Transcript

of Trustees Microsoft Teams. I would also like to mention that this meeting allows for partition by video conference via Microsoft Teams and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, please note that the chat feature is disabled as it uses limits the transparency and open discussions we aim to maintain in public meetings. Microphones members will have to indicate that they wish to speak through the chair and when called, use your microphone. Please remember to turn this off after you have spoken. Fire drills, there are no fire drills expected, so in the event of fire alarms sounding, everyone present is asked to leave by the nearest exit and assemble at the top car park, reporting to a member of the building management team. Staff will be on hand to guide you to your nearest exit. Speaking rules, those that can, please stand when addressing the chair and council. Speeches will be time limited as usual. We will be using the timer light system. A clock will appear in the corner of the screen. When a member has 30 seconds remaining, the clock will change to ember. When a member's time is up, the clock will flash red. Voting for the majority of items will be by raising your hands or by verbal assent. We will be using electronic voting for the original motions. I will confirm how voting will be done for each item as we go through the agenda. Conduct. Members, please remember to act courtesy and with respect to colleagues across the chamber. Members are to remain seated until I have concluded and close the meeting before leaving the chamber. Item 1, apologies. I ask Vicki Herbert to report apologies for absence. Thank you, Chair. Apologies for absence have been received from John Beckett, Amanda Boot, Liz Bowes, Will Forster, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Rachel Lake, David Lewis-Camberly-West, Scott Lewis, Stephen McCormick, Becky Rush and Mark Sugden. We do have several members attending remotely today. They have speaking rights but no voting rights. Thank you, Chair. Any other apologies? Item 2 is the minutes, pages 11 to 50 of the agenda. May I sign the minutes of the Council meeting held on 4th of February 2025 as a correct record of the meeting? Thank you. Thank you. Declarations of interest. I would like to confirm that the Audit and Governance Committee have approved a general dispensation for all members on an ongoing basis to enable members to participate in the matters relating to local government reorganization. Respective of them otherwise having statutory disclosure of community interest. Are there any disclosure of community interest, significant personal interest, logistical interest that members wish to make at this point? My announcements are in the agenda pages. I did have a play here last Friday having all the volunteers that the Councillors had nominated and it was great to see so many. I think this is a practice that we need to continue annually. It's a good way of thanking our volunteers. Leader's statement. I call Tim Oliver, the Leader of the Council, to make his statement. May I remind you that the members can make comments as we ask questions on the Leader's statement and the Leader may respond at the end. Thank you. Mr Chairman, members, welcome. We know what will dominate the discussion here today, the future of local government for our great county and the importance in getting this right. I look forward to hearing different perspectives on what is in the best interests of our residents, not for this Council or any other Council as we prepare to engage the government on what the future for Surrey should look like. As we enter springtime with its freshness and colour, so too this Council and this county enters a period of new life and optimism. Mr Chairman, just last month the government asked Surrey to move forward quickly with plans for reorganisation to facilitate greater devolution of powers from Westminster. Knowing that the government's white paper in December heralded the end of the remaining two-tier Councils, we applied to be on this timeline so that we could deliver the benefits of that devolution to Surrey residents as quickly as possible and take control of our own destiny. Since Surrey was announced as a priority area, we've been working collaboratively across all 12 of our Councils to put an interim proposal together to shape Surrey's future. As everyone in this room is no doubt aware, I am an advocate of Unitarisation. Having served as a Borough Councillor for 12 years and 12 years as a County Councillor, I have reached the conclusion that single Councils are clearer for residents, have greater accountability, are more efficient and effective for delivery and strip out unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication. They are a better model for the public and for the public purse. So I welcome the government's ambition to reorganise two-tier local government and I am proud that Surrey is stepping up to the challenge, ready to grasp the opportunities that reorganisation and then devolution can bring. It's important we get this right and that we take the opportunity to put local government on a firm footing and deliver real benefit to residents and our local communities. I cannot overstate the amount of work that officers from this Council have put into considering the different options and indeed continue to put in as we move forward. We have analysed an incredible amount of data drawn on extensive experience and knowledge of delivering our services over the past 50 years to this County and have also looked elsewhere to learn best practice and potential pitfalls. The outcome for Surrey must be the right one. It must be based on evidence, not ideology or political gain. As politicians we must look at the facts, be pragmatic and above all put Surrey residents' interests first. That is why we are proposing that Surrey's current 12 Councils are proposed by two new Unitary Councils, one for each half of the County. I genuinely believe that two Unitary Councils in Surrey would deliver clarity for residents on who is responsible for all services, more efficient Council services and better partnership working, millions of pounds in reduced costs year on year, the right economies of scale to deliver at less cost, the right structure and governance to engage communities at a local level and ultimately the opportunity for devolved powers from Whitehall to Surrey through a mayoral combined authority in line with this Government's ultimate plan for UK devolution. Financial analysis clearly shows that the more Councils created through reorganisation, the smaller the saving to the public purse. It is no secret that the finances of a number of District and Borough Councils in Surrey are in a perilous state for various reasons. The current model is not sustainable and I think this is something we will all agree. So we must deliver a new model that is sustainable. This new structure of local Government funded by taxpayers must drive efficiencies, minimise duplication, take advantage of economies of scale and ultimately deliver a local Government system in Surrey that is financially robust long into the future. We owe that to the people of Surrey. The other important factor to consider is our county wide services. The more you split these vital services, the greater the disruption and the greater the risk. Caring for our most vulnerable and looking after children and young people across Surrey are duties that we must put above all else. These are responsibilities we take extremely seriously and any disaggregation of these services should be carried out with the utmost care. A short list of potential geographical configurations is being considered for these unitaries but the exact geography is yet to be determined and will be fully considered by this Council over the coming weeks and will be set out in the full proposal in May. They will be designed to include the recently reviewed County Council Division boundaries to ensure all communities across Surrey are served by the right number of elected Councillors. A simpler, more effective, sustainable and cheaper local Government for Surrey. It is difficult to argue against the financial reality that the more smaller Councils the more expensive it is to residents. Larger scale Councils deliver immediate and ongoing efficiencies for the public purse and make local Government more sustainable. Now we know that there is an alternative proposition of three unitary Councils for Surrey. It is right that that auction has been explored in depth and I am sure the Government will consider it. However, it is clear from the transparent analysis carried out, analysis is not skewed in any way that this would deliver no benefit to public finances in the long term and create greater risk in the system. I also hear from some Councillors an argument that three unitaries would be more local. But let's really consider what is truly local. It is the towns and villages in which people live and work and the specific things that communities need and want. Let's be honest, in this context, unitary Councils, either with 400,000 residents or 600,000 residents, do not alone deliver true localism. No strategic authority, even at the size of current districts, working at a scale that is efficient and sustainable, can be truly local in and of itself. But it is vital that it provides the structure and stability to enable hyper-local delivery in the best way possible. We simply must pursue the structure that is properly sustainable and makes the most sense. I will expand further on what we are proposing by way of true local engagement when we debate the detailed submission document later in this meeting. But the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is exactly on that point, which is why I will be supporting it. But to make a real and lasting difference in Surrey's towns and villages, all agencies need to be aligned and working together. This is not and should not be just about local government. Public health, community safety, green spaces, local economy, education, housing, the list goes on. And those things come from a multitude of responsible bodies, not just the local Council. In Surrey, our County Council teams and our staff are in our towns and villages every day, caring for our vulnerable families and children, improving their lives and their livelihoods with public health messaging, upskilling and reskilling those who want to work, improving our roads, delivering library services, helping design and fund community-led projects, building new accommodation, care accommodation, and managing much of the County's green spaces. We play our part, a big part, but it only truly works as part of the wider system and with meaningful local engagement. That is why, in the current context of local government reorganisation, we should not be distracted by arguments about the size of a Unitary Council determining how local government can be. The whole system has a role to play, working with and alongside our local communities. That is exactly what a new landscape will be able to deliver. The government can and indeed should set the tone from the top, breaking down silos between departments to grip the prevention and early intervention agenda nationally, drive that approach down through regional mayors to ensure all those services are working together meaningfully in local communities to deliver what each place needs to really improve people's lives. We need that integration across the board at every level. Put simply, this is a golden opportunity here in Surrey and across the country to turbocharge localism, and let's take that opportunity with both hands. Our new councils must be given the chance to tackle head on the rising demand for many of our crucial services, demand that is in large part creating the financial challenges within local government and challenges that are only likely to become more acute. They must be the right size to be properly strategic, reducing postcode lotteries and unnecessary fragmentation, but equally working as part of a coterminous and coordinated system of partners. This is the ambition in Surrey, alongside our police and community safety agencies, our health system, and importantly our effective town and parish councils, local community networks, and the voluntary and community sector. With the strategic direction, democratic accountability, and in future the convening power of a mayor of Surrey, with devolved powers from government, this is what will deliver localism in its strongest form. This will improve people's qualities of life, their life expectancy, and I sincerely hope the inequality of opportunity that exists in too many places in this county. And it will do so putting local government on a solid and sustainable footing. Mr Chairman, whilst LGR will no doubt continue to dominate, certainly this meeting, our hard work as Surrey County Council continues. Our leadership team continues to evolve, and I want to take a moment to mention some recent changes and recognise the contribution of some very important senior officers. Firstly, I want to pay a personal tribute to Ruth Hutchinson, our Director of Public Health, who is moving on after 12 years here at Surrey and has six years as Director. Ruth expertly guided this county through the biggest public health crisis in a hundred years. Her knowledge, dedication, and calmness throughout the COVID pandemic was absolutely integral in advising myself and other Surrey system leaders through what I hope will have been one of the biggest challenges we'll ever face. Ruth's work will never be forgotten in this county. Quite frankly, she has changed lives, saved lives, and we owe her an enormous debt of gratitude. I'd also like to mention the imminent departure of Andrea Newman, our Director of Communications, who is moving on to take a leadership role across the entire sector of the Local Government Association. Andrea's work here over the past six years has been exemplary and has revolutionised the way we communicate with our residents, warning and informing in times of crisis, building trust, and making our services more accessible for residents and engaging our communities more effectively. She has been a very important leader for this organisation through challenging times, and she will be missed. However, that good work will continue with Mike Stringer taking on the role of Director of Communications and Engagement. I'm also pleased to confirm that as Matt Hussain will be Surrey's permanent Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer, a role she has undertaken with vigour over the past few months and will be hugely important as we navigate through a period of unprecedented challenge and change. Mr Chairman, we have a strong top team and an even stronger workforce that they lead, which will put Surrey in the best shape for what comes next for local government in this county. And that hard work indeed continues, with Ofsted currently undertaking our much anticipated and welcomed IELTS inspection of our children's services. I'd like to thank the whole of the CFLL Directorate who are working hard as ever to fulfil the requirements of the inspection. While we are confident that the service has and continues to make strong improvements, we look forward to that important external review and validation. Our Adult Social Care team's Planning for Your Future campaign continues to grow, and with a hugely successful engagement day in Guildford earlier this month, engaging more than 400 residents. Alongside our partners Age UK Surrey, over 2000 people have now attended sessions that offer information on future care options, finances and much more to help people prepare and potentially avoid the need to make costly decisions in a crisis. Surrey is at the forefront of helping residents to take control of their future. I'm pleased to say that thanks in no small part to the overwhelmingly positive feedback we've received, we will be continuing this investment in the future for our older residents, so that we can help even more people navigate the health and social care system. We recently celebrated a key milestone in the construction of Hopescourt SCN School in Walton-on-Thames. This will be Surrey's first net-zero carbon specialist free school, supporting some 200 pupils with additional needs and disabilities. We've broken ground at Medicoff Notch, our first extra care housing site in Guildford, which will provide apartments at affordable rents that are designed to support older people to live independently for longer. We've also secured outline planning for seven other sites across the county to build more extra care housing. We're making great headway with building community hubs in Weybridge and Staines, redeveloping and modernising our fire stations, schools and libraries, and we are committed to improving facilities across our Gypsy Roma traveller sites in Surrey. Mr Chairman, this good work must be protected through reorganisation. Our residents should have confidence that we will still deliver what they need, and any transition will be smooth and well planned. Working together, focused on the best outcome for Surrey, we will do just that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll call Catherine Powell. Local government reorganisation is a once in a generation change. The decisions that are made over the coming months will affect the lives of more than 1.2 million people. They are not decisions to be taken lightly or on political grounds, they need to be based on facts, supported by openness and transparency across all the existing councils in Surrey. From the papers before us on LGR, that clearly isn't happening. And to me it is clear that the two unitary options proposed in the Surrey Part B papers are not sustainable and ignore existing collaborations such as the one between Waverley and Guildford, which are split into two different unitaries in two of the four options proposed. Debt is a grave and growing concern. Woking has unserviceable debts, their interest payments alone are simply not affordable. But this isn't something that has just happened, it happened over many years, surfacing only in the last few. Spellthorne has similar issues, inspectors now called in and it seems like Runnymede will follow. The total debt across the Surrey councils is more than 5.5 billion pounds. That would be unserviceable by a single unitary, yet the issue still remains unresolved with government. Where are we at with LGR? What do the papers to the council and the cabinet tell us? The chief executive wants one. Big is beautiful, cost less is more efficient, but doesn't acknowledge the many layers we have in Surrey, some of which are due to size, some due to, in my view, inefficiency. Where we have a chief executive and a chief of staff, where we have both for a smaller council, the leader wants the minimum number to allow a mayoral authority and additional devolution. But it is also led by the input of officers that have made big is beautiful and a much lower cost in terms of management and the duplication case, giving him no information on where money is currently spent or the revenue balance. What do I think is right for the people of Surrey? I want economic areas, areas that are a manageable scale with the minimum number of layers of management to allow effective, efficient, low cost, high value services that support those most in need. Areas that recognize the strengths and weaknesses, needs and opportunities of our wonderful county. Areas that residents can relate to, where councillors are able to represent them and be heard, not lost in a sea of voices. Fundamentally, I believe there are three and a half economic areas in Surrey, three fully in Surrey and one which straddles the Hampshire Surrey border to the west, the Blackwater Valley. So three for now with a hope that three and a half in the near future. But what I want and what I believe the people of Surrey need right now is a clear path forward on the 5.5 billion of debt and very clear information about where we raise council caps and where it is spent. Because without that information, any split of this county cannot be evaluated and fundamentally I believe one is too big and will lead in the end to too few councillors, too many layers of management, leading to inefficiencies and cost, poor services for our residents. But we must also not lose sight of some of the ongoing issues we have where we are not making progress. On improving educational outcomes for children and young people with SEND, we are continuing to see broken children dropping out of school, parents giving up work to home educate. SEND children who need specialist places travelling miles at a high cost, a detrimental outcome to them or with no place at all. SEND communication is still not good enough. How long does it take to sort out a filing system, to set an out of office if somebody leaves? The end to end process review has been running for nearly two years and my inbox, parents and carers are not seeing an improvement and neither sadly are our staff who also have to cope with the frustration this is causing. Returning to LGR, there are strong opinions and I will make a plea for all councillors to respect each other during this meeting because the health and wellbeing of 1.2 million people are in our hands going forward. I sincerely hope the government do not make a final decision based on the information the cabinet intends to submit and instead urgently engage in meaningful discussions on debt. I hope all stakeholders will agree to work together to establish an agreed financial position associated with dissolving the existing councils, establishing and operating new councils, including the roles that need to be duplicated in disaggregation and which need to be consolidated in aggregation. Where council tax is raised and spent and how we will standardise council tax bills, always remembering that we and officers are here to serve our residents. If the councils can't work together constructively on this, then we should bring in independent experts to do it for us. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And now Paul Fellows. Paul Fellows, Mr Chairman, just to start with. Right, first of all, can I thank all of the officers who worked on the LGR material right across Surrey, here at the county and in the districts and boroughs. There's been an immense amount of work to try and compile in such a short space of time, irrelevant of any politics, that has been an achievement in its own right. Now, secondly, as it's been alluded to, let me address something that has ended up being a little bit of my week that is with the danger of becoming a toxic part of the debate today in lieu of any substance. I did that thing that politicians of any level try to avoid, especially when they're on issues that are important, which is becoming the story yourself. Now, as you will hear more specifically when I get to the LGR debate, like the leader of the county, I favour unitaries as a concept, but I favour three unitaries because I believe a more local local authority is better for residents. I believe I'm a straight shooter when it comes to my views on things, especially important things like this, and my choice of words when talking to my chief executive in Waverley in regards to LGR were clearly ill chosen. But just to be clear to everyone in this room, just as in a court where the tone and presentation of the argument is almost as important as the evidence itself, this is also clearly the case when it comes to communicating any proposals, particularly on something like this, to the government. The clear direction from the majority of D&B leaders, just as a clear steer has come from the leader of Surrey County Council to the chief executive here and officers here, was that the evidence clearly supports three unitaries and that the tone of the report and the words of the proposal needed to explicitly convey that point and very clearly to the government. Now I've obviously opened myself up with my choice of words to anything that comes next, both here and elsewhere during the course of the day, and I do want to take this opportunity to apologise to members and residents for any confusion or misunderstanding that my words have caused. But the evidence from the pack, from the districts and boroughs, does speak for itself and I think it speaks clearly, and I just want to echo Councillor Powell's call for a civil and reasonable debate on this subject today. But I agree with the leader that the wider issues here are the problem. The process of LGR is of course a government policy and one that the leader of this council here has, in my view, taken a fairly reckless decision to enter and has done so and in the process exposed this and other councils and our residents to serious problems. It was not clear, if it was not clear from the outside, and to be clear I believe it was clear from the outside, it is certainly clear from all of the meetings that the 12 leaders have had that trying to undertake a process that ordinarily takes years to do properly in a matter of weeks is full of all sorts of danger and risks, especially to vulnerable people. I am sure we are all also about to be treated, well we have been treated to the preamble from the leader about how two massive unitaries, the abolition of hundreds of councillors and the abolition of local councils and with them the connections to their local communities that go with them, is in fact some special form of localism that only the county can see and understand. Proposing massive councils with territories such as Staines to Hazelmere or Farnham to Oxstead just flat out half ignores the white paper, but more on that later when we get to item 6. The only other matter I wanted to raise in this segment was Spellthorne and this week they join Woking in the list of places where the debt issues have reached such a point that the government has had to step in. Just like Woking, the current administration inherited their issues from the last Conservative administration and have tried their best to manage the unmanageable and address the insurmountable. I want to offer my support and praise to the coalition administration led by Joe Sexton and Chris Bateson for all they have tried to do under impossible circumstances. Last week I presented my deferred motion to the Audit Committee that proposed bringing in a free, external and financial government support to consider things such as the transformation projects and their viability. I was treated to a lecture from the cabinet member for finance about how all these things are covered by internal and external audit. As a substitute member of that committee I then had the opportunity to ask, having been roundly defeated in my motion, to ask the internal and external auditors just exactly how much they do look into the issue of those projects and they confirmed not really very much. And so I think validated exactly the sort of proposal I was actually trying to bring up ahead. And it is that sort of overconfidence and hubris from members that was observable in the administrations in Woking and the administrations in Spellthorne who spent denying issues and being grossly over optimistic in their assessments. The Spellthorne report, by the way, cites over optimistic assumptions as part of the problem. Does that sound familiar? Now there are of course other councils in serious difficulty, notably Runnymede and potentially here in Surrey itself. And it's worth noting at this point that none of the proposed unitaries being discussed today, or indeed even a single unitary, is viable on day one if the debt matters are unresolved. The financial issues that are poisoning this debate are the direct consequences of 15 years of local government cuts and the increasing number of former Conservative councils with debts so toxic that they pollute the rest of this county and this process, undermine the debate, undermine this whole debate and the future of our county. This could and should be a debate on what is likely the next 50 years of local government and what is the best for residents. And instead this almost perfunctory advisory debate, a microcosm of so many things that are wrong at this level of local government, is going to be solely about money. It's going to be solely about debt. It's going to be solely about the temporary position here in 2025. It is not going to be about what's best for residents. It's not going to be about what is sustainable for government going forward. It is going to be about 2025 and its problems. And for me, even if we had to do that over three years, that would be difficult. But we've got nine weeks, not even that. So let's enjoy this debate everyone because frankly we should have been taking a lot more time, a lot more care and with a lot more thought about the next 50 years and not the next three months. Thank you Mr Chairman. I'll now call Robert Evans OBE. Robert Evans. Thank you very much chair, colleagues. I'd like to thank the leader for another memorable and gripping speech which actually wasn't quite as memorable as I thought it was going to be because at the beginning when the Honorable Iman was speaking, the caption said the leader of the council and I felt there were going to be news today about which we should have been given advance warning. However, the leader spoke about quite clearly a lot of the time about the future of local government and I welcome the decision to move to unitary authorities and indeed the speed for a variety of reasons with which this is happening. I share the leader's views that unitary authorities are a positive move forward. But the leader said it's important that we get this right and the outcomes must be right. My real fear, colleagues, is that if we go for the two unitary model, west and east, this council or its replacement will soon realise that it doesn't work, it doesn't deliver and isn't best for some of the residents of Surrey and certainly for the people of Spelthorn. Now the leader also touched on the situation in Spelthorn as Councillor Follows did. Another borough, formerly run by the Conservatives, has gone bust. Some colleagues in this room, heads down, were part of that administration, probably voted for the investments that are now causing such dismay. So I wonder if the leader's got a message for the good people of Spelthorn as they face swinging cuts in services. We owe it to the people of Surrey to deliver a system with which they feel some sense of belonging. A west Surrey authority, as Councillor Follows has referred to, stretching stay from Staines to Farnham or Ashford to Oxford, covers no travel to work areas, is not geographically sensible, nor one with which residents will feel any natural affinity. Surrey is large and diverse. The north is more suburban whilst the south is very rural. There are few natural links north to south in this county. With this option, I fear that residents will feel more remote than they do today or linked with towns and villages with which they have little in common who have not even heard. So the debate will be a very serious one as we progress and we put the different arguments for and against. I hope that as members come to vote later on, and I urge all members to vote and think and vote on what they genuinely and seerly believe will be best for the county, not on the way that they've been told to vote by somebody else. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Essex. Thank you, Chairman. Having read the various proposals, I just wanted to come back to why are we doing this? Is this local government reorganisation and new mayors about localism or just saving money? The PWC report for the County Council network talks of saving three billion if every county becomes a single unitary, but that won't happen. Essex, five. Pent, proposing four. Surrey, two or three. It feels more motivated by the growth in debt, political control and power. Growth. Let's not allow LGR to further hollow out our democracy alongside a planning system that backs the wrong kind of growth. Even fewer independent-minded councillors would make it easier to steamroll our countryside, and serving residents' interests means recognising the need to do the little things well, not blindly pursuing economies of scale. Most of our workers' councillors is not here in this room. It's serving residents in some way. Debt. Government, not residents elsewhere in Surrey, should pay Woking's debt. Woking's debt is just the 20th of the exceptional financial support government has agreed with 30 councillors for next year. Let's not let Surrey be singled out for Woking's government's failures, nor create a precedent for other councils to be loaded with more debt as a result of years of structure underfunding by government. This must be kept separate from LGR plans, yet Surrey appears to have been chosen for ultra-fast-tracking for this reason. The claims that we were ready in the February letter now look hollow. These plans fail to agree on the underlying costs of aggregation and disaggregation, let alone a preferred number of councils. The councils should consult residents together, and then agree a joint submission. So, leader, before our final submission, can we please change how we do this? Instead of trying to force a county plan mirrored on areas already suffering a loss of local democracy, can we not apply the principles of localism and democracy to this process, please? Localism to me is summed up by the phrase, small is beautiful. A wellbeing economy defined by how our shared quality of life of our communities, the character of our places, and how this links to our climate environment. And local public services that deliver far more than government's mandates, that avoid leaving anyone behind. So, leader, please will you add climate and environment as mandatory duties on local government, and in come inequality, not just aspiration, as protective characteristics in our equality impact assessments as part of our LGR submission. And please, can we take a new way forward on this, as we have just nine weeks to go, and this idea of fast-tracking based on we're ready is starting to look increasingly desperate and hollow. Thank you. I now open this item for debate. George Potter? A groan again. Bigger is better. That is quite clearly the mantra being espoused by the administration here at County Hall. What they're compensating for I'm not quite sure, but that's clearly the line they're taking. Bigger is better. But when it comes to local government, that is quite manifestly not the case when you look at the evidence. What we have proposed before us is two councils of 600,000 people. That is what the county administration, what the conservatives are arguing for. 600,000 people for reference is bigger than the counties of Herefordshire and Shropshire combined. It is almost twice the size of the largest London borough, Croydon, which incidentally is the only London borough which is bankrupt. I think rather illustrating quite neatly that bigger does not equal better finances or better financial resilience. Or for that matter, one can look at Birmingham City Council, larger than the entire county of Surrey and one of the most indebted in all of Europe. So when we look at this, we need to look at a bit more than simply bigger must automatically be better and simpler and cheaper. But on that point, I will note that the county council again has only got just over 14 days of usable non-earmarked reserves. So the idea that there is some sort of financial resilience of the county which is absent at the district and borough level is transparent nonsense. But what is important is to look at the actual data. I have a scientific background. I have an engineering degree. I care a lot about data and evidence and facts. I let my opinions be driven by the evidence, not by ideology. And what I note is it is only in the district and borough paper that there has actually been a proper look at the evidence. A proper look at travel to work areas, at economic regions, at the service quadrants which the county council uses to deliver their services. As it turns out, the county council does not deliver services as one uniform service across the entire county. It is already split up into different regions and sub-areas. So the idea that somehow two would introduce, that three councils would introduce greater costs of splitting those up than two is again nonsense. But the real point I'd make is one thing which Tim Oliver has not mentioned at all in his speech. Representation. In my division, we currently have five borough councillors and one county councillor. Under the county council's proposals, we would go down to just two councillors representing residents for all services from social care to bin collections. Just two councillors to represent twelve and a half thousand people. There is no way that so few councillors can provide adequate local representation to the huge variety which exists even within existing county divisions. Let alone across our entire county. Two unitaries would be undemocratic and would strangle the local voice at birth. It cannot be allowed to happen. We should not support this. The leader mentioned in his speech that the sincere attempt to gather the right data to have the optimum solution for our residents. Does the leader agree with me that at any time to attempt to distort facts and compromise members and officers in the process is to say the least unacceptable? But on a matter as significant as the reorganization of Surrey's local governance that will impact our residents so profoundly, Paul Fellow's attempt to skew the figures is a despicable betrayal of all of us in this chamber, a betrayal of his members and officers at Waverley which he is the leader of, a betrayal of his party and most importantly a betrayal of Surrey's residents who are depending on all of us to look at the available cracks and come up with an optimal solution for their benefit. An apology cannot restore trust or undo the fact that we now know that in pursuit of his own personal ambition that he is prepared and how he is prepared to behave. In my view, he has forfeited a moral and ethical right to be in this chamber or indeed that of Waverley's or indeed face his residents who entrusted their precious votes in him. I find it hard to believe that any party would not wash their hands of him. I can only presume that as he has not resigned, he sadly does not realize the gravity of his actions. I can also only presume that his group, as they have not sacked him, means that they have no idea of the gravity of it either. Point of personal explanation, Mr Chairman. A member who has already spoken may speak on a point of order or may at the chairman's discretion explain any statement made by him or her which he or she believes has been misunderstood or to refute a personal allegation. Mr Chairman, I think I've already made my point clear in the first two minutes of my speech to make sure that members in this chamber understood the difference. I think I will take this opportunity, as it's happened in two speeches already, just to remind everybody that my name is Councillor Paul Follows with an O. I have sat in this chamber long enough, so I will just correct that little point as well. I will not be lectured on the morals from people who are the ones who oversaw the working and spellthorn and some of the others. Robert King. Thank you, Mr Chair. I think we all find Council quite entertaining at times. I would like to correct the record on the running need. We exited our best value notice and indeed have paid down a £20 million endowment in our debt liabilities for only £10 million and reduced our deficit by 25% in the first nine months of a non-conservative administration. And indeed, I have full confidence and strength in our asset departments. It provides an important point, though, that all debt is not created equal. We are a housing-owning borough. Many boroughs in this county are housing-owning stock boroughs, and in local government reorganisation, it is very important that it is seen as something different to other asset-led developments as an important service to deliver and expand on our hope, all our ambition, to provide good quality homes for every resident. So today we discussed perhaps the demise of this Council, but indeed the future potential for what would replace it. And I would wish that to be based around the themes of connectivity and identity, economic logic, and indeed future growth. I was very grateful for myself and Councillor Evans, who met Baroness Taylor now just four weeks ago, to discuss what we want to see for our residents in Stanwell and Egan and also across Surrey. Now, most residents in Runnymede don't wake up in the morning thinking about commuting to Warplesdon or Goggleming. They think about going to Weybridge or Staines. That is the natural economic geography of our community, and indeed a unitary authority must reflect how people live and work. A Council which stretches from Staines to Rygate, in my mind, does not, and indeed provides poor best value for those residents in the service it delivers. Now, I represent a semi-urban electoral division. Many colleagues in this room will represent semi-rural or rural constituencies and therefore face substantially different challenges. And therefore an authority which represents them should have a different funding settlement and core budget. One which has rural populations should focus on rural poverty. One which has semi-urban or urban communities should concentrate on those services more appropriately. We turn to economic similarity. Runnymede has the highest GBA outside London. Indeed, Spelthorne as well has a unique economic profile, having some of the highest paid service sector jobs in the county with finance, technology and logistics. Indeed, boroughs, which are represented differently economically than other parts of Surrey. Therefore, as the first borough Council to have a special meeting last night ahead of the publication by this authority's plan, a three unitary model was supported by the majority of my borough colleagues in Runnymede. It addresses that need to balance efficiencies with actual achievable efficiencies and a best value Council for the future of our residents, not only in Runnymede but across Surrey. And thirdly, I'd like to draw a colleague's attention to population growth. Surrey is 68% above the national average growth rate and is expected to hit a 1.3 million pound population. And I conclude by that we should support not the plan by this administration but a three unitary model. Thank you. Thank you. I'm standing over please. Under 5.2 it's about member conduct. The Speaker previously had a statement prepared written down which amounted to an attack on another member. How does that fit into your new regime about how we behave in this Council? Thank you. Thank you. Noted. John O'Reilly. Thank you very much, Chairman. First of all, I think I can, maybe it's for Tim Oliver to provide the definitive assurance, but I think we can say safely to Catherine Powell there is not going to be a single unitary. End of. Stop it. It will either be two or three. Chairman, Tim Oliver in his opening remarks mentioned the ILACS inspection and that's good to have. And as we find out, as we look through our agenda today, the second question from Tim Hall to Claire Curran, we see the significant progress, extraordinary progress if I may say so, on EHCPs. We're now at 65% as opposed to the 50% nationally. The latest figure for February completion is 91%. And this fits very closely with the recommendations or the feedback from the September 2023 Ofsted area send inspection which focused, amongst many other things, on EHCPs. Again, we are making significant progress. Just last week, the select committee, of which I'm a member, considered with some detail the intensive family support team and the adolescent strategy, strategic team. Both commanded our admiration for their dedication and their commitment to our residents and those who are most vulnerable. So that represents, I think, significant progress. There is still a lot to do. That is unquestionable. But the point I'm making is that I think, and I hope the leader agrees with me, that some of us are sick to death of the constant, seemingly constant denigration and disparagement of this service. It is outrageous that it should still be continued after this progress. And therefore, I will quote at the end from our chief executive. It's principally the Liberal Democrats at fault. It is clear to me, writes our chief executive, that while Mr. Coughlin, who's the MP and the other five MPs, Liberal Democrat MPs, is ostensibly seeking to advocate on behalf of Surrey residents, he is at best misinformed or perhaps more concerningly being willfully ignorant of only the work we are doing. Does the leader agree with me that our chief executive on this issue is spot on? Thank you. Joanne Sexton? Thank you, Chair. If I may, we should not be here today as representatives of political groups, but as servants of our communities. Our duty is not to party lines or personal agendas. It is to the residents who rely on us to make the right decisions. It is true that the districts and boroughs are not always on the same page. It is also true that some vital data has not been shared as openly as one would have hoped so. But we cannot let challenges divide us. Instead, we must come together openly and work towards a shared vision. I plead with you all, let's not waste time on division. We only have one life and we have been given this opportunity to make a real difference. Let's rise above the politics, collaborate and create a legacy that we can all be proud of. One that future generations will look back on with gratitude. Thank you. I have no more speakers, so I call the leader to reply. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman. I suspect we probably won't need to spend much time on item 6. Now we seem to have debated most of the salient points. I will just pick up on a few areas. We all agree, the leaders, all 12 leaders of the councils, that debt is the elephant in the room and that has to be addressed. Equally, the government have made it clear, up to now, to date, that they don't intend to simply write off all of the debt, whether that's a woking or spell form. But we will be having those detailed conversations with both MHCLG and the Treasury. But we have to have a plan B. We have to find some other solution, I suspect, to help the government and us through the next few years. The challenge is not just about the debt on the balance sheet, it is also the servicing of that debt in terms of minimum revenue provision and interest repayments. So there needs to be a comprehensive plan around how that debt is dealt with and it is not acceptable for it simply to be spread across the residents of the rest of the county. I don't actually think anybody really was no surprise enough to listen to what I said around localism. And I will talk about that now in more and much more detail when we do get on to item 6. I have already, I'm not quite sure I understand some of the arguments about from stains to ridates or whatever. This council, this council, and remember you are county councilors in this chamber, not borough councilors. This council delivers services to 1.2 million residents across 650 square miles of this county. What we are talking about is cutting those, cutting that in half or in thirds and delivering those services. But the issue you've got actually is about consolidating the district and borough services. Those are the ones that will be removed, if you like, from localism, not the services that this county delivers at a strategic level. On the assumptions, we have an Andy Brown, the Deputy Chief Exec and Section 151 here, has tried as hard as he can to get agreement on the working assumptions. And I won't go through the history of that. All of the leaders in this room know just how difficult that has been to get one set of agreed assumptions. But that has to happen. Absolutely, we do need to all be working off exactly the same dates. I agree with John Sexton that the data hasn't been shared openly by the district and boroughs and we will make sure that in the future meetings that there is that absolute transparency. The timing of the decision, I've made that point already, it doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that we have to put our submission in by May, the six other councils by September and the rest, all other two tiers, by November. So we're not talking about years, nobody else has got years to do this, they've got a few more months. My point was that we have better to get in there and negotiate upfront with the government rather than have it imposed on us. The White Paper is very clear that if councils don't come forward with proposals, those will be imposed upon them. On the Spelthorn report that Paul Follows mentioned, read the conclusions. I don't think there is any doubt as to what the problem is currently within Spelthorn, which is exactly why the government are sending in or will be appointing commissioners. I do think, I will ask the officers here to run another seminar on finance. I don't think that members over here actually understand the finances of this council. This council has 150 million of reserves, that is more than 14 days running costs for here. So I will ask the officers to run a proper, a further seminar for all members and I would ask that there is full attendance please, so they can run through the budget. We do have an independent audit system in local government, it is being reviewed by the government, but our accounts have been signed off in accordance with the national standards. I will have to say, I am not sure what the position is in Guildford, when we talk about the issues that they face around their housing department and other things. So, you know, this is ridiculous and unfair and just nonsensical to keep suggesting that this council is not financially sound. As to, I don't think, Robert Evans, as always, very entertaining, I am not sure what you said, but I think, just repeat the point, that the council services are delivered across 1.2 million already. To Jonathan Essex, why are we doing this? Well, why are we doing this? We are doing this because the Labour government issued a white paper on the 16th of December, requiring all 2-tier authorities to do this. Not my choice, not my government. That is a simple fact. We have to get on with this. That is what we are being told to do and that is what we are doing. And despite some of the rhetoric in this council chamber, actually the weekly meetings of the 12 leaders has been very constructive. We have made some good progress to get actually to a point where there are only really options of two unitaries or three unitaries. It is real progress, you know, and I am grateful to the other leaders that have been supportive in those conversations in getting to an agreed Part A document, which hopefully you have all read. And we have put in two options at Part B. Those are equal options as far as the paper is concerned and will be considered by the government, I have absolutely no doubt. But I will pick up on the point about economic growth and economic identities, because at the end of the day, these unitaries, however many there are, will not have responsibility for growing our economy in Surrey. It will be for the mayor. So the mayor won't be interested in what the unitary boundaries are. The mayor, if they are doing their job properly, will be interested in growing the whole of the economy. We know that in the west of the county, we have some big international, we have 300 international headquarters in this county. We know that we have really strong gaming industry, automotive industry, life sciences industry, all in the west. But actually the productivity is greater, funnily enough, in the east. But they are different things. 90% of the businesses here are SMEs. So actually, it will be for the mayor working with the work that we have done here and the districts and boroughs have done around economic growth to pick that up. Drive forward, in particular, the skills agenda, which is the single biggest thing other than the cost of housing that is holding back our local economy. Trying to identify, quite frankly, non-existent economic areas is just pointless. That will sit with the mayor across the whole of the footprint of the county of Surrey. Then, I think, just really to John O'Reilly's point, I entirely agree. We are in the middle of our offset ILATS inspection. And I very much hope that those of you that are involved in that in any form do engage with the lead inspector or the inspectors. We have made, whatever anybody says, we have made significant progress on SCN. This is a national issue that the government are about, I think, to opine on. There is an absolute national recognition that the whole system needs to be reviewed. The 2014 reforms, admittedly introduced by Michael Gove, have been very unhelpful in terms of helping us manage the demand for EHCPs. We have done a lot in terms of putting more money in to get more educational psychology support. We changed the system locally so that we are now hitting 90-odd per cent last month, from 16 per cent to 65 per cent on a rolling basis. But I have to say, I have to warn everybody, and I have had this conversation with the leader of the residents group on a number of occasions, the direction of travel for the government around SCN is to, the full position is for children to be placed in mainstream settings and for specialist schools to be reserved for those with really high specialist needs. That is where they are going. That, I suspect, will be a challenging change to bring about. But if it does, and we are creating, we have created hundreds and hundreds of spaces in our mainstream settings and will continue to do so. If that is the way it goes, that will have a positive impact, at least on our home to school transport budget, which is over £70 million a year. And I hope we will have better outcomes for children if they can be supported in a more local environment. So there is lots to go there, but I think John O'Reilly makes the point that this is not right, or factually not right, for people, particularly a member of parliament, to raise some of these issues in parliament. Indeed, John O'Reilly referred to the Chief Executive who was responding to a letter to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is going to pick that up on our behalf. So look, I think we will now have a further debate around local government reorganisation. We all agree, I think we all agree, that whatever we do has to be in the best interest of our residents. What is in their best interest, we do need to do more work on, we absolutely do need to have more accurate data, we do need to do further modelling around where the council tax base is compared with the demand and so on. But let's just get this submission in today. It is agreed, by Friday at least, that the part A is agreed, that there are two part Bs that are perfectly sensible, in main part anyway, and then let's see what the government says, because actually, unless we do address the debt position in a positive and appropriate way, then this is going to be very, very difficult for our residents and we need to be joined up in terms of how we deal with that issue, if nothing else. Item 6 is evolution and local government reorganisation, covers report. Appendix 1 to 7 are on pages 5, 204 of the first supplementary agenda. Annex 8 is on pages 5 to 52 of the second supplementary agenda. I have been advised by the Monitoring Officer that there has been correspondence between members regarding the recommendations within the report. A request to put forward an amendment. It is my role as the Chair of Council to regulate and control the proceedings of this meeting, in line with Standing Orders and the law. In line with the advice from the Monitoring Officer, responsibility for evolution and local government reorganisation sits with the Cabinet, as it is an executive function. Therefore, I will not be accepting amendments on this report. Alternative options have been provided to members with regard to raising the matter at the Cabinet meeting when the report is considered. I call the Leader to introduce the report. Thank you, Chair, and just to reinforce, I am very happy for any member to attend the Cabinet meeting this afternoon, if they wish to continue the conversation. But it is the Cabinet that has the decision-making powers. I have already made reference to the collaborative work undertaken by the 12 Councils to produce a Single Part A document. That does set out the scene for reorganisation in Surrey, so I am not going to cover that again. I have also dealt with the accelerated programme point, I think. But the Government have been clear in the White Paper, and in subsequent briefings, that new unitary councils must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. Of course, we have already discussed at that latter point, it is particularly pertinent to this County, where we now have two Borough Councils with Commissioners appointed by the Government to manage those councils. I have already made the point, I think, that I do agree that a unitary supporting 600,000 residents does not feel very local, nor does 500, 400, 300, even 100,000, is not local. But what does feel local are the towns and villages that people live or work in. Oxford in the East, Hazelmere in the South, Stains upon Thames in the North and Farnham in the West all have distinct identities. And that is why the County Council submission sets out how we intend to build on that existing partnership work that we are doing in those towns and villages. I do not think any of us are blind to the fact that residents do not really have any affinity to any council of any size. They simply want their bins emptied, they want to borrow a book from their local library, they want to see a vibrant high street with a good selection of retail units and restaurants. They want to be able to get an appointment with their GP or their dentist. That is real localism and that is the real opportunity for local government reorganisation. So it will be for the unitary councils to drive efficiency and consistency of service across the existing county footprint, the services that this council delivers. But it will be a truly local forum that will bring together local government services, health, community safety and supported by the voluntary sector. So working with members we will use the town and villages footprint that has become increasingly embedded in partnership working particularly with the health system and look at a more formalised structure going forward. This will build and should build, must build on the excellent work of our current town and parish councils, the voluntary and community sector and the health system all working in genuine partnership. It is disappointing I have to say in the part B document that the district of boroughs have put together, they do not address at all how they will engage with partners at that real local level. There is nothing about localism in there at all other than to lobby the minister to retain civic mayors. But I have to say the piece of work that we need to take forward to create a truly local engagement forum with those communities and with residents that will actually recognise those forums and leave the unitary councils to oversee delivery at a strategic level. So as part of the reorganisation we have to find efficiencies and better ways, more innovative ways of doing things. Consolidating our waste collection and disposal services and particularly a common approach to recycling. Streamlining the ownership and operation of land and buildings owned by the 12 councils with a view to transferring appropriate assets into community ownership. Having a strategic view of planning across a wider geographical footprint so the government housing targets are met with the right homes in the right location. Bringing community services together under a single roof, reducing the back office cost of delivering services wherever possible to make sure that the public pound is spent on delivering frontline services. Mr Chairman, the world has changed almost beyond recognition over the past 50 years and so have the demands on local governments. So now is the time to modernise those services, creating councils that are of a size to be efficient and financially sustainable, delivering services to those residents that need our support whilst giving local communities a real say on their local environment. Thank you. Point of order Mr Chairman. Can you stand up? Yes I shall. Absolutely important that I do that, yes. In regards to 21.1 through 21.6 of the constitution in regards to amendments, you've obviously made your ruling but could I request in writing from you the specific clauses of the constitution and or elements of the standing orders which I'm in violation of which is denied my right to an amendment. Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you. An explanation has already been provided to you. I'm happy to take this up outside the meeting. The debate is open for debate. Helen Clack. Thank you Chair. I'm extremely grateful for the remarks that the leader has made about local communities and community engagement. I represent an area that is totally parish. I have eight parish councils in my community. They meet on a monthly basis. They are very much the front line of community engagement in calling on all the services that affect their residents to provide them with the services that they require and they are incredibly valuable. The councillors on parishes, on my parish councils are not paid and they're not political. They're there to represent residents causes and they do a great job and I think it's important that the future of this kind of localism is built on as we go forward. I really, really welcome the idea of community boards in the future unitary councils and I hope that this council will develop those plans which were already on the books if you like from the previous discussions about unitaries. I think they will be really, really helpful in getting local people engaged and also to make sure that those services are aware of how to deliver themselves in local communities. So thank you very much for including them. Parish councils are protected under the law. I know that only 30% of this county is parished and I'm sorry for those people that don't have parishes because they are excellent and long may they continue to in their existence and improve our services of quality to our residents. Thank you. Captain Pollard. Thank you, Chair. The time to gather the data has been short, but I am frustrated that the Surrey Part B papers are missing key data points and I'm concerned that this information will make a difference between unitaries being sustainable and being vehicles for economic growth. Since analysis I did over the first period clearly showed that in economic terms, three is the right areas with the one across the Surrey-Hampshire border as the Blackwater Valley. As the LGR discussions continue, I have become increasingly concerned about three key issues, debt, revenue balance and democracy. Starting with debt. Three of the Surrey's Part B two unitary options put the three highest areas of debt, Woking, Spellthorne and Runnymede in the same authority. Accepting that the new administrations are doing their best and Runnymede has been taken out of BVI. We do not know how the government will deal with debt, but it feels unlikely it will be written off. Consequently, I do not believe we can propose unitary options without knowing what the plan is. What about the balance of revenue? If we remove the issue of debt from the equation, the next most important in relation to sustainability is the balance between where we raise council tax and where it is spent. Which Ds and Bs are net users and which are net generators. This isn't critical information for the operation of Surrey County Council, but it is for LGR. We need an analysis by districts and boroughs for the demand and cost of services now and for the next three years. I've asked for this time and time again and the response to the question for today's meeting says it will be done between now and the 9th of May. What about local democracy? Every area of Surrey is different. Some have towns and parishes, some have small districts and boroughs, others are geographically large. How we work with our local communities is not one