Transcript

Okay, good afternoon, everybody, and welcome back to the Council Chamber at Woodhatch for the meeting of the Cabinet of Surrey County Council on today, the 18th of March, 2025. There are some members of the public here, actually, although at least one has been here with us all morning, but I will read out the fire drills just in case. So we're not expecting any fire alarm, but in the event that one does sound then, please leave by the nearest exit and assemble at the top car park up here and report to a member of the building management team. As you know, Cabinet, you're more than welcome to use social media, provided it doesn't interfere with the meeting itself. Just to remind everybody that this meeting is webcast live and is open to the public. But of course, they do have the right to suspend filming if that's needed, necessary, which I'm sure it won't be. And then I should also mention, actually, there are no members, I don't think, attending remotely, but there is an option for members to do that. Okay, that deals with the housekeeping issues. We only actually have one substantive item on the agenda today, but I'll go around and ask you please to just introduce yourself and your portfolio in the usual way. We've got an apologies for absence of Jonathan, but other than that, I think everybody else is here. So starting with Claire Curran. Claire Curran. Yes, good afternoon. Claire Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. Thank you. David Lewis. Thank you. Good afternoon. David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. Thank you. Denise Turner-Stewart. Good afternoon. Denise Turner-Stewart, Cabinet Member for Customers and Communities and Deputy Leader. Thank you. Kevin Dieners. Kevin Dieners. Yes, good afternoon. Kevin Dieners, Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue and Resilience. Thank you. Mark Newsy. Thank you, Leader. Just a couple of points to note, I think, today. One for Matt. In 1662, today was the first public bus service which took off in Paris, probably 200 years ahead of its time. Do you remember? I don't remember. And, of course, in 1965 was the very first spacewalk. But I will leave you with today's special day. Today is Awkward Moments Day. And I'll leave you to decide how you want to interpret that. And I am Councillor Martin Ute, Health and Wellbeing. Excellent. Thank you very much, Mark, as ever. Marissa. Thank you, Leader. I'm Marissa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment. Thank you. Thank you. Matt Furness. Thank you, Leader. Matt Furness, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Rights. Maureen Atterwell. Good afternoon, everyone. Maureen Atterwell, Deputy Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. Natalie Bramhall. Good afternoon, Leader. Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure. Thank you. Good afternoon. Paul Deeps, Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader of the Council. Thank you. Sinead Mooney. Good afternoon. Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care. And Steve Bax. Thank you, Leader. Steve Bax, Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any interests that members have to declare in relation to this item? No? Thank you. So item three, then, relates to devolution and local government reorganisation. And there are six recommendations which I'll run through at the end. But this morning we have a meeting of the full council here and a lengthy debate in relation to the submission that we are proposing to make to government. The council meeting this morning was more for information for members and the opportunity to debate the documents, the part A document and the two part B documents. But the decision as to whether to make the submission rests with this cabinet. I'm not going to spend a long time going through this simply because anybody that wants to hear the issues perhaps could listen to the debate this morning. But I think just a few points I do want to make, starting with how this came about, which was following the publication of the white paper by the government on the 16th of December last year. And in that white paper they indicated that they were going to move forward with the reorganisation of local government to facilitate devolution, to enable what their main agenda, which is to have mayors across the whole of the country by the end of this parliamentary term. For a lot of areas that's pretty straightforward. They can create combined county authorities, two organisations, two councils coming together, upper tier councils coming together, that can then sit within a mayoral strategic authority. That option isn't available to Surrey. We don't have any unitaries within the existing footprint of Surrey. So we have to look at other options. One of those options was to join up with another unitary in an adjoining county. And we did approach Hampshire, East West Sussex, and Kent, and then also the Berkshires. And we had no positive response to being, to involve Surrey in the conversations that they were having themselves within their own sort of county footprint. Which leaves us with only one option if we are to comply with the current legislation and indeed the government's agenda. And that is to create two unitaries or more within this county. In that white paper, the government gave some guidance in terms of how they expected