty good idea on it there was a reference to a precedent for postponing elections in this county as has been pointed out it did happen in 2020 with the PCC election and some districts and boroughs that elected those elections were cancelled as well that was a worldwide pandemic this is a choice it is a choice for this council to ask whether those elections are cancelled so let's not be under any illusions about that councillor Hughes referred to the Guilford and Waverley collaboration I hate to tell him this but Lib Dems stood on a manifesto including that collaboration in the last set of borough and county elections and if you have a good look you'll find we've got a majority on both councils maybe you shouldn't pay more attention councillor one thing that does worry me is at least two conservative speakers have said that elections are expensive I hope this is not a precursor for if elections are expensive let's not bother to have them thank you ringing a bell somewhere so actually I think we owe it to the residents of Surrey to allow them to vote on the record of this administration thank you thank you thank you very much well briefly I too support change and reorganisation but do have concerns about whether or not we will have a mandate to deliver it the words in our agenda today says that this is a postponement of the 2025 county council elections can we guarantee absolutely here and today that the county council elections will be delayed for exactly one year if this cannot be guaranteed then this is not a postponement rather it is a cancellation a denial of the right to vote for all of our 1.2 million residents and also for everyone in this chamber elections are indeed expensive because they are and our democracy is valuable and to cancel an election due to its cost is a dangerous precedent and the money saved or rather not used cannot be used for anything else so to cancel our coming elections would be a travesty and shameful democracy is on trial today John thank you chairman for allowing me to sit down while I speak I'm quite amazed I've been a councillor elected at both the borough level and also at the county level for 25 years and I remember when CIRA the Saudi regional authority was in force it worked everybody collaborated things got done you put in a bid and you argue your case and you could get it unfortunately that then disappeared then we came to South East councils county councillors and we had joint meetings together did we have collaboration no at one point I was asked I was tasked to talk about a waste contract for the whole of the counties on the innovation on an example given the three boroughs on the coast had put together a joint waste contract in their first year they saved 12 billion pounds currently we have 12 economic development functions in every council in Surrey this cannot be right it is not good value for money we do not work together and again it comes down to collaboration I don't like to be dictated to and that's exactly what we are doing but I believe that there is more positives to come out of it than anything else when we get elected we get elected on a political colour or brand and then we go into council and then every time we have a full council the opposition disagrees with everything that the majority party wants to do I suppose that's usual but the interesting thing is when we go into our committees and talk about specifics and look for the value for our residents somehow or other we collaborate and the outcomes are quite often not just mind-blowing but also really giving an outcome and a value to our residents that we weren't giving before I cannot understand that we've not spoken about the positive things that any kind of unitary can deliver and we will never have it in Surrey unless it is forced upon us and I say that with great regret because we should be up for it we're here to represent our residents those residents expect us to make a decision which benefits them in terms of value in terms of delivery in terms of service delivery at all levels for everybody currently I don't believe we do that any near as efficiently as we should and that to me is our fault as councillors let's stop being political when we get elected get elected on the colour but when you come in here you work for residents thank you Fiona Davison thank you chair I should say at the outset that I'm in favour of unitarisation I think it makes a lot of sense what concerns me is the speed with which we are having to move to reorganisation Westminster is very good at policy but it has not a clue about what it takes to deliver and here's the issue as chair of the children and families select committee there is a huge programme of transformation work underway within the directorate it's very important it has been moving very slowly so far we have a sound process review which has been going on now for 18 months and already we can see that residents are not reporting that they're seeing any benefit coming from that process review change takes a very very long time but what I'm principally concerned about is that the pace at which we are being asked dictated to by government will actually disrupt the work that is currently underway and the work that is really important because we do have a responsibility to the most deprived in our