size fits all. Hence my motion to the council, which I hope you will also support. I am also concerned that based on the information available in the Surrey Part B papers, there is evidence that the options presented to split Surrey into two would lead to significant imbalances. Which even if the debt issues are resolved, would make one council significantly more likely to fail than the other. For these reasons, I cannot support the submission in the interim plans in their current form and I will therefore be voting against the recommendation for the cabinet to submit the Surrey Part B papers. Thank you, Chair. Robert Evans. Thank you very much, Chair, colleagues. It's been my privilege to represent the residents of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor, now renamed at my suggestion Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and North Ashford since 2013. Ashford Middlesex is where I was born and went to school. For much of my time as a councillor, a regular complaint of my residence has been that they felt ignored. Stanwell and Stanwell Moor they believed was a forgotten corner of Spelthorne and the whole of Spelthorne was a forgotten part of Surrey. The only borough north of the Thames and the only part of Middlesex which didn't become Greater London. I was pleased to welcome the leader to my division last year so he could see for himself the great often untapped qualities of the air and people I represent. Colleagues will also know that I have long argued for local government reform. Some here will remember that I wrote a paper at the time Simon Clark who was then the minister in Councillor Oliver's government who made proposals for very similar changes to our structures for local government. Changes that were put on hold by the COVID pandemic and the then almost weekly change of Prime Minister. When in 2019 I circulated my thoughts in a discussion paper with maps detailing how three unitaries could work, there were several members, many here today who supported them. Some even put congratulations in writing to me. I know who you are. I hope today you stand by your support for three unitaries as you did then. The government has been clear in its aim for simpler, more sustainable local government structures, those are the words, which I believe dividing Surrey into three is. I realise that they suggest 500,000 as a target population but they also state that exceptions can be made on a case by case basis. I regret that this council has in its one sided approach has not sought to present a case by case analysis that three unitaries do make sense as I believe they do and the council could have found, presented and promoted these arguments. Now the leader may not understand the arguments of points about north, south or west and east but in schedule six, point six speaks of the new unitary authorities that will enable stronger community engagements. Referring back to my opening remarks, there is no way you can draw boundaries that create community engagement between Spelthorn and Waverley or Spelthorn and Tandridge, however you draw the lines. Many people in Stanwell know of the Normandy landings because it was a local man, John Gibson, who built the Mulberry harbors to facilitate the DD landings. They have no idea there is a place called Normandy in Surrey and they have no more wish to be in the same unitary authority as that village than they have to be in the part of the French region of the same name and I wish no disrespect to anywhere in this county or in France. Similarly there is no desire for the people of Ashford to sink in with Godstone should the boundaries be cut another way. However a plan that links neighboring boroughs, close by towns and villages with local ties, family connections, shopping centers and bus routes does make sense. Which is why I favor a plan for three unitaries, an option I will believe is in the best interest of the residents of Surrey and the people that I represent in the former historic county of Middlesex. Thank you. George Potter. Thank you. Once again some of the marks that have come thus far from the other side of this chamber repeat the familiar theme of being confident, condescending but demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of fundamental realities of the subjects they are talking about. Or as my father would like to put it, it's all mouth and no trousers. When we talk about the delivery of services and how they should be delivered, when we talk about how this county council is already providing services across the entire county, let's stop and think about how well it is providing those services. Whether the current approach is really delivering good results for our residents. I think most of us would recognize when speaking to our residents that the one size fits all approach taken by the county council does not work a lot of the time. The leader has also referenced local engagement and how that will work under unitaries. Well there are two problems with that statement. The first problem with it, the biggest problem is that it is not the business of this council or any district or borough council because it will be for the unitaries to decide how they approach engagement for local communities. Whether they wish to devolve things to parish councils, whether they wish to create area committees, whether they wish to centralize. But more to the point let's look at the record of this own council when it comes to engagement. Not that long ago we had local area committees of borough and district councils plus county councils. Then the county council reduced what they could do via matters they could consider and turned them into joint committees. Then when it decided it didn't like what the joint committee was doing it abolished them. Where we have seen the centralization without consultation of verge maintenance, of on the street parking. The instincts of this council have constantly been centralization and the elimination of the local voice. So the idea that two unitaries led by the same people who have been so keen on stifling the local voice at every opportunity would be better for resident engagement is a complete nonsense. And to suggest that somehow that two unitaries would be better for engagement with communities is absolutely absurd. But we come back to the key point of how well can councils reflect the communities they need to serve. And the question I put is how well can a council headquartered in Sains for instance deal with for argument's sake the pressures of tourism numbers in a tiny village in the Surrey Hills which is also a very popular film location. We already struggle to manage these things at a district level of balancing the different needs of different communities and that's at a much smaller scale. So the larger we get inevitably the more remote and the less effective and the less responsive we will be. And the idea similarly that rural bus services belong in the same boat as suburban London bus services is again transparent nonsense. So again three unitaries is the only option. Thank you. Denise Turner-Stewart. Thank you Chairman. The Surrey County Council submission is a comprehensive detailed thoroughly evidenced clear and assuring interim proposal meeting the crucial requirements to be financially sustainable tackling rising demand deliver simpler more effective and cheaper aligned public services and unlocked evolution. It will minimize the risks of disaggregation of frontline services will strike the right balance between operating at scale and delivering more effectively and efficiently. And will harness local knowledge and understanding of our residents and communities. We're already doing this through our established towns and villages model and our evolving community forums which will be involved in the final submission. We'll achieve best value for money and deliver improved outcomes for residents and will be in the best interest of the whole Surrey area. This proposal commits to continued and close collaboration and engagement with our partners and stakeholders and minimize disruption to residents during a period of great change. We owe it to our residents to get this right. Our residents just want good quality accessible affordable and sustainable services. Our residents want to see us spending their hard earned council tax wisely and well responsibly and appropriately. Our residents want us to prioritize the needs and protect our most vulnerable as well as addressing their everyday issues. And our residents genuinely and meaningfully want to be able to influence and contribute to decisions that impact the most in their local area. With strong community engagement and true neighbourhood empowerment that they can live and breathe and feel. This interim proposal positions us well to be able to rise to all of these challenges and truly to deliver for our residents that we continue to serve in the way that they deserve. Thank you Chairman. All follows. This incredibly short process is of course a risk in itself and I repeat the point that none of these unitaries can be incorporated on day one at present without a plan to resolve the debt issues of Woking and Spellthorne. In practice everything we say here about these bids and specific proposals presumes those elements are sorted out first. More worryingly the discussion about debt and geography neglects the more general lack of financial sustainability of local government system in general, especially here in Surrey. And as it stands this process will simply create bigger councils with the same flaws as the present ones causing them to fail in short order. Indeed if it's two or three unitaries they will still be in the top two or three positions of council tax base in England and as such whatever the funding situation now will be worse when the fair funding review comes around. But onto the bids. The county bid is fixated on the 500,000 population figure despite us all being told by ministers at least twice this was negotiable. A point clearly understood by Essex and Hampshire in their considerations indeed so far by everybody other than Surrey. Proposing such massive territories in some cases cuts economic hubs in half, creates unfocused growth with councils having rural and urban drivers pulling in opposite directions as I think was outlined by another member. Having just two elected members for such massive divisions without any borough members but with their duties too will create a significant caseworkload and will make further being a councillor the province of the select few people who can make it work in terms of time and other commitments. Like having a job to pay the bills, having children or caring responsibilities. This will further make an unrepresentative place more unrepresentative. The financial monitoring of the county is strange. The scoring and assumptions table at the front makes no sense. There's clearly an attempt here to pack the three unitary option in their version with costs. They've done so in a few ways but one of the more serious ones here is by assuming an absolutely ludicrous duplication of staff. I remain baffled at the comments on economies of scale that will benefit these two unitaries. Either these economies of scale exist now and Surrey, an even bigger authority, hasn't accessed them or you have and it's made no difference. There is simply not enough time Mr Chair for me to go into all of this in the depth that it's needed and I'm sure other members will do so. But I can't in good conscience accept the county proposals over the far more local and better evidence proposals from the DMBs. Mr Chairman, as I was denied by you my proper constitutional rights to propose an amendment, I believe this advisory debate does need to be very clearly advising and for members to make their views clear to each other and the public. So when the time comes I would like to call separate recorded votes on clauses 2 and 4 at that point. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mary Jordan. Thank you very much Mr Chairman for giving me the opportunity to put forward some really important considerations in terms of a unitary model in regards to adult social care. Haven't heard much mentioned about that so far Chair. And of course with that we must remember the 24,000 plus vulnerable people that we support across the county. So I wanted to share some thoughts regarding the proposed 2 unitary model for social care, for adult social care and its potential benefits and challenges particularly in the context of the ongoing discussions about local governance. And at the same time I want to remind members that the net expenditure for adult social care alone is a budget busting £484 million a year. And children's social care net expenditure is £282 million a year and all of this is against the backdrop of an increase in demand for services from vulnerable residents across the county. So I am minded to support the 2 unitary model and I do acknowledge its various benefits. I am concerned that moving beyond the 2 unitary framework could pose significant challenges when it comes to social care. Disaggregating adult social care services further could lead to reduction in the economy of scale and commissioning, an inconsistent application of the Care Act and increased overhead costs associated with managing services that currently operate county wide. One area of particular strength within the 2 unitary system lies in the integration of housing responsibilities with those of adult social care and mental health. This integration can only enhance our ability to meet the housing needs of service users, our residents, supporting their independence and ensuring that they remain connected to their communities. By facilitating access to housing and providing support to maintain these properties we can only better promote outcomes for adult social care service users. Moreover this approach is likely to reduce the demand for care and support over time, enabling individuals to live independently for longer periods. When we consider the size and scope of adult social care, both in its delivery and within the broader social care market, it becomes evident that disaggregation beyond 2 unitaries would only complicate service provision for several reasons. And share those reasons that I'd like to highlight just a few of them. One example is establishing local authorities raises, establishing additional local authorities raises concerns about consistent eligibility criteria application under the Care Act. A county wide approach or a unified unitary model currently fosters inequity in service delivery. The more fragmented our structure becomes, the greater the risk of an inconsistent service experience for our residents. Additionally, recruiting qualified staff for statutory roles in newly formed councils will be difficult. While each council can implement strategies to attract and retain talent, fragmented authorities may lead to staff movement across council lines. And this will again create inconsistencies in service delivery and pose challenges for recruitment, especially in those areas I believe closer to London. It's also crucial to highlight the importance of maintaining effective communication and collaboration between councils to preserve the efficiencies gained through large scale commissioning. The creation of two new councils would allow us to address local challenges much more effectively while still utilizing the benefits of larger scale operations. So in conclusion, I believe that creating two unitaries when it comes to adult social care will enable a focused approach to tackling health inequalities at a local level while retaining the advantages of strategic commissioning. It is vital that we adopt a strong towns and villages framework to ensure that data and intelligence continue to inform the shaping of our services, enhancing our ability to manage and shape outcomes effectively. Thank you for considering my reflections. Thank you. Robert King. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Listening to this discussion about community governance review on parishes, really actually pleased that the one area aligned with the leader on this is that I am still quite skeptical on parishes because of the additional precepts it would find on my residents. The average additional precept we find from parish councils across England is on the Bandy property, £79.71. We're very unclear about what actually that adds often, let's say a local committee for example. So I think that's an important thing for our residents to consider and for us as we go forward to understand the disaggregation of services between boroughs and counties regardless of where we sit on the two or three model. I think I would also challenge this idea that three unitaries is additional cost in disaggregation. We see in North London, for example, the previous member referenced adult care. Five London borough councils come together to deliver a more cohesive adult care framework there and it closer aligns to each individual borough with their individual plans as well. So we don't know. Ultimately, it will be for elected members to decide the types and quality of services they want to provide regardless of whether we go to a two or three unitary model. So I think it often feels a bit like fact-packet economics if we were to pull the best guess statistics out at some of these services. We simply cannot know and we simply can't know on some of those staffing costs. We can share public health directors, we can share directors of different departments and we see that working very effectively in Manchester and Birmingham authorities as well. I think it's also important to say the deliverance of care settings, whether that's the children and younger adults, or adult care faces a different cost basis between urban and rural funding. To return to my previous earlier point, if you are delivering a service in an urban area, it is going to be cheaper for transport costs. So you want a different core funding settlement for those areas that are predominantly more urban. If you were in a rural setting, you are clearly travelling greater differences between patients to service them in their homes or in their care facilities as well. Again, requiring a more localised and best value assessment for the types of funding that local authority is given. Therefore, I think it returns back to my view and many others in this room around that three unitary model. Because it better reflects the difference in needs and the difference in cost base for those different communities. Thank you. David Lewis. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to recognise the amount of work that officers have put into producing the LGR submission on behalf of Surrey County Council. There's a huge amount of high quality analysis which underpins the proposals which, subject to cabinet approval this afternoon, will be presented to government at the end of the week. It does seem clear to me that the case for two unitary authorities is clear cut. But as we know, the final decision will be made by the government. Catherine Powell's proposal for three and a half unitaries is rather Harry Potter-ish and I very much doubt that that will be supported. But rather than dwelling on that decision and the final model to be adopted, I'd like to focus on more immediate issues. At the last meeting of this council, we approved the revenue budget for 25-26, an increase of 55.7 million pounds compared to the current year. We agreed the capital program and the medium term financial strategy for the next five years. I do understand that many officers and members are already thinking about how we're going to operate under the new unitary arrangements. That's been clear from the debate we've had today. It's entirely understandable. But we can't afford to take our eyes off the ball. Our residents expect us to continue to deliver the services that they need, whether that be children's, adult social care, highways maintenance, our green agenda and the work that we're doing in our communities. It is critical that despite the distractions of LGR, we continue to meet our residents' needs and do so within the buckets that have now been agreed. This means that we must continue to drive our transformation work forward and that the delivery of the 66 million pounds worth of savings that were identified in the budget must continue. Next year's budget identified 122 million pounds worth of pressures. These haven't disappeared because of LGR and all our directorates must continue to operate within the agreed budget envelopes. The LGR submissions all acknowledge that there will be a cost attached to the delivery of the proposals and the transition process. There may be disagreement about the extent of those costs and we don't know yet what level of financial support will be provided by government. But I'm reassured that unlike some of our district and borough councils, here at Surrey County Council we've included money in the budget for the LGR process as well as for the elections which are not now taking place in May. Mr Chairman, we're at the beginning of a momentous change in the way in which local government is structured across Surrey. I think it's an exciting time in which to be involved, but at the same time we must remember that we have a duty to continue to deliver the services so valued by our residents. And also as the portfolio holder for finance and resources, I'm determined that this council will be remembered for managing its finances in a robust and responsible manner in the last two years of its existence. Delivering these objectives is key for us all going forward. Thank you. Jonathan Essex. Thank you, Chair. Some comments on the documents if I may. Firstly, comparing the county and district borough bids, page 15 of the county's paper fails to provide payback for three unitaries because it arbitrarily cuts off at five years, while stating it is only 4.7 years for two unitaries. This appears to deliberately mislead. The county's midpoint estimate suggests four times as much savings for two unitaries as the borough district's estimate, which say they have benchmarked costs against recent unitarization realities elsewhere in England. Is the county really so confident we can make this much higher level of saving? And what would we do if the result was locked in and government future funding was based on overestimates of such savings? The county modeling retain all frontline service delivery for all Surrey's councils and councilor numbers. Surrey currently has around six borough and district councils per one county councilor division. The county council proposes that the seven councils in total reduced to two, creating resident ratios similar to other unitary authorities, while the borough and district proposal says that going from seven to three is in line with boundary commission guidance and ratios of similar existing councils. Well, they're saying the same thing, so which one's right? Now we have two proposals. Please can the two groups meet and compare and publish their assumptions about figures to reach a common understanding of the situation for Surrey as a whole. Without this, there will not be clarity as to what the scale of council is that optimizes local and county council service delivery. The county council is best informed about what the county council does, and the districts and boroughs are best informed about what they do. Other councils have already reorganized of real costs for comparison. Can all councils now please work together, pool their knowledge, state what they agree on, and what areas are still to be agreed, just like they managed to do in responding to Gatwick Airport's planning application. What if it isn't about making services cheaper and simpler, as Denise has said, especially as most unitary councils already in existence in areas like Manchester and London are much smaller than proposed here. Modeling Surrey against the UK's largest unitaries, risk proposing unitaries here that are too big in population and geography with far fewer councillors, born with a democratic deficit. Please publicly share the data and assumptions so we can work up the best-degree plan for three unitaries for Surrey together. The government's guidance is fairly straightforward. 