Transcript

Council at Woodhatch in Ryagate on the 8th of January 2025. There are no members of the public here, so I won't remind you of the far drill details, but can I welcome everybody and wish you all a Happy New Year, which has started off in a rather exciting way. We have only really one item on the agenda today, but I'll go through all the usual sort of formalities. I won't deal with the housekeeping issues, because you're all familiar with those as members of the Council. So can I just start then, please, with a roll call for all Cabinet Members, starting with Clare Curran. Good afternoon, Leader. I'm Councillor Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. Thank you. David Lewis. Good afternoon, Leader. David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. Denise Turner-Stuart. Good afternoon. Denise Turner-Stuart, Cabinet Member for Customer Communities and Deputy Leader. Thank you. Jonathan Hulley. Good afternoon, Leader. Jonathan Hulley, Deputy Cabinet Member, Strategic Highways. Thank you. Kevin Deenas. Yes, good afternoon, Leader. Cabinet Member for Finance and Rescue and Resilience. Mark Newsy. Thank you, Leader, and Happy New Year. As I'm sure you're now aware, it's National Day. It's Joy Germ Day today, which means the smile is contagious. It's about cheering people up. So on a grey January afternoon, I thought we had a very joyous morning. That would be a good one to start with. And with my active surrey hat on, it's Take the Stairs Day. So on your way back, make sure you take the stairs. As we remember, Elvis and David Bowie today, whose birthday it would have been. Right. Joy Germ Day. Okay. That's an international day of recognition, is it? Hmm, interesting. Thank you. We have apologies for absence from Marissa Heath and Matt Furness. I can't really follow Mark, can I? Matt Furness, Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Economic Growth. Thank you. Maureen Atterwell. Thank you, Leader. Good afternoon, everyone. Maureen Atterwell, Deputy Cabinet Member for Children and Families and Lifelong Learning. And I always smile. But you're not a germ. Natalie Bramhall. Good afternoon, Leader. Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property Waste and Infrastructure. Thank you very much, Paul Deitch. Good afternoon. Paul Deitch, Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader of the Council. Thank you, Sinead Mooney. Thank you, Sinead Mooney. Good afternoon, Leader. Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care. Thank you. And then lastly, Steve Bax. Thank you, Leader. Steve Bax, Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways. Thank you very much. Item two, then, declarations of interest. Does any member have an interest to declare in relation to the item on the agenda today? No? Thank you very much. Just for clarification, there is item four, exclusion of the public, which is where we would normally have an item of commercial sensitivity. There is no item four, there is no part two item today, so when we finish this meeting, that will be the end of the Cabinet meeting. Just for clarification, in case anybody that read the agenda thought we might be then carrying on in discussion in private, which we won't be. So, the substantive item relates to the English Devolution Bill or English Devolution White Paper, which was published by the Government on or about the 16th of December, just before Christmas, along with the Finance Settlement and, indeed, the National Planning Policy Framework. So, a lot of really, really important information and a clear sort of sense of direction of where the Government is wanting to go, both in terms of financial settlements and other things. The, and we just on the financial point, we will, of course, be putting through a draft budget, a revised draft budget at the end of January through Cabinet, and I would welcome any members of the Council that have any sort of suggestions to bring those to that Cabinet meeting, if possible. But it will, of course, then go to full Council in February. We are and continue to be in challenging financial times as a country and as a local Government, and we know that the challenges that we face over the last few years, particularly in relation to the funding of adult social care and children with additional needs and so on, that there is little, if any, relief that we have seen being offered in the proposed finance settlement and I have a wider concern that as the Government move forward now, both with their own spending review, which is going to be tighter than ever, but also with the review or so-called fair funding review, that that is going to have a negative impact on this county. So it is really important that we have a very clear view from 26 onwards, and that is part of the reason why we are having this conversation today around the devolution bill and what that means for this county. This morning we had a meeting of Council and there was a good debate around what the White Paper is saying and the letter from the Local Government Minister, Jim McMahon, dated the 16th of December, which sort of set out what the Government intend to do regarding two-tier authorities, which this council is. We are the so-called upper-tier authority as the county council and the district and boroughs are the lower-tier authority. The White Paper sets out clearly an intention to move towards unitaries. Those are single councils that simply subsume the responsibilities of each other. And sorry, just hang on a minute. I seem to be appearing as Steve Bax, which is a pleasure but inaccurate. Hang on a minute. There we go. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, the Government's proposal is to combine upper-tier authorities with lower-tier authorities. There are 21 of those councils now remaining across the country. And they have set out a very, I think, aggressive timetable is probably a fair description, which requires all two-tier authorities have been asked to submit interim proposals for reorganization by March of this year, with a view then to submitting final proposals either in May 2025 or in the autumn of 2025, the difference being whether or not the Government decides to postpone the 2025 county council elections. There has been, understandably, considerable debate around whether that is the right thing to do from a democratic perspective. And there are arguments on both sides as to whether or not that is the right thing to do. But I think the point that we have to recognize is that if we do want to be on the accelerated program, and that means getting to the creation of a new unitary in shadow form in May 2026, then that would require the delay of those, then that would require the delay of those, then that would require the delay of those elections. There is a view that has been expressed that there is not necessarily any significant benefit, at least to residents from a cost perspective, to have elections in May for then there to be the new unitary is created in 2026, where there will be new elections at that point as well. But I think the point for me that is more relevant to all of this is that we get to a point that we have a proposal that is in the best interest of the residents of Surrey. That is going to take real effort and thought and discussion and negotiation, not only with the district and borough councils, but also with our other really key stakeholder partners, including the police, the health service, fire and rescue and so on. And it is, again, the government's stated intention to look at coterminous boundaries. So, in a sense, it isn't just our decision. It shouldn't just be the decision of local government, actually, on what is the most appropriate footprint. You know, it needs to also take into account those other partners. As it happens here, we do have coterminous Surrey Police and Surrey Farm Rescue, but we don't have coterminosity around the health system, where part of this county, including Surrey Heath, Borough of Surrey Heath and Farnham, sorry, is in Farnham ICS. And therefore, to that extent, look more towards northeast Hampshire and Berkshire. So, but that is the discussion that we need to have, and we need to have those discussions now, quite frankly, in the next eight weeks, to at least narrow down the proposals that people think might be appropriate. I would hope, and the government would hope, that we could get to a single proposal that is agreed with all parties. That is going to be a challenge for all councils that are going through this discussion. Perhaps a little bit more challenging for this county, partly confused or complicated by levels of debt, that if you simply use those to drive the structure or the geography of any unitary authorities, there is limited basis on which you could do that. That can't be and mustn't be the main driver for this. And as part of the submission and as part of the letter that we will debate as to whether I send that, we have made it clear, proposed to make it clear that the government will be asked to deal with the debt, particularly the debt of Woking, which is publicly known and effectively crystallized, but also recognition that there are significant levels of debt in other boroughs as well across the county. So there are two aspects to this. There are two channels, effectively, which authorities are being offered to go down. One is around the devolution priority program, but that only applies to those areas where there are existing unitaries, let's say within an existing county. So, for example, in Kent there is a unitary of Medway and they could create a county combined authority model with a mayor. Hampshire have Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight and so on. Surrey doesn't have that. We only have one single county unitary, single county council and 11 districts and boroughs. So, to unlock mayoral devolution, we have to reorganize. That is simply, I'm afraid, not an option. That is what is clearly set out in the white paper. And whether we agree with that or not, I'm afraid ultimately is a decision that will be taken out of our hands. So, that then leads to the second, so there's a second limb, which is the limb that I think we kind of rely on, which is that areas who need reorganization to unlock devolution, where they will be invited to submit reorganization proposals to government by May 2025. If we are on that list, and it is the government's decision whether we will be, and it will then be the government's decision whether or not to postpone the elections in May 2025. Their view is that you will not be able to complete the reorganization by May 2026 unless you get on with that now and effectively don't lose the pre-election period that would happen if there was an election. I did make the point this morning that the key date to note really is March 2025, where we will have to submit interim proposals. And in any event, even if the elections were to go ahead, we would still have to put in a final proposal in the autumn. The timescales are really tight, certainly when you factor in the pre-election period and holidays, particularly over the summer. This isn't our choice, and certainly isn't our choice, to work to such a timetable. Some may take the view that actually sit back and wait to see what happens. It may be that the government changes its mind or doesn't get a majority to pass the bill. I think that is optimistic and unlikely, and I think that it is in the interest of our residents now, bearing in mind where this is heading, to get on and start the process and to get where we possibly have some leverage at the moment and some negotiation position, which we would lose if we can't reach an agreement locally. The government made it very clear in the White Paper that they will then impose it. And that, I don't think, quite frankly, is in anybody's interest. So, I think that what I did agree yesterday with the leaders of the district and boroughs and the chief executives was a recognition that, on the basis we need to put something in by March, that we would start at work now, and indeed it does start on Friday. Our officers are putting together terms of reference for the steering group and also the working groups that we would need. This is going to