councils to take that forward. That was not least of all in a collaborative way and a request that there was a single submission. But very little other guidance other than that the Council should be of a size to be efficient, effective, and financially robust going forward. And they alighted upon a figure of 500,000 or more as the sort of size of unity that they would expect to be created. There's been lots of conversations since then, but the government's position I believe still remains set out in the white paper. Which is that it's 500,000 or more, or except in exceptional circumstances, it could be less. And they have confirmed in many forums that there will be some flexibility around that. So in the case of Surrey, just simply working on the 500,000 number, that would mean two unitaries. If it were less than 500,000, just on that metric, it could be more than two unitaries. But that, of course, is a starting point for all of this. The County Council delivers services to 1.2 million residents across 650 square miles of this county. And those services are hugely important and significant services, supporting our vulnerable adults, supporting our children, their families, maintaining our highways, delivering library services, and many other things. And we do that at scale. We are a strategic authority. Some of that is delivered by our own staff. Other services are delivered through third parties. But we are delivering to those 1.2 million residents, and we have done for the last 50 years. So the corporate knowledge within this organization is considerable. We know what our residents need and what they want, and we do our absolute utmost to deliver that. There are, of course, constraints, particularly financial constraints, that we are imposed upon us effectively by government. And I will continue to flag up the financial review that is currently underway and will kick in in April 2026, which will see almost certainly a redistribution of money across the system. I don't expect, I don't think anybody reasonably expects any considerably, any new money, any considerable sums of new money coming into the system. And it will be more a question of redistributing that that is already there. It is likely, although we will continue to lobby government heavily, but it is likely using the criteria that they have used in the past budget, that Surrey will be a net loser. So we are going to have to deliver more services with more demand, and we are seeing significant increase in demand, probably with less money. So that takes us to the shape of any reorganization within the county. It is the view of our officers here, who do this job day in, day out, and indeed our own analysis, that the more you disaggregate, the more you split up the services that we deliver, the more, the greater the risk is that you will get that wrong and people will fall through the gaps and the greater the cost will be. That data has been analyzed and is set out in part B, the part B document that the county has produced. And it runs through the costs of disaggregation. It also runs through the savings that will be delivered. And it is quite clear from that, that only really on the basis of two unitaries will there be any savings of any significance, as opposed to three unitaries. That work is still work in progress in terms of refining that data, because the second point and the key point is making sure that in whatever the new unitaries that exist, that they are financially sustainable from day one, and that the cost of servicing the demand can be met by the council tax that can be raised within that unitary. We have, if it's the right word, the luxury of being able to move funds around this county. You know, there are disproportionate demands, whether that's to support elderly or vulnerable adults or children with additional needs. It isn't evenly spread across the county, but we are able to move funds and resource to wherever it is needed. And I talked this morning about the work that's being done in terms of building extra care facilities, building SCN schools and so on. So that point then, we need to do some more work on that, and we'll do some more work before we put in the final submission by the 9th of May. And then the third point, which we spent a lot of time discussing this morning, relates to the localism, which is a suitable word, but the community engagement. I have seen a piece of work that the leader of the Liberal group here has put out on social media, which seems to suggest that it's only the Conservatives that voted for two unitaries rather than three unitaries. So I have to say most of the Liberal group here are twin hatters, and most of their representations really reflected the position of them as district councillors rather than as county councillors. I have made the point regularly now that it is the county services that are being split up, where it is the district and borough services that will be consolidated, and that is a lot easier. We currently spend, or they currently spend, or they currently spend £180 million a year on delivering the district and borough services. Our budget is £1.2 billion. The best part of £900 million of that is on social care. So whatever, however way you look at this, the key issue is that we get that £900 million that we currently spend, that that is used appropriately in any division of the