communities we have a responsibility to our residents we have a particular responsibility to children and families who are deprived in some way or who have additional needs and I am seriously concerned that the speed at which we are being asked expected by central government to operate will significantly impact our ability to do what we need to do to improve the lives of those who actually need us to deliver and take action last speaker is Paul Deitch Mr. Chairman local government reorganisation is arguably the most significant change facing this authority and the 11 districts and boroughs so I feel compelled to share my thoughts and explain why I for the most part support the proposals in the Labour government's white paper firstly I must express my disappointment that the previous Conservative government missed the opportunity to reorganise local government with hindsight though this may have been for the best I now believe a single unitary authority for Surrey would be too large to serve residents efficiently indeed I seem to recall that when a single unitary authority for Surrey was first mooted several years ago that was precisely the thrust of most of the arguments I was hearing at that time however two authorities in my view strikes a good balance since before my election to Surrey Heathborough Council in 2011 I've been a proponent of unitary authorities as some of you may know I was born and grew up in Manchester a city that has reached immense benefits from unitarisation my beloved mother who still lives in Manchester like Councillor Edward Hawkins is an admirer of Andy Burnham the directly elected Mayor of Greater Manchester Combined Authority only on Monday evening during one of our regular FaceTime calls my mum was singing the praises of the B Network Greater Manchester's new integrated transport system which provides residents with better connectivities for work and recreation purposes Greater Manchester's streamlined local government structure makes such progress possible I see this as Surrey's chance to deliver equally cohesive decision making for too long local government in Surrey has struggled under arrangements that no longer meet the needs of a modern authority as Liberal Democrat Councillor Mrs Watson alluded to earlier this has understandably frustrated residents and in my view contributes to some of the tensions and unproductive behaviour we see among councillors in this and other chambers across our county I'm not casting blame I've been guilty of this myself in the past but know this residents are sick of it however we now have an opportunity to address these issues and build a system that works I'm determined to support this process and avoid any unnecessary delays as for the potential postponement of elections I will simply say this I give my all to my role my community has entrusted me with I take it very seriously whether an election is held tomorrow in May this year or next year I'm ready to stand and be judged by the electorate finally I want to thank Tim Oliver for his dedication to residents of Surrey and his work to smoothly and intelligently facilitate the reorganisation of local government in Surrey thank you thank you leader you have the right to reply and you have five minutes thank you thank you much can I start by thanking members though for the curtis way in which they have debated what is I accept a very difficult decision I also understand that some members wish to personalize the decision to write to the minister to me as an individual but I should point out that any letter that goes is in my capacity as the elected leader of this council I suppose it isn't surprising that the opposition or the focus of the opposition has been around entirely around the May elections but actually what we need to be focusing on is the need to engage with residents and key stakeholders now I do wonder whether all members have actually genuinely read my letter and the letter from the minister of the 16th of December I just highlight two points on the proposed letter the first is to respond to I think Ashley Tilling's comment which is that I say however mindful of the white paper's reference to mayoral strategic authorities usually covering places with populations larger than 1.5 million it with neighboring authorities to explore the benefits of forming or joining a mayoral strategic authority over a larger footprint the second one I will be amending the letter in the penultimate paragraph to say any proposals for local government reorganization will need to adequately consider how to ensure the sustainable operation of any new authority and we will request government to write off those debts I think it is important that we understand the timetable here and in particular from the letter from the minister of the 16th of December he says that it is his intention to formally invite unitary proposals in January 25 from all councils in two tier areas and he will set out further detail of the criteria and I intend to ask for interim plans by March 2025 that is from all 21 two tier areas will have to submit interim plans by March 2025 we had this discussion yesterday at the district and borough leaders meeting and they did agree we did all agree and there seems to be complete agreement here that unitarization is coming and