be exceptionally time consuming. Not only will there need to be collaboration, cooperation between the district and borough leaders and this council, we will also, this council itself, will need to have a process for inputting into the proposals. And it may be, it may well be, that we end up with more than one proposal, one from this council, one from the district and boroughs and so on. But, you know, we have broadly eight weeks in which to do that and also to engage with our other partners. So, there is a commitment from all of those leaders and chief execs to now get on with the piece of work, which is a positive. The steps going forward then, that will happen anyway, but today is seeking a cabinet approval to send a letter to the minister asking to be included in the accelerated devolution program. And on that basis, a request that the election in May 25 be postponed until May 2026. The council this morning, it was, the decision is an executive decision, i.e. for this cabinet. But it was right, quite right, that the council had the opportunity to debate it and indeed to vote on it. And there was a vote in support of this cabinet approving the letter to be sent. And I did raise this morning an amendment, a short, a small amendment to the letter, which just clarified the points that we were trying to make regarding a request to the government to write off the debt for, across particularly Woking, but also perhaps other areas as well. So, there was that small amendment to the letter. So, I think I'll stop at that point, happy to expand on anything. We did have the benefit of a couple of hours, I think, this morning. You know, some really, really good points made, particularly around community, not just engagement with residents around this, but with community engagement going forward. And the concern that if you've got larger, more strategic authorities, how are they going to interact at a community level? And I think the answer to that is in two ways in this county, the first being around probably an enhanced role for the town and parish councils, accepting that we don't, that not the whole of the county is parish. So, they tend to be more in rural areas, but that is a conversation that would need to be had. But also building on the work that we started 18 months ago with the health system around the 27 towns and two sort of village, collections of villages that we have in the county where we have got now a multidisciplinary team, including health, police, the VCSE, voluntary sector, and so on. And, you know, going into those towns, looking at where the gaps are and what support is needed and building that sort of, I hope, scaffolding of support for those towns. It is early days, but it is a multidisciplinary team because the issues are generally multidisciplinary or need a multidisciplinary approach. You know, the public health have led on a lot of that work because, you know, it is about, you know, it is about creating healthy communities. It is about improving healthy life expectancy. And, you know, and we know that a healthy individual and a healthy community, you know, generates increased economic growth and so on. So, health is really a really important part of this and how that is delivered. So, there are three left shifts that the government and the NHSC have talked about, you know, from illness to prevention and from effectively hospital to community, the third being from analog to digital. So, the first two is absolutely what we are trying to seek here, which is to put that preventative activity into our communities, whether that be around adult social care or around children with additional needs. We are not there yet, but I do believe that the direction of travel is the right one, and then also to shift funding into early support. The House of Commons this afternoon is debating a bill around children's services, and I am pleased to see that it is proposed that actually this authority at the moment, as the upper tier authority, may well be given greater powers to actually encourage academy schools to take children with additional needs. That, I think, that I think would be a really important and helpful step. I mean, there are all sorts of things around SCN that need to be looked at, and the County Council's Network and the LGA have created a very, I think, a very helpful report last year, which is with the government. And actually, if we can place more children in their local school, even if that is an academy, then that, I think, will be helpful for them, both better outcomes. It will also have, I think, a financial benefit to this council, as well, a benefit to the finances of this council and others. I think that, I think, what all that says is there is a huge amount of activity. This government has a full agenda and is moving with it at pace. The idea of doing reorganization at the same time isn't ideal, that's for sure. But I think it's better that we get to the end of that journey as quickly as we can, so that there is the clarity and the certainty, and that we, you know, we are able to continue to support our residents and hopefully do things that will improve their lives and their livelihoods. So, for me, it is about getting onto that program. The consequence of getting onto that program is the delay to the elections. That is not this council's decision to be absolutely clear about that. It is the decision of the government and it remains to be seen whether they will take that decision or not. And then the last point, which, again, we touched on this morning, the letter doesn't make any proposal around the geographical footprint, either of the unitary or of a mayoral strategic authority. The letter does say that we should leave everything open for discussion, including with our adjoining counties, in particular Hampshire, the Sussexes, Kent and Berkshires. Those are the ones that touch our county, so that the letter is open-ended on that, and rightly so. And that is the work, the intensive work that we need to do collectively with our partners over the coming weeks to try and narrow that down in terms of what we think is in the