county services. I have struggled with the argument that the district and boroughs have put forward, and indeed in their own Part B document, which suggests that 400,000, if there were three unitaries, is a local council. It is not a local council, and I haven't pretended that 600,000 for two unitaries is a local council. And actually, if you look at one of the reports from, I think, the minister speaking at the district council's network last week, he himself uses the same phrase around the importance of towns, and indeed cities and villages. So a key part of the reorganisation isn't just about the existing services and creating two or three councils, councils that in fact will be smaller than this council, rather than larger than this council. It is absolutely about how we get that local engagement and that the residents sort of being comfortable that they can see or feel and can input and have some control over what's happening around them locally. We know that in a planning context, that's probably going to become more difficult if the government push forward with their plans to remove that responsibility for local councillors. But it isn't just about the work of local government. It is important, but I think perhaps more important is addressing health inequalities. That we see in this council, in this county, a ten year difference in life expectancy between two adjoining towns. And actually, nationally, we're seeing life expectancy deteriorating and particularly healthy life expectancy. So we have to work and must work hard with the NHS. They themselves are going through a period of change with the abolition of National Health England, and then NHSC will go into the department, you know, but we have worked closely with them and we do work closely with them. And indeed, they are actively looking at restructuring within Surrey Heartland to match our proposed two unitary structure. And indeed, the conversations that we've had with the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable, the same, that they are looking to move from three divisions down to two divisions. Again, part of the white paper talks about public service reform and the alignment of those footprints. We already have an aligned fire and rescue service. So there are many other issues here that do impact on the decision. At the end of the day, we have to design a structure that works for our residents. Their services that are delivered either by this Council or by the District of Boroughs will continue to be delivered without any interruption. But actually, we get a better system out of this for them and their experience. And the work that we have done through Your Fund Surrey in going into communities and working with them on projects that are important to those communities. And indeed, through the work of the towns and villages, which is largely being led through public health. So actually looking at the data, what we understand to be happening in those towns and identifying where further support is needed and who it is that can provide that support. So this is, as I often say, this is one ecosystem. We are a part of that in local government and we need to create a structure, a forum, a community council. There are town and parish councils performing that work. There are residents associations. There are many, many organizations that sit at that really local level, voluntary community and social enterprise sector that do some fantastic work. And this is about not kind of recreating the wheel. It's about consolidating and collaborating, coordinating all of those organizations. So that is an absolutely key part of this submission. So the debate this morning was helpful. Nothing came out of that. I don't think that we were not expecting. It was slightly odd that some members refused to note a letter from the Minister. But there we are. And that's politics for you. At the end of the day, this is about producing a strategy, a submission that will work for our residents. At this stage, we are asked to put in an interim submission, and that is what you have in front of you. Part A of that document has been agreed with all of the other district and borough leaders and reflects the sort of sense of where Surrey sits and what is so great about this county. And then there are two part Bs, one produced by the district and boroughs, and one that is produced by this council. Those will go in as equal documents, and it then will be for the government to give a steer in terms of what they wish us to do next. That may be to explore to a full business case both options, or it may be that they decide on one of those options they want to take forward, or indeed none of them. But at the end of the day, it will be the government who will make that decision. The expectation is that we will then complete the business plan by the 9th of May, submit it, and the government will then go out to consultation supported by us, explaining to residents what is happening, what is proposed, and then the relevant orders will be laid later in the year, and then the two new unitaries will, or three new unitaries will appear in shadow form next year. It is a tight time scale, but as I reminded people this morning, all of the other councils, all other 20 other two-tier councils that will be abolished at some point, have to put in their own submissions by September or November. You