1.5 million residents for a mayor, 500,000 residents for each unitary. We suggested slightly smaller for the mayor, why not slightly smaller for the unitaries. Three unitaries, the maths are simple, slightly smaller is good for democracy, and more local. Let's do that. Thank you. Hazel Watson. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the officers for their work in providing the evidence to back up the unitary proposals for Surrey, especially given the challenging timescale set by the government. I'm pleased that two options are included in the report, one for two unitaries and the other for three unitaries in Surrey. It is then for the government to decide which of the two options it wishes for Surrey to progress, and I hope that it will make its decision as soon as possible prior to the submission deadline for the final proposal on 9th May. As soon as the government expresses its preferred proposal, Surrey's 12 councils can then positively move forward together with planning for the necessary changes. At the moment, the 12 councils in Surrey are in a state of limbo, uncertain as to which proposal will be progressed. Although I had initially supported three unitaries, I'm now minded to support two unitaries to be established in Surrey. The reason for my views are that it meets the government's population criteria of 500,000 pounds, 500,000 population plus per unitary. The problem of debt would be spread across the county to help avoid having an unsustainable unitary being set up to fail. The cost savings would be greater for two unitaries compared to three as a result of economies of scale, better value contracts and lower anger heads. The risks to services such as adult and children's social care would be less with two unitaries compared to three. And as three unitaries would not be local councils, it would be preferable to have a financial savings for two unitaries combined with a local engagement with partner organizations such as local area committees to ensure that the views of local residents are heard and to support two unitaries to be established in Surrey. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. As Chairman of the Resources and Performance Committee, which Hazel Watson sits, one of my most used phrases is, I agree with Hazel and I do absolutely agree with what she says. The fact is the government will make the decision on the basis of the evidence put forward by the County Council and by at least some of the boroughs and districts when they decide we have to come together to make sure that we do the best for Surrey. I'm sure that's what everybody has in mind, but the politics has to be put to one side and the realities of service have to take the foremost. And the, Sinead has reminded us of the very significant services that are provided by the County Council, and they need our care and attention to make sure they are delivered into the hands of the new authority, new unitary authorities, and to an extent the mayor in a way that perhaps even improves those services, but certainly our concentration should be on making sure that they continue to be effective. I want to widen one point that Sinead made about those services. We often speak in this Council about the impact that charities have on delivering services for us. Charities like the Surrey Coalition, Silk, Age UK Surrey, Action for Carers, Site for Surrey, and Health Watch, and many others. And the more authorities that they have to negotiate with and deliver services for, the more complex and expensive it will be for them. So it's important to consider those services that the people of Surrey, many of whom rely on those services, are delivered by those charities. I want to agree with Helen Clack about the importance of parish councils, and I welcome the paragraphs in Part B of the document about that. Undoubtedly, there are opportunities for parish councils, if they choose to, to deliver very local services. And in my opinion, with the six parish councils in my division, they are well placed to be able to deliver very local services like the clearing of ditches, like flood prevention. It may be slightly more expensive, but effectiveness is really important here. Many will be able to take on those tasks. And I'm very grateful that George Potter mentioned Shear Village in my division. I can tell him that the Shear Parish Council feel completely abandoned by Guildford Council, who have imposed extra charges on them, taken away grants they were relying on, and indeed did so after they'd set their precept, causing them difficulties. And most appalling, completely withdrawing support and payments for the public toilets in the middle of Shear. As a tourist place, many tourists flock to Shear to have a look at what's been filmed and the rest of it. And the fact is, is that without those public toilets, I won't go into what some local people have described to me. The effect was before they had public toilets, but I can leave that to your imagination. Devolution is an opportunity, and we shouldn't forget that devolution is at the heart of this. And we have to make sure, with the unitary authorities, in the two years left of this authority, that we deliver sustainable services and work with them to make sure they carry on being delivered in a sustainable way. And I hope Robert Evans will be pleased to know that I'm absolutely going to follow his advice, which is I'm going to vote for what I genuinely believe to be in the best interest of Surrey. That's two unitary authorities. Chris Towner then. Thank you Chairman. I'm a very simple and naive person, as you all know. There was only one person that said, here, here, and I bet I could know who that was. But we're talking here about two and three. Provided the cases that go forward to government go through why one set of people want to have two, and why one set of people want to have three, then, as has been said by previous speakers just very recently, it will be the government that makes their decision. It won't be us. Just to be quite clear on that, it will not be us. My beef really is, why is, within what's being put forward by the county, one unitary option being put forward? Why the devil are we even bothering to put that forward? Because we know that doesn't meet a lot of criteria. Now, I'm led to believe, and he's looking at me just now, the chief executive favours that. Now, are we doing things that the chief executive wants, or are we doing what the council wants? So, my one beef, at the end of the day, the government will make the decision. I prefer three, and I'm not going to go into the whys and wherefores, because everybody else has. But we put a case forward for two, and we put forward a case for three, and the government will make the decision. But why, in God's name, is one unitary being put forward when we know that that is not acceptable? If we're wasting our time, and if it's because officers want it, that worries me even more. This is a member-led authority, and the chief executive answered me when I asked him that question about a month ago. He told me it was member-led. If it's member-led, we should be running with either two or three. One should not be there. Thank you. Point of order, Mr Chair. There is, it doesn't put forward a case for one single unitary. It says that we have not considered a single unitary, because that does not comply with the government's recommendation. So, there is no recommendation at all. Can we take this out of the meeting yet? Edward Heath. Edward Heath. Thank you, Chairman. I think I've said in this, actually, can I just start off by saying, as Chairman of Planning and Regulatory Committee, I tend to more often than not agree with Catherine. Not this occasion, no, I can't, I just can't. I've said in this chamber previously that I wanted to have a Blackwater Valley unitary, and for Surrey Heath to leave Surrey, that didn't work. So, I became a county councillor, you know, go figure. I've previously chaired the Local Area Committee. Those are three words that nobody actually really wanted to say, but we all think is a good idea. Thank you, Helen, for bringing it up. And in Surrey Heath, we were praised, and Paul's chairman after me, we were praised by the way we conducted ourselves. And we were an awful lot better, according to the office, it's very indiscreet, than some of the adjoining boroughs. I won't say which ones, but I think Guildford was mentioned somewhere down the line. But anyway, I've done some research with the residents, and they're very concerned. I mean, two tends to be on top, but they're very concerned at being linked with Farnham, Guildford and Woking. I think that's unfair. I like Farnham, it's got a great department store and some nice coffee shops. Guildford, I can't afford to park in now. Somebody's done something silly with the parking charges. I'm talking to a good theater, so I go there. And so I think, you know, we all work together. But my main concern, I mean, Chris has talked about it, we're finally getting round to it. At the end of the day, it's not our decision. We are putting forward a recommendation, and for the government to decide. Now, Robert may have swayed with the government more than the rest of us, and I quite like some of the things they've been doing. I said that to Robert this morning, and he thought I'd gone gaga. But anyway, you know, I think this is it. But at the end of the day, I would like to see two unitaries, because I feel instinctively that is the right process. Now, how those are going to be shaped has got to be worked out. The brainpower in this chamber is such that I think if we all sat down and worked together and drove forward, we could come up with the most fabulous opportunity for Surrey going forward. Not just Surrey now, but we are also doing it for Surrey in the future. The children that are not yet born, that are going to live in Surrey, in the homes that we provide, in the environment we create for them, and we should really be looking forward, rather than worrying about he said, she said, it said. Let's all work together and drive forward, vote for two, and let's get on with it and deal with it. Thank you, Chairman. I have four more speakers and I'm drawing the line. Ms Townsend. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. As with other speakers, I support unitaries. However, I firmly believe that a three unitary approach best suits our residents. And whilst the leader talks about the disruption of splitting services, perhaps like SEND, there is no evidence that a more local approach over three unitaries couldn't be more efficient, or indeed perhaps welcomed by parents. I believe that a three unitary approach better respects the individuality of our communities, and being closer to those communities will be in a much better position to understand and support community-led and supportive development, and accommodates the significant growth we will see from the government's new housing numbers. The argument that two large consolidated authorities will empower residents is naive. Having worked in a borough, and also obviously in a county council, I think I can appreciate the drawbacks of scale. I might just mention here grass cutting. Anyway, the report states that planning decisions will be moved to a large centralized mayoral authority that is even more distant from the community it serves, and I don't believe that this will be welcomed by my residents. There will be an even greater loss of local voice. There will be an even greater loss of local identity. Supporters of the two unitary model seem to claim it will accelerate house delivery. This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the barriers to build new homes. There is no mechanism to compel developers to build in line with community needs, and it is not local policies or indeed complex seal processes that have stifled infrastructure investment, but weak national policy and the county council's inability to plan ahead for essential services. It could be argued it's because it covers too big an area, and it's too far removed from the community that it serves. The county council has no real experience of planning for areas where I come from in Cranley and Uhurst. It even in the report refers to the outdated AONB designation for the Surrey Hills and the High Wield, that hasn't been used since November 2023. It's national landscape. Living in the rural areas on the edge of the national landscape, we already experience what it's like to be on the edge of a large county council. My residents do feel left behind. They feel left behind with crumbling rural roads, with lack of healthcare facilities, with no family centres. Being close to the community you serve matters, and a three unitary model acknowledges this reality. I would urge councillors to remember that we are working here for residents, and we need to deliver for those residents, and a three unitary model makes sure that we are accountable to those residents, and that they recognise and feel part of the council that serves them. Thank you. Thank you Chairman, and I really wanted to address this issue through the lens of service delivery. And say that I feel that a local government reorganisation gives us a real opportunity to offer better and more integrated services for children and their families. In preparation for our ILUX inspection, I spent a bit of time looking at a whole raft of Ofsted inspection reports from many authorities. I haven't failed to note that so many of those outstanding authorities are unitary authorities. And in fact, only last week at the select committee we had a discussion about the early health partnership. And part of that discussion was how much better and more effective a unitary authority would be able to offer in that partnership, when one single authority controls issues such as housing, leisure and green spaces, and revenues and benefits, and being able to reach out to the families that really need help. And in fact, I had a discussion with the Ofsted inspector last week about the difficulty of effectively supporting care leavers in a two tier authority. And actually the opportunities that would come to this authority after unitarisation in reaching out to that very vulnerable group. As the statutory lead member for children services, I'm closely linked in to a big peer network of lead members across the region. And I know from speaking to many others the difficulties that some of those have in smaller unitary authorities. And I know that in disaggregating a statutory service, there would be significantly more challenges for smaller, such as three authorities, and there would be for two. One of the main challenges I think would be around recruitment and retention of staff. And I think it's no secret to members in this chamber that this is one of the biggest challenges in social care now. And particularly in recruiting and retaining senior and leadership staff. And that is a really crucial consideration in order to be able to run a safe and legal and secure service. And also we need to have some element of scale to ensure that our commission services, critical mental health or community health services can be achieved at the highest level. Anyway, in conclusion, Chairman, I think that we need to be looking collectively on the benefits that unitarisation and local government reorganisation are really going to give us to make sure that the services we offer to our residents, and particularly children and their families, are going to be better after we go through this process than they are now. Or should I say, even better. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Fiona Davidson? Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that I'm actually following the cabinet member for children and family. But I'm actually going to take a different perspective on this. So, as Chair of the Select Committee, I was disappointed that none of the options produced by either Surrey County Council or the districts and boroughs actually address the key needs of parents, children, carers, and the financial implications of these services to parents and to children of the new unitaries. The issue is about sustainability, and the costs of these services are material. You know, we are aware that a number of authorities are broaching section 144 notices because their children's services, notably their SEND services, are taking them to the edge of bankruptcy. Surrey County Council has an off-balance sheet, £150 million overspend in relation to SEND. So, this may not be significant when it comes to the overall debt of Surrey, you know, in terms of the commercial property debt. But going forward, it could be important in terms of the sustainabilities of the new unitaries. So, I guess what I'm saying is we just don't have the data that actually says, you know, how will these new unitaries actually be able to deal with the needs of children with SEND, of looked-after children, and home-to-school transport. So, if we look at the grants that come from government, the designated schools grant and the high-needs block, if we take those aside, as a council, we actually spend 70% of the £300 million children's services budget on looked-after children, education and additional needs inclusion costs, and home-to-school transport. You know, that's £200 million a year. We don't use in these areas going forward. Thank you. Last speaker is Cameron Mackintosh. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'll be brief. While I'm supportive of the two unitary model, I'd like to quickly pick up on the leader's previous statements and his acknowledgement that true localism exists within our towns, villages and places. I would even go as far as to say that this goes much further than beyond district and borough boundaries, where, for example, in Townridge, many communities in the north tend to actually look towards London compared to those south of the M25 that tend to look more towards Kent and Sussex. However, true localism thrives due to good councilors. Local schemes, some delivered by this council, businesses and local community groups. As possibly one of the few councilors in this chamber who was born in Surrey in Oxford and now serving the division where I have grown up, gone to school and then attended the college just down the road from this council chamber. Not that long ago, may I add. I have grown up with Surrey localism. It is also the case that for those arguing for a greater number of councilors, this simply does not enhance localism at all. And where I will speak out on this item finally, Mr. Chairman, is I fully support the two unit remodel. It is imperative that we take this opportunity where we can while going through this process of change that we continue to communicate with our residents and with the communities that we serve. Thank you very much. The recommendations are on pages 21 of your first supplementary agenda published on the, on Friday 14th March and our council is asked to note the letter received from government on... I have a recorded vote request that I had earlier. Yeah. On which, on which, on which part? On clauses two and four are separate recorded votes. Okay. Two and four, okay. Yeah. Can I ask for a separate recorded vote on items one and three, please? Have you got a spot of ten members, council, council? Have you got ten members? Thank you. Thank you. Have you got a spot of ten members? It is an administrative vote. Oh, come on. Votes on substance and votes on item. Yeah, fine. Okay, members, we are voting firstly on recommendation one, which is note that the letter received from government on the 5th of February, 2025, inviting all councils in Surrey to submit an interim plan for local government reorganization by the 21st of March, 2025, and a full proposal by the 9th of May, 2025. I will call you alphabetically. Please clearly state for, against or abstain. Maureen Attwell. For. Ayesha Azad. For. Catherine Bart. For. Steve Backs. For. Jordan Beach. Luke Bennett. For. Dennis Booth. For. Harry Bipari. For. Natalie Bramhall. For. Helen Clack. For. Steven Cooksey. For. Claire Curran. For. Nick Darby. Absolutely. Paul Deitch. For. Kevin Deenis. Jonathan Essex. For. Robert Evans. For. Chris Farr. Paul Follows. For. John Fury. Matt Furness. For. Angela Goodwin. For. Jeffrey Gray. For. Tim Hall. For. David Harmer. For. Nick Harrison. Abstain. Edward Hawkins. For. Marissa Heath. Trevor Hogg. For. Frank Kelly. For. Riosat Khan. For. Robert King. For. Eber Kingston. For. Victor Lewenski. For. David Lewis Cobham. For. Andy Lynch. For. Cameron McIntosh. For. Julia McShane. For. Sinead Mooney. For. Carla Mawson. There's a point of order there. Oh Chairman I think my hearing let me down earlier and my vote would be for. For. Thank you. Carla Mawson. For. Bernie Muir. For. Mark Nuti. For. John O'Reilly. For. Tim Oliver. For. Rebecca Poole. George Potter. It's your own time you're wasting. For. Catherine Powell. Abstain. Penny Rivers. For. John Robini. For. Joanne Sexton. For. Lance Spencer. For. Leslie Steeds. For. Richard Tear. For. Ashley Tilling. For. Chris Townsend. For. Liz Townsend. For. Denise Turner Stewart. For. Hazel Watson. For. Jeremy Webster. For. Budhi Wirasinghe. For. Keith Witham. For. So that's 62, 4, 0 against and 5 abstain. Right. Recommendation 2 members note the council's interim plan for local government reorganization in Surrey. The interim plan comprises part A in annex 6 and SCC authored part B in annex 7. You are voting for, against or abstain. Please state clearly when I call your name. Maureen Attawell. For. Ayesha Azad. For. Catherine Bart. Abstain. Steve Backs. For. Jordan Beach. For. Luke Bennett. For. Dennis Booth. For. Harry Bipari. Against. Natalie Bramhall. For. Helen Clack. For. Steven Cooksey. Abstain. Is that abstain? Is that abstain or is it abstain? Abstain. Claire Curran. For. Nick Darby. Fiona Davidson. Against. Paul Deitch. For. Kevin Deenis. For. Jonathan Essex. Against. Robert Evans. Against. Chris Barr. Against. Paul Follows. Against. Matt Furness. For. Angela Goodwin. Against. Jeffrey Gray. Against. Tim Hall. For. David Harmer. For. Nick Harrison. Against. Edward Hawkins. For. Marissa Heath. For. Trevor Hogg. For. Robert Hughes. For. Jonathan Hulli. For. Sarge Hussain. For. Frank Kelly. For. Reesat Khan. For. Robert King. Against. Eber Kington. Against. Victor Lewinsky. For. David Lewis Cobham. For. Andy Lynch. For. Andy McLeod. Against. Paul Deitch. Against. Ernest Mallet. For. Makyla Martin. Against. Jan Mason. For. Cameron McIntosh. For. Julia McShane. Against. Sinead Mooney. For. Carla Mawson. Against. Bernie Muir. For. Mark Nuti. For. John O'Reilly. For. Christopher O'Rourke. For. Christopher O'Rourke. For. Christopher O'Rourke. For. Christopher O'Rourke. For. Tim Oliver. For. Rebecca Poole. It's gone, sorry. George Potter. Against. Catherine Powell. Against. Penny Rivers. Against. John Rabinie. Against. Joanne Sexton. Against. Lance Spencer. Against. Leslie Steeds. For. Richard Tear. For. Ashley Tilling. Against. Chris Townsend. For. Liz Townsend. Against. Denise Turner-Stewart. For. Hazel Watson. For. Jeremy Webster. For. Budhi Wirasinghi. For. Keith Withom. For. Hazel Watson, four. Jeremy Webster, four. Budhi Wirasinghe, four. Keith Whitten, four. Recommendation two, 438 against 27, extension two. Recommendation three, note that the leader of Surrey County Council following the agreement of cabinet submits the interim plan to government for the 21st of March deadline. Please clearly state four against or abstain when I call your name. Maureen Attwell, four. Ayesha Azad, four. Catherine Bart, four. Steve Bax, four. Jordan Beach, four. Luke Bennett, four. Dennis Booth, four. Harry Bipari, four. Natalie Bramhall, four. Helen Clack, four. Stephen Cooksey, four. Claire Curran, four. Nick Darby, four. Fiona Davidson, four. Paul Deech, four. Kevin Deenis, four. Jonathan Essex, four. Robert Evans, four. Chris Farr, against. Paul Follows, four. Matt Furness, four. Angela Goodwin, four. Jeffrey Gray, four. Tim Hall, four. David Harmer, four. Nick Harrison, against. Edward Hawkins, four. Marissa Heath, four. Trevor Hogg, four. Robert Hughes, four. Jonathan Hully, four. Saj Hussain, four. Frank Kelly, four. Risak Khan, four. Robert King, four. Eber Kingston, against. Victor Lewanski, four. David Lewis Cobham, four. Andy Lynch, four. Andy McLeod, against. Ernest Mallet, four. Michaela Martin, against. Jan Mason, against. Cameron McIntosh, four. Julia McShane, four. Sinead Mooney, four. Carla Mawson, four. Bernie Muir, four. Mark Nuti, four. John O'Reilly, four. Tim Oliver, four. George Potter, four. Katherine Powell, against. Penny Rivers, four. John Robini, four. Joanne Sexton, against. Lance Spencer, four. Leslie Steeds, four. Richard Tear, four. Ashley Tilling, four. Chris Townsend, four. Liz Townsend, four. Denise Turner-Stewart, four. Hazel Watson, four. Jeremy Webster, four. Budhi Wirasinghe, four. Keith Wytham, four. Recommendation 46411 against zero abstention. Recommendation four. Note the districts and borough councils offered Part B Annex 8. Members clearly state four against or abstain. Maureen Attawell, four. Ayesha Azad, four. Catherine Bart, four. Steve Backs, four. Jordan Beech, four. Luke Bennett, four. Dennis Booth, four. Harry Bipari, four. Natalie Bramhall, four. Helen Clack, four. Stephen Cooksey, four. Claire Curran, four. Nick Darby, four. Fiona Davidson, four. Paul Deitch, four. Kevin Deenis, four. Jonathan Essex, four. Robert Evans, four. Chris Barr, four. Paul Follows, four. Matt Furness, four. Angela Goodwin, four. Jeffrey Gray, four. Tim Hall, four. David Harmer, four. Nick Harrison, four. Edward Hawkins, four. Marissa Heath, four. Trevor Hogg, four. Robert Hughes, four. Jonathan Hulley, four. Sarge Hussein, four. Frank Kelly, four. Riasak Khan, four. Robert King, four. Eba Kington, four. Victor Lewinsky, four. David Lewis Cobham, four. Andy Lynch, four. Andy McLeod, four. Ernest Mallet, four. Makyla Martin, four. Jan Mason, four. Cameron McIntosh, four. Julia McShane, four. Sinead Mooney, four. Carla Morrison, four. Bernie Muir, four. Mark Nuti, four. John O'Reilly, four. Tim Oliver, four. George Potter, four. Katherine Powell, four. Penny Rivers, four. John Robini, four. Joanne Sexton, four. Lance Spencer, four. Leslie Steeds, four. Richard Tear, four. Ashley Tilling, four. Chris Townsend, four. Liz Townsend, four. Denise Turner-Stewart, four. Hazel Watson, four. Jeremy Webster, four. Budhi Wirasinghe, four. Keith Whitham, four. Recommendation 4, 67, four, zero against and zero abstention. Thank you. All the recommendations are carried now. Item 7, approval of county council absence. It is on pages 51 to 52 of the agenda. The report can be found on those. The recommendations is on the page 52 of your agenda and is that Councillor David Lewis, Camberley West and Councillor Mark Sugden, Playgate, Hinsley Wood and Oxford continue to be absent from meetings until May 2025 by reason of ill health. The council looks forward to welcoming them back in due course. Are we agreed? We're agreed. Item 8 is appointment of the monitoring officer. The report can be found on pages 53 to 54. As the leader mentioned in his speech, it is recommended that Asman Fersain is appointed as the monitoring officer of Surrey County Council, start date to be agreed. Are we agreed? We're agreed. Item 9 is select committee report. I call the chair of select committee, chair and vice chair groups, Hazel Watson to introduce the report. Thank you, Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce the select committee report to council. The request to council is for members to note the headline activity of the council's overview scrutiny function that occurred from October 2024 to February 2025 and also to endorse the executive scrutiny protocol at Annex 1 for adoption by the council in line with statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny. The adoption of an executive scrutiny protocol is advocated in statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny which was first published in 2019 and updated by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in April 2024. That statutory guidance emphasizes the importance of a strong organizational culture which supports scrutiny to provide effective challenge and a commitment to scrutiny across an authority and recommends the adoption of an executive scrutiny protocol to clarify the practical expectations of scrutiny committee members and the executives as well as cultural dynamics. Originally, the protocol was expected to form the basis of induction and training for new scrutiny members and committee chairs following the council elections in May 2025 and to become the platform for scrutiny training and education across the council at the start of the new council term. Nevertheless, despite postponement of the elections, the benefits of recording ways of working to ensure clarity and consistency of approach remains. The protocol will ensure clarity of working between the executive and scrutiny and consistency of approach for the remainder of the council term whilst also bringing Surrey into line with government's best practice. Protocol has been developed through the select committee chairs group in consultation with the corporate leadership team and cabinet. The county council has a busy productive scrutiny function with members continuing to scrutinize a number of important areas as set out in the report and these range from dementia care and cancer backlogs to libraries transformation, alternative provision in education, climate change and the new Surrey community risk management plan to name just a few is covered. I commend the report to council. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. I understand that Trevor Hogg, chair of Adjutant House select committee would like to speak. Thank you, Chairman. Principally, it's to inform members of the outcome of a request to the secretary of state to consider a call-in in relation to the move of the principal treatment center for children with pediatric cancer to the Evelina Hospital and this was as a result of the Southwest London and Surrey joint health overview select committee feeling that there had been insufficient consultation, that the proposal to make the move had effectively been decided before such consultation and that the move disadvantaged families, particularly those in rural areas and on low incomes by moving the services into central London to a hospital which didn't actually have a pediatric cancer capability from hospital arrangements with St. George's that did have significant capability. So we felt that this was disadvantaging families in a number of ways. The secretary of state has considered all of that and has decided that the decision to move to the Evelina will stand. So members were asked to just note that. Thank you. Any debate? The item for debate? The recommendations are on page 60 of your agenda and are that the council notes the headline and activity of council's overview and student function in period October 24 to February 25. That council approves the executive security protocol here at annex one for inclusion in the codes and protocols of constitution. Are we agreed? Annual report is item 10, members development, pages 81 to 90. I call the chairman of development steering group, David Lewis Cobham to introduce the report. Thank you very much, chairman. This report provides an overview of the council's approach to member development for the period of January to December 24. The aim of the report is to provide assurance that the current approach which has been adopted is both effective and equitable. Just two or three points that I'd like to highlight that are included in the report. Firstly, in terms of average attendance at the member development sessions during 2024, that came out at 25%, a quarter of all members. We are aware that for some members, the Monday morning session for member development isn't always convenient. So we have piloted some alternative approaches to development sessions. These included some area specific school placement sessions. And we also organized a couple of evening sessions to try and extend the reach to more members. The third in-person member development day was held in October 24. And that was attended by 22 out of 81 counselors, which was a 27% attendance. We had very positive feedback on the day. We had two main sessions, one on AI and one on public speaking. And the feedback was very positive for both sessions. We are in the process at the moment of planning the next member development day, in-person day. And invitations have been sent out. You should have received them. And that will take place on the 6th of November. And we just will join us for that day. We launched the new member reference library on Microsoft Teams. And this is a repository for key information for members. And it also includes recordings of the member development sessions. So although we're aware, as I say, that attendance averaged at 25%, we do know that a number of members who can't be at the session in person who actually listen to the recordings in their own time. We commissioned the Center for Governance and Scrutiny to run bespoke training sessions for scrutiny members. And these covered budget setting and also financial scrutiny. And they were held in July. We refreshed the member development strategy during the year. And that now aligns with the organizational priorities and is intended to support the needs of elected members for the next two years. And finally, I just wanted to say that member development priorities for the current year include ensuring members are equipped with the skills and knowledge required for the upcoming changes relating to devolution and LGR. And I think that we've seen today a fast moving process. I'd rather have sessions put into the diary and have them canceled than not be able to do it. Finally, I'd just like to thank the members of the committee. It's a cross-party committee. I think we've worked well together during the year in the year. So members, I commend the report to you for approval. Thank you. Any debate? Are we agreed? We're agreed. Item 11. Members, I have been advised that the council will not be taking a decision on this item today. It will be directed through to the Audit and Governance Committee first as the committee is charged with governance oversight changes to the constitution and will then come back to council for approval in due course. Item 12 is the proposed amendments to the procurement and contract standing orders. Pages 1 to 160 of the agenda. The report can be found on pages 121 to 160. The recommendation is on page 121 of your agenda. And this council is asked to approve the proposed changes to the council's procurement and contract standing orders attached in Appendix A and associated appendix attached in Appendix 2, which will form part of the council's constitution. Are we agreed? At this point, I'd like to call an adjournment. Can we be backed by one? Lunch is in the appropriate place. I notice that it's been received of 21 questions. I have noticed that questions are being put to council are becoming lengthy with multiple sub-questions. I will now take this opportunity to remind members to be successful in order to assist with the smooth management of the meeting. There will be five minutes per question for supplementary questions. Total for both original questionnaire and any other member. Please be brief as supplementary questions must be framed as questions and not statements. It must not be relevant to the original question. Question time will be 45 minutes at which point I will finish the question as we are on and close the items. Any questions not covered during the 45 minutes the written answer has been tabled and members can, of course, follow up with the relevant cabinet member outside the meeting. There will be an additional 15 minutes for members to ask questions for cabinet members and deputy cabinet members based on the cabinet member, deputy cabinet member briefings from pages 39 to third supplementary agenda. These will be taken on first come, first serve basis. Question one is from Mark Sugden to Matt Furness. John O'Reilly is going to ask a question. As since Mark Sugden is not here, John O'Reilly will be asking supplementary. John O'Reilly. Thank you, Chairman. And this is the supplementary from Mark. Thank you for the written reply. The answer recognizes the terrible state of this part of Fairlane-Clairgate. This is confirmed by a separate site history visit, site history report for the last 24 months, which I requested, which shockingly has 52 pages containing 625 resident complaints inquiries, virtually exclusive reporting potholes, more or less one or the other. Question, please. Yes, I'm coming to that. This is Mark, not me. I'm always sharp and succinct. Could the cabinet member explain how it makes financial sense to continue to undertake reactive repairs or to suggest that the member could potentially utilize their allocation to carry out patching works for the most deteriorated sections, rather than prioritizing this for Horizon in 2526? Any other supplementary? Mr Furness. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for the supplementary question. I will organize for the Highways Engagement Officer to contact Councillor Sugden and set out how best to use this Highways allocation to deliver that patching work. Question two is from the Vice-Chair. Vice-Chair, do you have a supplementary? Yes, Chairman. Can I thank the cabinet member for her very cheery update? Can I ask her, is she confident that we can continue with this improved performance and get to 100% within the timescale? Any other supplementary? Okay. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for the supplementary question. Yes is the answer. The member may be aware that part of the investment of £15 million of additional money that went into the recovery plan was to right-size the service for the future, and I have confidence that this level of the performance in timeliness can be sustained and that the ultimate objective is as close to 100% timeliness within the 20 weeks as can be achieved. Thank you, Chairman. Question three is from Fiona Davison. Fiona, do you have a supplementary? I do. Can I thank the cabinet member for her answer, and I look forward to the data when it's available. Can I just clarify my understanding, because I've wound my way through all of the links associated with this response. So, in terms of alternative provision, if a child has been absent more than 15 days in any one school year, and the school feels that it's unable to meet the needs of that child, principally because they have a medical condition of some description, and that includes emotionally-based school avoidance, that it is the school's responsibility to request Surrey County Council to provide support. Surrey County Council's responsibility is to ensure that that support is provided, that potentially some form of alternative provision is made available. No, I'm asking for clarification of this. I'm just, I'm explaining what the thing I'm asking for clarification is. So, it's the school's responsibility to make a request of the county council. It's the county council's responsibility to respond to the school, to make available what the school has requested. And in terms of monitoring whether the child is actually receiving alternative provision, it is principally the responsibility of the school to ensure that the child is partaking in that education. I think that needs to be taken out, sorry, the meeting, I think you are. Okay, just one more point, one more point. No, but I think this is not really the time for... Okay, well, insofar as I've described the situation, could the cabinet member please confirm whether my understanding is correct? Because there's an awful lot of misunderstanding around. Any other supplementary? Thank you, Chair. Given that it appears to be Surrey's responsibility to ensure sufficient alternative capacity is provided, could the cabinet member please commit to meeting with me with a view to create capacity for children with emotionally based school non-attendance issues, most of whom appear to have autism, as those children seem to be the children that are dropping out of school because of the lack of alternative provision being available. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for those supplementary questions. I must confess that as an elected member, I do not have the detailed knowledge of the section 19 duties of this council. However, we have professional officers in this council who deliver this service day to day, have drafted our additional policies and I will ask our officers to put together a clear explanation of the council's duties for the member. And I'm happy to meet with a councillor, as she suggests, in the company of officers because, again, I would be personally unable to give that assurance as an elected member. Thank you. Question 4 from Catherine Powell. Catherine Powell, do you have a supplementary? I'd like to thank the cabinet member for his response and for confirming that the detailed breakdown of costs associated with social care and home school transport will be provided by district and borough. I would like to seek clarification from the cabinet member that this will be done with full engagement with the members reference group for LGR and the select committee and that it will not just be reported to them. Thank you, Chair. Any other supplementary? Thank you, Chair. Well, the work will be done as part of the overall work to complete the submission for the May deadline. The rotation will occur. Question 5 is from Robert Evans. Robert, do you have a supplementary? Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her response and she notes that the responsibility for this matter is shared between boroughs and districts and the county council. Has she got any idea how this will work under a large unitary authority? Any other supplementary? Can you remember? Thank you, Chairman. Thank the councillor for his supplementary. The Surrey Environment Partnership, which is made up of the boroughs and districts, the staff are now moving back to Surrey County Council from the 1st of April. As you know, we have a waste disposal contract for the entire county. So that's something that we need to look into going forward. Thank you. Question 6 is from Liz Townsend. Liz, do you have a supplementary? I do, thank you. I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her answer. Looking at the figures and the rationale for naming by type, and there are three reasons given there, I was just wondering whether that information split up into those three areas is actually known, whether or not it's known if it's due to sufficiency or lack of agreement, etc. So I appreciate that can't be answered now, but I wonder if that could be broken down. Thank you. Any other supplementaries? Claire. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I can certainly ask officers if that information is available, although I would hope for some forbearance from members because they might appreciate that officers in our performance and assurance team are currently very occupied with the Ofsted inspection. I'll make every effort to get this as quickly as possible. That may take longer than in other circumstances. Question 7 from Paul Follows. Do you have a supplementary? I do not. These were merely filed on behalf of a resident who wasn't able to pass the public question. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other supplementary? Question 8 is from Jonathan Essex. Jonathan, do you have a supplementary? Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you very much for leading his response. Would it be possible to confirm when this information will be available to be scrutinized and shared? I mean, I would raise concern that the papers for today's meeting were given just to four working days before the meeting and a similar delay in sharing the assumptions before the final papers wouldn't leave enough time for scrutiny. And I think that would be a dereliction of duty and a lack of transparency and accountability which would be a disregard to the democratic process. We need to undertake this properly. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Indeed, the County Council was in a position to publish these papers considerably earlier but it was agreed with the district of our leaders that we would publish at the same time and that is why they weren't published until the Friday morning which was not my wish at all. The, as my response is, we will continue to refine the information that we will set out over the next couple of days, the process as to how we're going to take this forward. You know, we only have a limited time. We're coming back to this council sometime toward the end of April so the work, the intensive work will be done between now and then and we will set up a process for sharing that information either through the group leaders and chairs structure or in some other way. But you can be absolutely certain that there will be clear and transparent information and data presented to this council as soon as we possibly can. Question, the one from Eberkinton. Eber, do you have a? Yes, I do. I know the response to my questions. I welcome the setting up of the Child Minds and Working Group which includes the three child minders that we met in a meeting. Is it possible that I might see a copy of the consultation before it goes public and does the cabinet member have a date by which the consultation will take place? Any other stuff, Claire? Thank you. I'll make inquiries and see if that can be arranged. I don't have a date at the moment but I will try to find that out. Question 10 is from Mark Sugden and Joan O'Reilly will be asking supplementary. No supplementary, thank you very much. Any other supplementary? Question 11 is from the vice chair. Vice chair, do you have supplementary? Yes. Can I thank the cabinet member for her very helpful answer and ask is there an update on the position of the three schools which were proposed and which are still somewhere in our staff except the government paused the preschool program funding. Joan O'Reilly. Thank you, Sharon. In addition, may I ask how many of the additional places have been in maintained specialist schools as opposed to the links to existing schools and has the average distance traveled to these schools increased or reduced compared to the non-maintained independent places before? And if there has been a change, how much has it been? Thanks. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, the free schools, we have had no update from the Department of Education as to the future of the three outstanding free schools that were to be provided. This is disappointing because the provision of I think five free schools was part of the original safety valve agreement and we are currently looking at a deficit of some 500, 500 spaces in our specialist school capacity if those schools are not built and in any case they are unlikely to be built within the time scale of our existing safety valve agreement. So there is, we are looking at a plan B with offices should we hear that those will not be going ahead. In terms of question from Councilor Essex, I think that some of the information he has just asked me for was provided to him in a similar question he'd asked at select committee last week. I know it set out a lot of data in tabular form for him about where additional places are being constructed in specialist schools. And if I could refer him to that, if there is further detail that wasn't covered of course I can come back to him separately. And in terms of average distance traveled, I know that is calculated by the service but I would imagine it is likely we'll have to wait until September when we know where final destination of children and for the new academic year because that was probably one of those figures that's only calculated once a year and reported in them. But I will certainly check for him. Thank you. Question 12 is from Catherine Powell. Catherine, do you have a? Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her response and particularly for the clarity around the provision of two additional forms of school places, the secondary school pupils in Farnham through the feasibility study that is ongoing. However, the Wavley delivery, infrastructure delivery plan for Farnham says that four form places are required for secondary schools in Farnham. Please can the cabinet member advise how the additional missing two forms will be provided. Thank you, Chair. Any other supplementary? Claire. Thank you, Chairman. I'm afraid I don't have that level of detailed knowledge to hand. I have to consult with offices and get back to the member. Thank you. Question 13 is from Robert Evans. Robert, do you have a? No further question, Your Honor. Any other supplementary? John O'Reilly. Thank you. Does the portfolio holder recall that a few meetings ago we mandated unanimously Brother Evans to stand outside the Secretary of State's door until she had changed the rules to allow the council to enforce? And does he share my dismay that Brother Evans has not yet succeeded in his mission? Thank you, Chair, thank you, Councillor O'Reilly for that supplementary question. Yes, we're a couple of transport secretaries through already now, aren't we, since that original request went in. We do regularly contact the department asking when they are planning to release this consultation's results, particularly as we're verging on almost five years. I imagine they will have to start rerunning the consultation as it will be that out of date. We will continue to push, but as I spoke to Councillor Evans earlier, as we move to a mayoral model, it might be something that the mayor might have more weight in gaining strategically across Surrey to deal with this antisocial behavior. Thank you. Question 14 from Liz Townsend. Liz, do you have a supplementary? I do, thank you. Thank you to the cabinet member for her response. I just wondered, as children with special educational needs can be quite vulnerable, does the cabinet member find it acceptable that there is no touch-based policy? Thank you. Any other supplementary? Claire. Thank you. If by vulnerability the Councillor is relating to those who are on a children in need plan or indeed a child protection plan or looked after, I would like to remind her that there are, according to statute, there is a necessity for a social worker to visit those children within established visiting times, certain periodicity very close together and that we have a very, very high level of compliance as a council with those statutory requirements. Question 15 is from four followers. Do you have a supplementary, sir? None from me, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other follow-up? Any other supplementary? Question 16 is from Jonathan Essex. Jonathan, do you have a supplementary? No, thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank you also. Any other supplementary? Question 17 is from Catherine Powell. Catherine, do you have a supplementary? Yes, Chair, I do. I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her response and ask whether or not she would be willing to have a meeting once the additional information is provided. Thank you, Chair. Any other supplementary? No. Claire. Yes. 18 is from Liz Townsend. Liz, do you have a supplementary? I do, thank you. And thank you again for the cabinet member's response. I note that in the response it states that parents are provided with access to copies of reports. And this is simply not happening in all cases. And to say the decisions are communicated in writing is not correct and the reasoning is not explained clearly. So as she states, this undermines the trust in the system and is not transparent. Does the cabinet member agree with me that we shouldn't still be at this stage where officers have to be reminded to provide parents with documentation or need training to record parental requests? And can she provide a timeline when coproduction will be rolled out? Thank you. Any other supplementary? No. Claire. I think in cases where parents feel that insufficient information has been provided or where it is clear that there has been a mission or a failure to meet standards, I would absolutely encourage in every case parents to submit a complaint to the service so that this can be followed up by somebody separate from the caseworker and a formal response made. I think that is always because we also have a very strong learning loop, whereas practice improvements are informed by previous failures. So I really encourage any parent who feels that their service has been in some way lacking to submit a formal complaint. And I would have to check on the date of implementation or coproduction. Thank you, Jen. Question 19 is from Jonathan Essex. Jonathan, do you have a supplementary? No, but I'd like to thank for the answer and the letters attached. Any other supplementary? No. Question 20 is from Kathleen Powell. Kathleen, do you have a? I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her response and for the openness in terms of sending me additional information regarding the number of reported breaches. I am concerned that the number of reported breaches and the number of reports to the information commissioner's office are so disparate. And would like to ask the cabinet member for there to be a form of process by which when documents are left at parents' houses relating to another child, like those in this envelope that have been provided to me this morning, that there is a process for de-do with the file. Thank you, Chair. Any other supplementary? Yeah. I'd just like to thank the councillor for handing over these documents and I'm sure that they are returned to an appropriate officer. As you can imagine, I'm not aware of every single issue. I would perhaps reiterate the answer that I gave to the previous question that where there has been a clear failure in service, parents should absolutely not hesitate to submit a formal complaint. Question 21 is from Kathleen Powell. Kathleen, do you have a supplementary? No, thank you, Chair. Any other supplementary? Cabinet, moving to the cabinet and deputy cabinet member briefings. Members, do you have any comments, questions on cabinet member and deputy cabinet member briefings? If you wish to speak, please make it clear which cabinet member or deputy cabinet member briefing you are responding to. Robert Evans. Thank you very much, Chair. A question for the cabinet member for children, families and lifelong learning. This is the first update before us that she's given this year as there were none presented at the budget or extraordinary meetings. I note in today's report that Councillor Kiran does not mention or update us on the Sarah Shariffer case. This is a tragedy that casts a deep shadow over this county and this council. The day after our December meeting, Sarah Shariffer and Benesh Batool were sentenced to life imprisonment for her murder. Reports of the case notice that there were at least 15 missed chances to intervene and save her life. In view of this, does the cabinet member still feel her position is tenable? Does she have full confidence in everyone involved and has she asked for any resignations of those people involved and if not, why not? Any other supplementary? Chairman, I'd like to remind all members in this chamber that the Surrey Safeguarding Children's Partnership is currently conducting a full and independent safeguarding review of the circumstances of the case she refers to. Tragic and horrific, the circumstances of that child's death are. It is not for me to speak in public ahead of the findings of that review. Any other comments? We move on to the statement by members. I have received notice of one statement from members. There is a time limit of two minutes per statement. These are put without discussion or reply. I'll call Nick Harrison to make a short personal statement. Thank you, Chairman. In the last council, Children's Services decided to focus on the young people with highest needs and to exit from universal open access youth work. Youth clubs have a positive impact on our young people, helping them to gain life skills, take on responsibilities and become leaders. Not just that, but to enjoy themselves and have fun with sports, music, cooking, outings and voluntary work. These were arranged with community groups willing to take over the youth services operating under SLA, similar to the way community libraries work, cheaper and hopefully better. At the last council meeting, a question was asked about these arrangements. Disappointingly, the answer came from property rather than Children's Services and was, we will provide the buildings as long as Children's Services require. The Phoenix Youth Centre in Preston is a purpose-built youth centre and serves the communities in my division and Rebecca Paul's in Tadworth. The centre is operated by YMCA East Surrey and is first rate more than meeting the SLA. It offers general youth work as well as specialist sessions to youngsters with special needs. It acts as the host to other youth groups, such as the Mighty Club, set up by a local businessman to give back to the area. The positive impact of the Phoenix is recognised by our local police for a drop-off in antisocial behaviour. Children's Services are reported ominously as looking at the future management of these sites. Quite rightly, the performance of each centre should be up for assessment and changes made where required. However, the policy to offer youth work through these innovative arrangements were established by cabinet and if closures are contemplated, they should be referred to cabinet. It should not be left up to the say-so of managers in Children's Services. And with local government reorganisation coming, the new authorities might well have the final word. Thank you very much, Chairman. Councillor Mallek, you put your hand up. Is that point of order? Yes, I have a question to the cabinet member who's responsible for education. We've passed that... Sorry? We've actually moved on from that. Sorry, Mayor? We've moved on from that agenda item. You're not on that... Well, this is... You're in the situation where we can ask cabinet members, are you not? No, no. Sorry. Item 15 is the original motion. I have received notice of two original motions. 15-1 motion standing in the name of Eva Kinton. Understanding order 12.3, Council has decided if it wishes to debate this motion today. Does the Council wish to debate this motion today? Members, an email was circulated yesterday with a proposed alteration by Eva Kinton to motion 15-1. Understanding order 20.3, standing in its own name, published in the third supplementary agenda front sheet, pages 2. Council must agree to this alteration in order for it to be debated. Are we agreed? Agreed. Eva, could you please move your motion? You have six minutes. Thank you. Chair, during the lifetime of this Council, your fund, Surrey, has provided many opportunities for residents to promote and deliver schemes. They've seen the upgrading of existing community facilities and have also added to the range of local facilities to the benefit of many communities. Some of those projects have also provided for the upgrade or improved access to Surrey County Council's own buildings and facilities, such as in community libraries. It's a scheme that has contributed to the social, economic, environmental wellbeing of communities, and that success has been welcomed by many residents and local groups. But, of course, your fund Surrey has come at a cost, and even when the final your fund Surrey scheme has been determined, there is a continuing cost of interest payments for the borrowing. However, all is not lost should this Council wish to continue its your fund Surrey principles of community empowerment and support for local community projects and facilities, and that lies with community asset transfer. Community asset transfer is an alternative that does not require borrowing, that reduces the cost to the Council of retained assets, and does so whilst ensuring those transferred assets remain in the community, run by the community, for the community. Of course, local authorities have a legal obligation under section 123 rules to seek to retain best value for sites to be disposed, but all national governments, since the passing of the general disposal consent, England 2003, have recognised that the Council's locally-based assets are not just for cashing in when the Council itself decides it has no need for them. Many of those assets are held for and belong to our residents and local communities, and it is only right that those communities know those assets can and will be, perhaps, protected by the CAT process for generations to come. Most local authorities have experience of community asset transfer, and nearly 75% of councils are now estimated to be actively engaged in the transfer of assets to communities, including community centres, village shops, pubs, allotments, public baths and bowls facilities. Community asset transfer is also providing an opportunity for communities to take over and manage green spaces, protecting the local biodiversity and natural environment for generations to come. However, there is another issue, Chair. We are living in a period of both rapid change and huge financial pressures on local authorities. Some of it, too much of it, is self-inflicted because of the speculative decisions by local government decision-makers themselves, but it is also the outcome of an increasing cost of key services provided by local authorities and national politicians that promise local government reform, which so far have not delivered. It's a sad reality that councils facing debts and financial pressure look to council services or cash in on assets