best interest of our residents, but ultimately it will be for our residents to tell us whether they believe it's in their interests. So I'll stop at that point, and we would welcome any comments from any of you. So Kevin first. Thank you, Leader. You mentioned the helpful comments that were made, although I've got to say it was disappointing to hear some of the accusations and personal attacks. I'll leave it as that, but we often wonder why people don't want to become involved in politics, and that's probably the reason. I won't repeat a lot of the comments that were made during that meeting, because we had two hours of that, but we do owe it to our residents to get the best deal possible for Surrey. That's in terms of devolved powers, the finances and service delivery. And as was mentioned this morning, this is government policy, and they will reinforce it by legislation. So it's not a choice, it's not what we want, it's what's the government policy. By early engagement, we can negotiate the huge debt that exists across Surrey. I mean, we've mentioned Woking, but there are other boroughs across the county, we don't need to name names, have got equally high water in debts. And we need to be at the races to negotiate that. We know the government will conduct their fair funding review, and we know Surrey will be a net loser. We're not going to gain from that. And actually this morning, the one thing I didn't hear was anybody from opposition saying, how the potential gap from the fair funding, which could be anywhere up to 50 million, how will it be filled? You know, that is a huge amount. So, you know, our opportunities, this is the one opportunity we've got. I think we need to be the masters of our own destiny. We need to influence the debate rather than be dictated. I think the rest of the points this morning were made, so I won't repeat it, but I'm fully supportive of your recommendation. Thank you, Leader. Thank you very much, Kevin. Steve. Thank you, Tim. So, I mean, my perspective on this, I'm a double hatter as are many in this council. And, you know, I started out in the borough. In fact, Tim was my leader for the time at Elmbridge. Very good administration. But I found that being on both councils is definitely helpful in terms of what I can get done for residents. And I certainly would echo the points that were made this morning that as far as a resident is concerned, they don't really know who does what, which council is responsible for what. They're not really that fussed about it. They just want to get things done. And I think that they will appreciate this new unitary structure and having some clarity around having one council that they can go to whatever it is that they want to get done. So I think that's for the good. I look forward to a robust debate around what the organisation ought to look like. I obviously have my own views. I think that the two or three unitary model would work. I'd quite like to see three members per division because that seems to be consistent with what we see in the London unitaries and elsewhere. I said before that I thought this would take a long time to come together. We all know that it was going to come at some point, but I've never known local government do things particularly swiftly. And so I expected that this would take a couple of years, but here we are now. So I've been surprised by the pace of it. Personally, I do support getting on with it now, knowing that it's a fairly long process. I think that the public will accept a short delay for elections, a postponement of one year. Anything beyond that, I think we'll be stretching it. So I think, you know, we do need to make sure that we're ready to go back to the electorate in May 2026 on the new boundaries. And then finally, all I would say is I don't know, Leader, if you're able to give any clarity around when we may hear from the Minister in response to the letter. I understand it's just before March. It would be really nice to know from the members and the public's sake. And also, if you might have an idea of what the consultation the government's going to do, what that might ultimately look like. Thank you. Well, in terms of we're expecting possibly two, probably two letters within January. The first will be sent to all leaders of all districts and councils and county councils setting out the criteria that the government will use to determine how things are taken forward. And then either in that letter or in a second letter, the government will tell you whether or not you're on the accelerated program. So I think from listening to Baroness Taylor yesterday and other conversations, I think we'd expect to hear that. Well, we almost only have to hear that by the end of January because they will have to lay the order in Parliament in February to delay the elections. And so what was your second question? On the consultation, the government yesterday weren't very clear on that. So for those that are on the priority devolution program, there'll be a six to eight week consultation, which the government will run. I think they said it wasn't a referendum. It was a consultation. But I think they were less clear. Sinead, do you mind if I think they were less clear on the process for where it's just local government reorganization? Yeah. Yes. Thank you, Tim. Yes. At the meeting yesterday, officers representing the MHCLG, I don't want to say fake and woolly, but I think that there is some work, some clarity needed around that. But I think people on the meeting got the impression that the consultation will definitely be led by the minister. And there will be expectations on the relevant local authorities to aid and support them with that consultation with our residents. That message certainly came through. But more detail, what the officers were able to tell us is that more detail will become apparent after they've considered all the letters received. Thanks for that. Mark? Thanks, Ed. It was an interesting debate this morning and it sort of pretty much followed the line of the social media posts that have been coming out over the last two or three weeks, where they've