actually what we need to focus on is what is the best structure for Surrey and that is my priority so I think you have to have in your mind that we have to put in something by March 2025 come what may if the elections go ahead in May 25 we will go into the pre-election period in the middle of March and that will prevent us from having any engagement with residents beyond that point realistically then in any event there has to be a full submission either in May if the elections don't go ahead or in the autumn the autumn technically starts the first of September so there is not any longer period realistically to have this engagement we need to focus we have set up a steering group the first meeting for that will be on Friday it will be completely cross party and will also involve feedback from other key stakeholders we need to engage with the police the police and crime commissioner and with the health system and so on if we don't get on this accelerated program the reality is that we will have the May elections in 25 we will have the district council elections in 26 and then we will have shadow unitary elections in 27 and in the meantime there will be complete lack of certainty for particularly for our staff where this is a really challenging time for them but there will be lack of clarity and for our residents you know our residents want to see who they're voting for and what they want is efficient councils we have some real horrors coming down the line in terms of the fair funding review this council all councils in Surrey are not going to be net beneficiaries from the government proposals around redistributing funding across councils so I absolutely accept this I mean I've been the council for 24 years borough and districts and I've heard this conversation we've had this discussion many times I do not like this timetable it is not my timetable it is not my government fortunately but we are where we are and my request is that we get on and engage with our residents we set out by March you have those conversations we set out some interim proposals and then we work with the government to get the best possible deal we can do for our residents Thank you the recommendations are on page 10 of the supplementary agenda Mr. Chairman understanding order 28.1 I'd like to call a recorded vote on part I will come to that yes thank you I'll come to that for time the the recommendations are on page 10 of the supplementary agenda and are a council is asked to a note that the leader will respond to the government expressing this council's interest in pursuing a joint program of devolution and local government reorganization has set out a draft letter in annex 2 noting that acceptance onto this program may lead to the postponement of the 2025 county elections b not the decision to respond to the letter from the minister of state for local government and English devolution dated the 6th December 2024 is an executive function now I'll come to you Mr. Followers do you have 10 members I believe I do thank you that's carried can I just clarify are we taking a and b together or separately so we'll take it separately then yeah so now we are doing a vote for section A and names will be called out thank you chair just to confirm the recommendation that you are voting on is that the council is asked to a note that the leader will respond to the government expressing this council's interest in pursuing a joint programme of devolution and local government reorganisation as set out in the draft letter in annex 2 noting that acceptance onto this programme may lead to the postponement of the 2025 county elections members I will call you alphabetically please can you state clearly for against or abstain Maureen Atterwell for Aisha Azad for Catherine Barth for Steve Bax for John Beckett Jordan Beach for Luke Bennett for Amanda Boot Dennis Booth Harry Bapari against Natalie Bramhall for Helen Clack for Stephen Cooksey against Claire Curran for Nick Darby Fiona Davidson abstain Paul Deitch for Kevin Deenis for Jonathan Essex against Robert Evans for Paul follows against Will Forster against John Fury for Matt Furness for Angela Goodwin against Jeffrey Gray against Tim Hall for David Harmer for Nick Harrison against Edward Hawkins for Trevor Trevor Hogg for Robert Hughes for Jonathan Hulley for Sarge Hussein for Rebecca Jennings Evans for Frank Kelly for Rhysat Khan for Robert King for Eba Kington against Rachel Lake for Victor Lewinsky for David Lewis for Scott Lewis Andy McLeod against Ernest Mallett for Jan Mason for Stephen McCormick for Cameron McIntosh for Julia McShane against Sinead Mooney for Carla Mawson against Bernie Muir for Mark Mooty for John O'Reilly for Tim Oliver for George Potter against Catherine Powell abstain Penny Rivers against John Robini against Lance Spencer against Richard Tier Ashley Tilling against Chris Townsend abstain Liz Liz Townsend against Denise Turner Stewart for Hazel Watson for Jeremy Webster for Budi Wirasinghi for Fiona White against Keith Whitham for Total Total 4 is 42 Total against 22 Abstention 6 So 4 is carried Recommendation B Do we want to name what on this or do we just have a consent general consent We agree Thank you That concludes today's extraordinary council meeting Thank you members for indulging with us Thank you

Transcript