that they see as low-hanging fruit, which often means the loss of community-based services centred on community-based assets, which could survive and continue if subjected to a strong and supported community asset transfer process. And crucially, if we wish to ensure, when Surrey County Council ceases to exist, that land and buildings currently owned by Surrey County Council, which are vital community assets, continue to remain available to those communities, then we have to have a community asset transfer policy in place and be actively reviewing the council's assets now for their potential as community asset transfer opportunities. Chair, I hope there is a majority in this Chamber for moving swiftly to put in place a community asset transfer policy and to actually review the council's assets for potential transfer arrangements. If we can deliver valued community assets that are locally run and that thrive and flourish independent of council fundings, if we can enable and empower community organisations to directly operate assets and support the growth and development of small community-led services, and if we can enable communities to continue to provide social, health and economic benefits for the local area that are also, where appropriate, of significant environmental importance, we will have left a community legacy of which Surrey County Council can be rightly proud. Chair, I move the motion. Michaela Martin, you are seconding this motion. Do you want to speak now or do you have your rights for later? I will... Well, I'm trying to let anywhere to debate or... Up to you. It's entirely your choice. I'll leave it to... Open for debate. I have two speakers. Let me... Thank you, Chairman and thank you, Councillor Kington, for bringing forward this motion. With the announcement of local government reform, both Surrey County Council and the districts and boroughs will need to review their property portfolios in regard to implementing a community asset transfer policy. We need to ensure that a cap policy is fully considered, developed and supported by the localism strategy and seeks a collaborative approach with residents, organisations and town and parish councils to shape this. It would be necessary to assess the entire estates and co-develop a scheme to ensure it is successful. An ad hoc approach can potentially lead to challenge and open the council to disputes if there is a perception of a lack of fairness. The cap policy would need to incorporate several other councils objectives and set out clearly the council's approach to CAT, i.e. who is eligible and the commitment and transparent process to facilitating community ownership. The importance of business planning is also necessary to ensure there is a suitable, sustainable long-term plan for delivering community benefit through that local resource. A business plan would need to be realistic and ensure the community owner understands what their obligations and outgoings would be in terms of maintenance, insurance, repair, etc. As members are aware, Surrey County Council's property portfolio is largely of an operational nature, delivering statutory and non-statutory council functions for the benefit of residents in Surrey. It carries few assets that could be considered community assets, such as community leisure centres that sit with boroughs and districts. Any surplus land that is owned would, I would suggest, be considered for house building under the UU entries, biodiversity net gain, farming, or use for carbon offset to support capital project delivery. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, this is a seminal day, I think, for this council. Nothing to do with LTR, but the fact that I am supporting Councillor Kington's motion. And I'm grateful to him for the small change that he agreed. I absolutely agree with him that we do need to develop a community asset transfer policy completely aligns with what I was saying earlier and what we will debate, I suspect, in the next motion, which is around having that local engagement and input. I think Natalie Brownhall-Mason's sensible points there in relation to finding organisations that are prepared to take on the responsibilities and the liabilities of those assets. But absolutely, we should have a policy. Absolutely, we should publicise it and indeed implement it. So I will be supporting the motion. Edward Hawkins. Thank you, Chairman. I'm a bit naughty coming after the leader. I just wanted to make the point that, putting my sort of professional perspective on this, I think it's absolutely right, but I am concerned that pressure might be put on organisations, communities, volunteers and people like this to operate a facility that they're not qualified for. I really wanted to put a health warning and I think it's absolutely great that it should be debated and discussed and looked at, but I would really like to have a health warning on that to ensure that proper protocols and safeties are built in to anything that is put forward and also to ensure that councils don't go off on a wing and a prayer and try and sell off bits and pieces of land that they don't think they want, but they feel that they might like to put up. And I know I've got two or three in my area and the residents are going somewhat annoyed at this. But it is, yes, I support the motion, I think, obviously, but I think a health warning is needed. Thank you, Chairman. Ernest Mallet. We obviously, all of us are familiar with allotments in our areas, which are usually quite big, usually in amongst housing estates and are very suitable for piling up with houses and a lot have disappeared. I am familiar with a piece of county land, which I'm not going to disclose here, but it's used for community purposes and it's a £3 million piece of housing land, which a new council could easily think in terms of cashing in and turning out the immunity people who are on that land. I also, on behalf of Elmbridge Borough Council, manage an 18-acre sports recreation ground. And that's just, again, the sort of piece of land which could pile in at probably a value of £2 or £3 million or £5 or £6 million an acre. And this is the real danger on getting these new unitaries. They will be far more impersonal than this council even and certainly far more impersonal than boroughs and districts. And if we're not careful, we shall see community assets swallowed up to pay debt or to do something else. The only thing I'd say about this motion, it ought to have in mind as well that in terms of disposing of the land to the community organisation that's on it, the alternative would be simply to write a longer lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act and that also would give protection. But I certainly totally support this view that we must do something to protect community facilities from what can be and what's quite likely going to be new councils with a very business-like attitude to land and property and they will simply collar the assets. Thank you. More questions? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a couple of things. I mean, I brought a similar policy in Waverley and it's been really useful. I mean, the only things I would just add to the health warnings in terms of the capacity of actually managing through those land transfers and having the capacity to process that through legal and assets takes more than we thought. And I'm imagining that's probably going to be the case with the county as well. And we also added fairly quickly after we passed our version of this, some clauses to prohibit those people who land were passed to from selling it on or building on it or doing something other than the community or the council intended in the transfer. So just to make sure that all worked out. But otherwise, the only other concern I had was the one that's been alleviated through the alterations. So very happy to support this. Clear. Thank you, Chairman. It's nice to have such a varied debate, isn't it? I'm very happy to lend my support to this motion. I have actually helped to support one of our community organizations to take a piece of land through the community asset transfer process at Mole Valley. And having had a look at the register of assets which are now declared as community assets, I just would like to observe that the majority of those, say for allotments, are actually pieces of land that were previously in third-party ownership and that this should not just be seen as a tool for declaring council-owned assets as community assets. It is very much about declaring a whole range of different properties, different land, the income of asset to the community. Thank you. I have no more speakers, so here I'm pointing you. Thank you, Chair. Chair, I would like to second this motion. Community asset transfer is very important to our communities and residents, especially where well-loved community buildings and essential local green spaces are involved. We only need to look at places such as Chippenham, where tangible benefits can be seen. During the unitary process, Wiltshire Council agreed to a community assets package, empowering the local community and transferring assets, such as the Grade 1 visit at Yeald Hall and the 70-acre Moncton Park to Chippenham Town Council with the benefit of its residents. Nearer to home, Farnham Town Council has worked with the principal authority to transfer assets to them, such as the main green space in the town, Gostry Meadow. It was transferred to Farnham Town Council for zero value, as it had no economic value, but as social and community value. The principal authority made the maintenance saving of £80,000, as well as other ongoing costs. Now, Gostry Meadow has been enhanced and maintained and community activities have thrived, such as the Christmas switch-on and special events throughout the year, such as the VE Day coming up. It has also earned a green flag status. Farnham Town Council has also taken over other green spaces through the town, Riverside Walk and Batkings Garden. They have no strategic value to the principal authority, but are important green spaces for residents, enabling the principal authority to save on costs. Now, they're actively enhanced by the local community, retreat planting and biodiversity initiatives. Green Havens amidst the town. Sorry. This policy enables a transfer of ownership of the asset to the community at less than market value. It is a win-win for both parties. One saves on costs, while the other one sees an increase in social benefits, as it supports and increases community spirit and pride in local areas, as well as health and wellbeing for their residents. We should be encouraging local community groups to come forward and empower them, as it will benefit our communities for years to come. Thank you. Ibo, do you have the right to reply now? Thank you. The way it's going, I better not blow it to pieces. No, I'm not. Right. I always find it's useful, actually, when Councillor Bramall is here to state the blockers and negatives, and I fully understand that that is very important so to do. And there has to be that full consideration, but she did make the point that most assets are operational, and we have very few of those other ones. So I hope, because they are so few, that actually that might speed the process of identifying them and convening them. I also noticed that several people stood up and talked about their own experiences of their own councils on this. And if nothing else, while you're talking to the Bs and Ds and other things, you might want to talk to them about their community asset transfer policies as well. That might speed something along. And to be honest, I do understand Conservatives avoid utopianism. They don't think everything is easy in this life, and it won't be simple or easy. But obviously as a Residence Association Councillor, I have great faith in the residents of Surrey to actually get hold of that policy and work with you and successfully, with the Surrey County Council, create a community asset transfer policy that works well and actually delivers and sees so many of these places and issues back in community hands, even when Surrey County Council no longer exists. Thank you for the support I've had on this. Are we all agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Motion. Next motion is standing in the name of Catherine Powell. Under Standing Order 12.3, Councillors decide if it wishes to debate this motion today. Does the Council wish to debate the motion today? It does. Catherine, would you like to move your motion? I solemnly promise I'm not going to take six minutes. Local government reorganisation is coming and this motion is not about how many unitaries there are. It is about how the unitaries engage with residents that they exist to serve. We have some areas with town and parish councils, some with very small and some are very large, like Farnham Town Council, which covers 42,000 residents, which is nearly a third the size of some districts and boroughs. Many residents really value their local councils. In geographically smaller districts and boroughs where there are no town or parish councils like Epsom and Yule and Spellthorne, they are the council they reach out to first. They are their local council. There is therefore no one answer that will be right for every area of Surrey in terms of how we maintain truly local decision making and engagement with unitary authorities. This motion requests that the interim plans submitted by this council to government include clear options that must be considered by the new unitary authorities for meaningful local community-based governance decision making that stresses the importance of truly local community engagement. These are tried and trusted structures that are either already working well in Surrey, such as town and parish councils, or have worked well in the past, such as local committees, very much missed in some areas of Surrey. Under a unitary model, these would comprise of all unitary councillors representing communities within previous borough or district areas or smaller areas, as appropriate. There are also other models that are working well, such as community area partnerships used in Cornwall. And the administration is also working on a partnership strategy called town and villages. And we have a members briefing on this in a few weeks time. Having looked at the maps, I'm not convinced that the existing maps are entirely appropriate and I very much hope that as this work continues, local members have asked for their views on the geographies that would be used in the interim period prior to unitaries being established. I know everyone in this room values resident engagement and opportunities to hear their views. And I therefore hope all members of the council will support this motion. Thank you, Chair. Chris Townsend, you're seconding this motion. Do you want to speak now? Yeah, I'll speak now. This has been touched on earlier today before lunch by a number of councillors. So I get the impression that we're pretty much in favour. We're talking about localism here and we really do need it. I live in an unparished area and I know my resident association is already talking to me about what they can actually do, come the unitary authorities. I think the phrase community boards has been banded about. I certainly support what Councillor Powell said about local committees. They are sorely missed across certainly Mull Valley and many, many other areas within Surrey. So not setting up as the standard for an idea to go forward. All we're asking for here, this is included in the submission going forward to government, so that the future unitary, whatever form it is in, actually does realise that this is something that's really valuable to our local community. But I'll leave it to anyone else who wants to add to that. But I think we've probably covered it quite considerably this morning. Thank you. Leader. Thank you, Chair. Again, I'm grateful to the proposal seconder for agreeing my small amendments. There's a slight dilemma here, though, because the leader of the opposition has asked me to include in Part B reference to the different options. And that I have done at page 91, 92, 93, 94, 95. But of course, she voted against Part B being submitted, so I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile those two approaches. But anyway, the day is getting longer. We have a cabinet meeting in about half an hour time, so I won't prolong the agony. We will support this motion. We have included a section in Part B which does address that. I agree with her that there will be a number of different options using the existing structures that we have, whether they be town and parish councils or the other structures that we have in place. But at the end of the day, we want to make sure that we design that local engagement that works for that local area. So I think that's the thrust of the motion. That's the thrust of the section in Part B. So on that basis, happy to support the motion. I have no more speakers, so Catherine, would you like to sum it up? Thank you, Chair. It's good to hear that we're all aligned. And I look forward to finding the words local committee in the Part B plan, which I have yet been unable to find. But I'm sure they're there somewhere. Thank you, Chair. Are we all in favour? Thank you. Item 16 is the feedback from Children, Families, Life-long Learning and Cultural Select Committee. The referral motion, Johnson-Essex, item 11, pages 105 to pages 108 of the first agenda. I call the Chair of the Children, Family, Life-long Learning, Cultural Select Committee, Fiona Davison, to introduce the report on the outcome of the referral motion. Thank you, Chair. The motion proposed by Councillor Essex in December was to take a broader preventive approach to Children's Services. And the motion was deferred by the Council in December to the Select Committee. At the Select Committee, Councillor Essex suggested a different way forward, that we tackle the subject using scrutiny in a day. The cabinet member was very happy to accept that proposal. It was agreed by members of the Select Committee. So we will take the content of this motion forward in a scrutiny in a day session in June. Thank you. Any comments? But it has to be comment related to the report and not open a debate. Jonathan Essex? I would just like to thank everyone involved in the change. Thank you. The Council ask to note the report. Have we agreed? We agreed. Item 17 is the report of the Audit and Governance Committee referral of County Council motion. Item 11a, pages 109 to 110 of the first agenda. I call on Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, Victor Luski, to introduce the report on the outcomes of referral motion. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. So at the Audit and Governance Committee on the 12th of March 2025, the Committee discussed the motion in your papers in the name of Councillor Paul Follows. The motion suggested a need to validate the information for the 25-26 budget by reviewing finance and governance processes at this Council. The Audit and Governance Committee agreed this is how the Council actually already operates through scrutiny by the Cabinet, the Audit and Governance Committee and Resources and Performance Select Committee. Members of the Audit and Governance Committee also commented that the Council already has rigorous internal and external audit program. In fact, our auditors Ernst & Young issued an unqualified opinion on our latest state of accounts, which they wouldn't have been able to do so without having the utmost confidence in our finance and governance processes. I think the reason for Council Follows proposing this motion is due to the significant failings identified by the Solace Review around Guildford Borough Council's governance operations and controls. It's worth noting that Guildford Borough Council conducts joint services with Waverley Borough Council. So I was a bit concerned that, in fact, this motion implies that Surrey County Council has such significant failings, which it clearly does not have. So therefore, just in summary, the Audit and Governance Committee considered all the issues and reviews and rejected Council Follows' motion. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Any comments on the report? Thank you, Mr Chairman. It's also just worth noting that the second I sat down and we moved on to the next item, I asked the external authors very specifically whether they look at, in detail, any volume of the transformation projects, which was the specific point that I was making, and they said no. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Are we all agreed? Item 18 is the report of the Cabinet, pages 161 to 166 of the agenda. I call the Leader to present the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 25 February. Thank you, Chair. I beg to move the report of the Cabinet held on 25 February 2025. I call Paragraph A to C. I call Paragraph A. I call Paragraph B. I call Paragraph C. I call Paragraph D. The Cabinet recommendations that the County Council notes that there have been no urgent discussions since the last Cabinet report to the Council. The motion is that the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 25 February 2025 to be adopted. Are we agreed? We're agreed. Minutes of the Cabinet meeting, pages 167 to 178 of the agenda. I now turn to the final item of the agenda today and no notification to make. Statement question on the minutes has been received. That concludes the meeting. Thank you very much, members.