all been hankering down around the lack of democracy and the canceling of the elections, when fundamentally all we've been talking about is potentially going into a unitarized combined authority, and that the government, should they choose to enable us to go first, would potentially then delay the election in May next year, because they want us to concentrate on getting this job right. And I think time is of the essence. I think it's really imperative that we act now. We look around the boroughs and districts, a collective debt of in and around £5 billion. That's not likely to go anywhere over the short term. Their revenue funding streams are being reduced. Services are getting harder and harder to be provided locally. So now, more than ever, is the time to step in and do something about that. It would be wrong for us to sit back and wait and wait and wait for things to get worse and worse and worse when we have that opportunity to lead from the front. It's what Surrey County Council does. Someone said this morning, we don't get much of a handout when it comes to financial from the government, be it that our own government or this new Labour government, but we survive and we push forward because we're innovative and we work hard with our residents and with our volunteer sectors and charities to make things happen, to make sure no one is left behind. And I think they would be left behind if we don't take this opportunity to go forward. I spent Christmas being a social chap, going out and about in my local town in Runnymede, and had many a conversation about this, thanks to the social posts that have been around. And time and time again, what I got back was, why on earth would you want an election next year if you're planning to re-change and restructure the whole local government? The cost involved. The public don't like elections locally. You've only got to look at the election figures when we get between the average of around 25 to 40% turnout. Less than 50% of our voting population turn out at local elections. Less and less to by-elections. They're tired of the constant electioneering and the politicising when it comes down to local government, where we are here to do the best for our residents. And I think this is a classic opportunity that we've been given potentially, if the government do agree that we can be fast-tracked through. It will give us an opportunity to shape the future of Surrey, be that two, be that three, be that one, however that works out. Whichever way we do it, provided that we do it with the help and the understanding of our residents, they will be better off. And Surrey itself will be better off for doing this. I would hate to see the elections carry on in May this year, if we do get the opportunity, because it will get in the way. It will take time out from officers to organise elections. We will have that per the period. So it would make sense that that would be delayed. And what would be the point of having an election for a council which will last for one year? Maximum of two. The cost and everything that goes with it. So I will be supporting this paper. My residents will be supporting this paper. They believe in what we try to do. And they believe in basically local government supporting them. And that's what this will do. The boroughs and districts have been fantastic over time. But I think their time has now come. And we need to step in and orchestrate. Of course, we won't be here either in a year's time. Surrey County Council goes. So whatever that new landscape looks like, I certainly am looking forward to it. I can only see positives to go forward and fully support this. And I'm very excited about the opportunity we hope we will be given. Thank you very much, Mark. I've got Claire next. Thank you, Leader. Thank you. I was quite gratified during the council meeting this morning to hear that overall there was a general acceptance of the principle of moving to a unitary model, whatever that might look like for Surrey. And I heard misgivings from all sides of the chamber about, firstly, the ambitious timetable that's being set up by government. And also the fact that the minister may take action to postpone local elections. Now, I do agree that that timetable is ambitious. And if we're going to fulfill that, we really have to get cracking straight away. And you're talking about doing that. But I also heard you say, and I've read it in the letter, that even if the local elections do take place in May this year, that the minister is still going to be asking for reorganization proposals to come forward in the autumn. Now, if there are elections in May, we will inevitably have that quasi-inertia of the pre-election period. And after the elections, there is that longish period of uncertainty while there's reorganization and rearrangements. And I find it hard to see how a new council, many of the members, of course, will be elected for the first time, will be able to mobilize quickly and effectively to prepare those proposals within that ambitious timetable. And my own view is definitely that surely and certainly that the 81 current members of this existing council, working alongside district and borough officers and members, as you've said, other colleagues, members, MPs and the public sector leaders, are going to be very best placed to deliver the best option within the government's timetable. So I'm just thinking about my colleagues who represent the area of Mull Valley. There are six county councils who represent the Mull Valley district. Between us, we have over 120 years. It's a long time, isn't it? 120 years experience as county councillors. All six of us have at some time, or our twin have served on the district council. Three of those members were leaders of that district council. Everybody, and this is in common with all members of the council, know their own divisions really well, and know their districts and boroughs really well, have worked alongside officers of both organizations. And there are also many, many members of our council who have really detailed and specialist knowledge of areas of this council's