know, with the summer in the middle and elections, they're not going to have any greater time to do it than we are. But, you know, what it has done with that tight timetable has meant that we have got in the room and got on with this, which is the most sensible thing to do. So, I think the documents speak for themselves, hopefully. They're not complete in that there is more work to be done. I do need to just make one amendment or proposed amendment following Council this morning where there was notice of motion. Paragraphs, on part B, paragraphs 43 to 51, broadly talks about the, there's a section on democracy and governance, that that, that 43 almost talks about empowering so is towns and villages. That's a bit I've been describing around working as we are already, but with other partners. But the council this morning asked that we do specifically include the following wording. So, the options when we're looking at what those structures look like should include, but not limited to, town and parish councils, local committees, which comprise all unitary councillors representing communities within previous borough and district boundaries or smaller areas as appropriate, community area partnerships, community area partnerships, and any structures involving local elected representatives associated with the current Surrey County Council delivering in partnership strategy, i.e. the towns and villages work footprint. So, I'm happy to do that because those are a list of options. They're not exhaustive, but they're certainly ones that will be considered when we are designing that detail, that really sort of detailed granular local engagement. So, we will amend part B to include that wording and the final wording I'll leave to officers if that's okay. Finally then, those documents part A and part B are working their way through the governance system within the district and boroughs as well. And the final meeting, I think, will be held by one of them on Thursday evening, in which case we will submit those documents that you have in the papers. I will submit under a joint letter with the chair of the Surrey leaders, who's also the leader of Epsom and Yule, and we will send that to the minister and to the officials on Friday morning. Okay, I will pause there for anybody else that wants to make any comments. Kevin. Thank you, Leader. Thank you, Leader. I just want to check. I was at the right meeting this morning because I've seen a Facebook post, and I'm somewhat confused. So, maybe you can just make sure I've got the right reading of this. So, the Facebook post is from Councillor Follows. And it says, you know, the debate at Surrey was advisory. Yes, it was. A cabinet meets later to make a decision. Correct. This was the main, this was the vote on the main matters on the County Council. Two unitaries, four and against, three unitaries, and District of Barberpid, 4.67. Now, that was recommendation four, if my memory serves me correct, which was to note the Orford Part B report. And it was not a vote on three unitaries, which is now being put out on a post to say that we voted 67, i.e. across the chamber, for this bid. And I just think, either I've got it completely wrong, or we're being misled by Facebook pages. Well, you haven't, you haven't got it completely wrong. There were four recorded votes on the four recommendations. This was an officer report to Council, so is non-binding on Cabinet. And that was always very clear that the executive, it is an executive function to prove that it sits with this Council. The four votes were to note Part A, Part B, the two Part Bs, the letter from the Minister, and so on. And yes, all of the, well, the majority of, I think, of the Conservative group voted for all four recommendations. And then there was a mishmash across the rest of the Council in terms of the Independents and the Liberals. But at the end of the day, A, the Council wasn't being asked to vote in favour of either two unitaries or three unitaries. B, it was advisory and not binding. So I don't quite understand why it's being suggested that the Council supported three unitaries or indeed supported two unitaries. The Council simply recognised that the Cabinet would be, would be debating this this afternoon and deciding whether to make the submission. Denise. Thank you, Leader. Well, it's really useful, I think, to have these sessions before we come into Cabinet, because actually all of the kind of deliberations over the benefits, the rationale, we've had all those. I think everybody's really familiar with the case for what we're doing here. I think there was a competent set of officers doing this work. And as you say, you know, the gaunt has been thrown down to us by the government and we're embracing it. And we're all out talking to people on the doorsteps at the weekends. And actually, on the doorstep, this is being embraced as well, because I'm still getting questions from residents over who's responsible for what. And I'm able to explain to them that these changes that are coming about are going to make everything far more streamlined, far more easy to navigate, you know, far more cost effective. And they're really comfortable with that. I think the public at large are feeling quite disillusioned at the moment. And I actually want to see pragmatic the debate this morning reflected how adequate the analysis is. And actually, that submission is going to go in. And we are equipped. We are confident. And we are competent. And we are comfortable with this timetable. And we're going to be able to meet that. So, as has been reflected on the ground locally, there's a lot of enthusiasm and confidence around this change. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mark. Thanks, Leader. It's 50 years since this local government system was in place. It replaced all the town councils to do exactly what we're now looking at doing as to get economy at scale, to provide services over bigger spaces. I mean, it's 50 years old in my area. My town was formed in 666 AD, one of the oldest towns in the country. It survives. It will always be there. My identity is with my town where I live in Chertsey. I'm sure Sinead's identity is where she lives in Staines, and we go on. We don't live in a borough. The borough just encompasses the area where we live and the council that it is. So, to lose the borough and districts is no great loss. They were there for a purpose. They did very well in the last five or six years. That has declined greatly through whatever reason, be that economic decline, be that through COVID, be that through mismanagement in some areas. They cannot now provide the services that we want in our areas. In my town, in my area, green spaces are failing. Bin collections are not happening. The councils are purely concerned and concentrate on repaying the massive amount of debt that has been accumulated across the county. Now, I'm not blaming anyone individually, but in those circumstances, you have to change. And the government has challenged us to change, to do something better. And this is what we have come to the table with. We run some big services here. If we start to disaggregate them across three or maybe four areas, it will hurt those services. Two will be, as far as I can see, the minimum that we can accomplish. The costs that we need to save without jeopardising the services that we give. They were on about localism, about being local this morning. We are local. Surrey County Council is probably more local than any of the boroughs and districts. We work with our health partners. We work with our blue light partners. We work with welfare, citizens of the vice bureaus, our charities, our food banks. We do this work behind the scenes. We don't always shout about it. We don't wave our flag. Sometimes we get on and we do it. We are there for our residents and have been and will continue to be for the next couple of years until we do the split into what we hope will be two different councils. I have no problem at all with supporting this paper. With social care, children, highways, public health, two unitaries, we can continue to provide the services to our residents, improve those services because it will become slightly more localised but hopefully still keep an economy of scale. Chertsey will survive. Staines will survive. Horsham. All of these areas will survive and will grow and be part of... I just ran. Indian sausage. Indian sausage. Horsham. Horsham. I haven't got a map in front of me. But we will be better for this. The boroughs and districts have got to realise that the boundary lines have gone. I was at the Runnymede meeting last night which was one of the first of the borough and district public meetings to engage with the public to explain what was going on. There were six members of the public that turned up. Our borough and district colleagues ranted and raved about the benefits of localism of their borough councils. There was no evidence based reason for three unitaries. When we looked at two unitaries, they just ignored it straight away. So when they talk about engagement, we will be engaging with our public. We will engage with our residents as this process continues and we will make sure that they are with us every step of the way. So I do hope the government decide to go with our two unitary plan. I think it is the only option on the table that will produce what they want and it will see Surrey grow and move forward in what will become and I think still is a very difficult economic climate. And just on that point, it's just worth perhaps highlighting just a couple of numbers here which I've taken from the district and boroughs submission. So indicative savings, these are their numbers. Indicative savings by 2030 will be 123 million. For three unitaries, it would be 66 million. And then after you've taken off the costs of reorganisation, the upfront costs, by 2030, the net savings for two unitaries would be 65 million. And for three unitaries, 4 million. Now, accepting those numbers, you know, will move almost certainly one way or the other. The difference between 65 million and 4 million is a number. It's a noticeable number, you know, and 60 odd million pounds here can deliver significant services. So, you know, just on that, that will be of interest to our residents because, you know, they are paying this. That is their money, you know. So it is quite wrong to simply ignore that and to just argue that three unitaries is closer to residents. They're not interested in that. They're really not. They're very few people actually know who their local council is. I mean, it's genuinely, you know. And it's, you know, the 1974 were administrative boundaries, you know, made up names. I mean, Elmbridge is, it's