operation. We heard this morning from people who are on the pension fund committee, those of whom have not expertise in planning, or social care, or governance, or audit. These are skills which we shouldn't waste, and we should be using, because they'll be really important as we move towards forming our options. We are the people who have the knowledge and experience to build what is going to need to be an empowered, simplified, resilient, and sustainable structure, which will give this council, this county, the very best option for the future. Now just like Councillor Nootie, I spent a lot of time over Christmas talking to friends, neighbours, family, community members about these proposals. And almost to a person they said, look Claire, we elected you to take decisions on behalf of this community, now go ahead and do that. And I intend to work the hardest I possibly can to achieve the very best outcome for those of people who have elected me. Thank you very much. I'm not sure all of us spend our whole time wandering around pubs. Right, so Sinead. Thank you very much. I just wanted to say a couple of things and then just talk about the letter in Appendix 2. So I just wanted to start by saying that I think it was a really significant step forward this morning, the Extraordinary Council meeting. And I think that significant step forward was for residents, Surrey County Council residents, our members, strategic partners, and also the approximate figure of around 8,500 employees that we have working within Surrey County Council. So I think it was a really significant debate and decision that was reached. And I think elected members in the chamber, whatever way we individually voted, the result was a very strong result and a very loud and clear result in favour of moving forwards. That's why I think it was very significant. I also just wanted to build on the consultation point earlier made by Steve Backs. Surrey County Council does have a strong record on public engagement. It's something that we have continuously built on over the years that many of us actually have been involved with the County Council and with the Cabinet. And it's something that we will continue to build on. So I think any opportunities we have to enable and assist and empower our residents to have a say in the minister's consultation process, we should certainly move that forwards at pace. Just to the letter. Actually, Chair, if I may go back, Leeda, also with a significant step forward. I think there was a great deal of confidence shown in yourself in leading this forward on behalf of the County Council. And I think there were some comments made around your levels of experience, skills, and integrity as well to provide that way forward for us. And I think I just wanted to acknowledge that. I think that's important to do that. The letter, I think the letter, the draft letter in Appendix 2 really sets the right tones for what we're wanting you to say. I think that the letter is very diligent and considerate in its tone. And I think it acknowledges the right areas of risk, talking about the current debt and pressures as well across the Surrey footprint. So I think it's a very open and transparent letter setting the right tones and the right context for us here at Surrey. I think the call to the Minister to exercise his powers to postpone the county elections in May 25 sets out a really clear rationale for that. Allowing time for proper and due consideration to managing those unique risks and pressures across the county. And so I'm very supportive of the letter. And I'm very happy to give my support to you or signature, whatever you require from me for the letter in Appendix 2. Thank you. Thank you. And at the end of this debate, I'll just read out a small amendment to that letter, which I referenced this morning. Denise. Thank you, Leader. I mean, for me, this is all about optimism and opportunity. We, as councillors, we're always faced with frustrations from residents. And we work together collectively. We work with our partners. We try to work with governments to overcome some of these issues in our areas. We're looking at things like integrated transport, congestion, areas around skills, planning, housing. And we don't have the mechanisms in place for us to break down those barriers and to move forward. And this is the opportunity to do that. Many members this morning talked about the conversations over the years that have taken place. This is a 50-year-old local government model. It was very clear that something that was even effective during the COVID period isn't effective now. Things are moving so quickly and so rapidly, and we absolutely have to be able to adapt. And it was very clear, listening to Baroness Taylor yesterday, I think she even used a term, just crack on. She talked about the additional powers that could be provided through negotiation. She wanted that creativity. She wanted that constructive input from local authorities. It wasn't just a, you know, one-size-fits-all approach. It's a very sympathetic approach that's going to be taken with local areas to absolutely recognize the needs and the opportunities and the requirements in those local areas. So, for me, this is like opening a door. It's all the hard work that's gone on previously, building very strong relationships with our partners but still not being able to deliver the services as we would like to because of the constraints of the complexities and the, you know, the bureaucracy and the administration that has hampered our ability to deliver for our residents. And collectively, I don't think there's anyone in this room who isn't just here to deliver for our residents. That's our duty to serve and do the best we can. And for this opportunity to be presented to us now and for us to be able to present the letter that you've very carefully crafted and to have that opportunity now, we'll all be on board with this. And it's very clear, again, from the council meeting, the Baron district leaders, the general sort of unanimous support for a unitary approach is supported. The goodwill is there and we just need to move forward now. Thank you. Thank you, Denise. And I think the COVID experience in this county actually was a very good one. I mean, it just showed actually where you did break down those barriers and acted as one team, how effective you could be. And it's a shame that we kind of, in some areas, in some respects, reverted back to silo working. But I think absolutely from a local government perspective, you know, that brought out the best of the system. We've got David next then, Paul. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, I'll be brief. I mean, thank you for your update at the start of this meeting because I think what it demonstrated was the breadth of this project. You know, we've tended to look at it a little bit through the lens simply of the Surrey County Council and the districts and boroughs. But, you know, when you start thinking about it in terms of the police, the fire brigade, the health service and others. I mean, you realize, you know, the sheer breadth of this project and the way that it will have implications for many aspects of the lives of our residents. And, you know, I think it's important that we keep that in mind. I thought, as Sinead said, the meeting this morning was very significant. And, you know, I was pleasantly surprised by the level of agreement that there was amongst all members regarding the need for reorganization and the unitary approach. I think I'm rightly saying there was only one dissenting view on that. And, you know, it's really, I think, encouraging that as a council we come together and we do have that very significant sort of collective view on what needs to be done. I mean, the disagreement really was just about timing rather than on the end result and the end outcome. I really welcome the proposed working party collaborative approach in terms of trying to find the right solution going forward. I think one member this morning made the point that, you know, when we work together on committees and so on, you know, we tend to put politics to one side. And there's more often than not there's a sort of unanimous agreement and approach to what needs to be done. And, you know, I do hope that, you know, by working together with our partners, with the Ds and Bs, that we can hopefully come up with a single proposal that would be agreed by all that we can then present to government. It would be much better, as I said in my speech and others have said, Kevin has said that if we're masters of our own destiny and we can actually say this is what we think is the right, we collectively, is the right thing for our residents. In my speech, I mentioned the cost of elections and there was a bit of a challenge in terms of conflicting figures. It was very last minute that we have now received responses from all 11 districts and boroughs over their estimated budgets for 2025 elections. And they've given us a detailed breakdown, I'm not going to go into it now, but, you know, it does come to just under two and a half million pounds. That is the, that is the latest figure that we have received from the districts and boroughs. And they've broken it down, you know, into, you know, the cost of renting coding stations, the cost of printing, the cost of stationery and so on. So they're pretty accurate forecasts. So that figure has actually come to 2.48 million. So there are thereabouts, it's two and a half million pounds. So just, you know, I don't want to dwell on it too long, but just as it was raised this morning as a bit of a challenge over the numbers, that is the very latest figure that we have received, having summed up the costs from all 11 Bs and Bs. And assuming there aren't in other elections at the same time, all of those costs would come to Surrey. And in 2021, the costs were less because we also coincide with a peace and crime commissioner election. So the costs were shared. So, you know, I just wanted to clarify that. And as has been said, you know, you know, we do need to keep an eye on the costs. It's not, you know, the key issue, but it is an issue. And, you know, we don't want to spend money unnecessarily. And, you know, in my view, would be a mistake if we ended up having elections in 25 for a new Surrey County Council, which had a very limited life, in 26 for the new shadow unitary authorities, and 27 for the mayoral position. So anything that we can do to reduce that cost, I think, is welcome. And as has already been said, I also, and I said it this morning, think that the time that would be spent in the pre-election period would be better spent in working out what the end result is going to be. So, like others, I wholeheartedly support the letter. I think the amendment you've made is the right amendment. And I shall give it, in the whole process, whatever support I can to help it succeed. Thank you. Thank you, David. Just for absolute clarity, the reason we asked the district and boroughs to tell us how much the elections were, they run the elections for us. The county council don't run, we don't run our own election. It's subcontracted out to the 11 districts and boroughs. And that is why the 2.48 million is their number in terms of what they say we will be charged effectively to run that election. So it's just a point of clarification. Thank you. Paul, then. Thank you, Leader. Thank you, Leader. So I just want to associate myself with all the comments that have been made so far. I'll try not to repeat anything, but I just want to highlight the comments you made, Leader, about your intention to work with the boroughs and districts leaders and work in a collaborative and cross-party way. I think that's absolutely necessary. And, you know, before this morning's meeting, we had a very well put together email from Catherine Powell, you know, which shows that, you know, even, you know, our councillors, you know, really think this stuff through and have a meaningful contribution to make. And we should use that intelligence to help us get the best out of this, you know, situation. I also welcome the comments from Hazel Watson. I thought they were very brave comments to make. And it shows that not all Liberal Democrats operate in an election political way all the time. And, you know, again, we ought to utilise that experience to help us get the best outcome for this. It was clear this morning to me that all members, I think, I don't remember hearing anyone say that the unitary idea was a bad idea and that I think they all support that. So, Tim, I just want to say that I really welcome your leadership on this. I think your convening power to get everybody to get their views across in a very short space of time will be very helpful. And just because it is an ambitious pace doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't try and meet the deadlines. Thank you. Thanks very much. Jonathan. Jonathan. Thank you, Leader. I will be very brief. Absolutely, I agree that there are opportunities for us to be had in embarking on this course. But there's also risk. And part of our role is about managing that risk. And to my mind, recognising just how serious this government is in embarking on the mayoral devolution agenda. One of the themes that came out of the debate this morning was testing our collective resolve as to whether or not this government were going to press on with the devolution agenda. And following the debate, I had a relook of the white paper. And what struck me about what is in it is looking at the detail of what is being proposed in relation to the powers of newly elected mayors. And on page nine of the white paper, it references housing and planning policy. And what it says, and I quote, mayors are integral to delivering 1.5 million homes committed to in this parliament, in this parliament. Remember, many of those homes will need to be built in the southeast. So there can be no doubt that the government sees diary elected mayors and also new local authorities as a delivery arm of their national objectives to be delivered in this parliament. That is how they go to measure their success or otherwise over the next four years. So in my own mind, I am in no doubt whatsoever that this agenda will see the light of day between now and the end of this parliament. So we either get on the devolution bus or, as I said earlier this morning, face being run over by it. I'm incredibly encouraged by the leaders' commitment to establish working parties and a steering group. I would suggest that that should be a multi-party exercise. We should encourage as many of us with the experience and the skill set as identified by Councillor Curran to jump on board and participate along with the other stakeholders in question. And I think that's how we best manage the risk. And finally, Alida, there was reference earlier to the legal precedent to delay elections for a very short period. And of course, mention was made in 2020 of a short delay of some elections because of the COVID pandemic. But I'm mindful also that the Cumbria County Council held its last election in May 2017 and it ran until dissolution in April 2023. And the North Yorkshire County Council held its last election in May 2017 and held elections in 2022. So there is legal precedent for delay, but the price of delay is getting on the bus and being able to shape a proposal, a local government proposal that works for the residents of Surrey. And that's why I support your ambition. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Sinead, I think you wanted to make a statement. Thank you very much. I feel a bit bad actually, Alida, because when I spoke about a significant step forward for staff, I focused specifically on Surrey County Council employees. And being a double hatter, Spellform Barrow Council representative, also want to acknowledge this is a significant step forward for the District and Barrow Council employees as well. And thank you very much for letting me readdress that. No, thank you. And it is a point that was made this morning and it is an important point that the uncertainty for staff, the longer this goes on, is likely to be very unhelpful. And we absolutely sort of understand and sympathize with their position. So the sooner we can clarify that, I think, the better. Okay. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak? No? Okay. So a couple of things then before we put it to the vote. In relation to the letter, as I mentioned this morning, there is proposing one small amendment. On this page two, in the papers at least, I will read the whole paragraph so that it makes sense. And this will now read, a postponement of the county elections will also allow time to give consideration in any business case to how to manage, to how we can best manage the unique significant financial risk of the level of debt currently held across the Surrey local government footprint. Any proposals for local government reorganization will need to adequately consider how to ensure the sustainable operation of any new authority, authorities, and we will request government write off those debts. And that goes on in addition to working with district and borough councils. So that is the final version, final draft of that letter. The second point I think I should make cabinet members aware of before you vote is that in accordance with Standing Order 56.1, Special Urgency, the Chairman of the Resources and Performance Select Committee has agreed that the decision on this item cannot reasonably be deferred and therefore is not subject to a call-in. And that I think is helpful and right in the context of having had a full council debate this morning. And the final point is just to record the fact that at council this morning there were 42 votes in favour of the cabinet approving the recommendation today. There were 22 votes against and there were six abstentions. So I think a fairly inclusive level of support. I think that then takes us to the recommendation. I can just find it. The recommendation is that cabinet is recommended to agree that the leader should respond to the government as outlined in the, let's say, amended letter in Annex 2. Is that agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. That is the only item for discussion today. So on that basis I will close the meeting. Thank you. Thank you.