an ancient name, but I don't know what, you know, and Waverley and Spellthorn and so on. You know, what the residents want to see is the best quality services at the cheapest possible price. And that is what we will want. That is what we are trying to deliver. Marissa. You've said pretty much what I was going to say. I mean, this fixation with three unitaries is not about the number of unitaries. It's about delivery of things. They want more investment into the tangible, real things that affect them on a day-to-day basis. That seems to be entirely forgotten about this morning, and yet we have the Cabinet Member for Children's Services and the Cabinet Member for Adult Services saying two unitaries would be a better way and a more effective way of delivering their services. And from an environmental agenda, I would say the same thing. The factors that stop us moving forward are the levels of bureaucracy and all these different parties and things doing their different things, when actually with two unitaries would be more functional on delivering what people want to see on the ground level. And I think that's really important because residents are fed up with bureaucracy and these sorts of levels of meetings going on at a local level when nothing changes in reality for them. So this is addressing that. We need more money into economic regeneration of our health failure, actually, when it comes to the D&Bs delivering on this. They haven't achieved it. So therefore, one starts questioning what their purpose is. And I say this as someone who served on a borough council for a long, long time. I understood their usefulness, frankly. I put it right out there. It might seem a harsh thing to say, but I sat here for a long time thinking, what are the residents going to miss? And I can't think of it. And you just made the point. It's about local engagement. Now, if you went and asked most residents who their 6 D&B councillors are, and I did this. I did a bit of a test of that. They didn't know them. Barely anyone knew who they were. They say this is about making sure that the people who go forward are known, are representative, and work with their community forums. This is an opportunity to address the democratic deficit, as far as I'm concerned, and to lift engagement. We've seen low turnout in borough elections. When they run consultations, again, low responses to that. So actually, we can do much better with two unitary authorities. I think we've got a real chance of residents being clear on the authorities that are going to represent them. And let's not forget the fact, again, it was missed this morning. The fact we're expediting this is because of some quite key reasons around fraud allegations at Waverly and Guildford. Mole Valley and the BBC saying it's heading towards bus. Spellthorn going into the hands of government for mismanagement. It seems quite clear to me why we are where we are. And we just have to accept it and move on with this and make sure that we, as I said, do what's right structure that goes forward. And in my mind, unitary is the answer for that. But then leaves the money for us to actually deliver and get some stuff done. No, thank you, Marissa. And what we didn't talk about was actually the benefits of unitarization itself in terms of the delivery of a coordinated service. So housing, you know, is a real issue for us in general terms. But at the moment, you know, the two-tier system, I think, you know, rather than necessarily just point the finger at the districts and boroughs, I would say the two-tier system is out of taste, you know, and moving to a single council must be better. David. Yeah, thanks, Tim. I mean, some of the points have been covered, but your summary was very comprehensive. I think there were a couple of things this morning which didn't really come out fully. One is that this submission from the districts and boroughs isn't supported by all 11 districts and boroughs. You know, it was spoken about as if it were. But I think we need to make it absolutely clear that there are a number of districts and boroughs who don't support this submission. And so therefore, you know, it doesn't represent the views of all 11 districts and boroughs. The second point you've touched on yourself. I was going to make it as well. I know it's not solely about efficiencies. But, you know, the details in the annex that the districts and boroughs have put together indicates the figure that I've read. Is that if we go for the two-unitary model, there will be a saving of 15 million per year compared with the three-unitary model. I think that's quite a sort of useful figure to keep in your mind, you know, 15 million every year saving by two-unitaries rather than three-unitaries. And, you know, I think not all about financial efficiency, but I think that's an important figure just to bear in mind. And the final thing, and I think everyone's in agreement, but certainly I've been engaging over the last few weeks with my local residents, particularly with the Cobham and Downside Residence Association and the Cobham Conservation Heritage Trust, the Stoke Dublin Residence Association, and the question they have all been asking is this issue about localism. And I think it's really important that the... Thank you, David. Okay, yeah, sorry, Sinead. Thank you. Leader, I mean, I spoke at the full Council meeting, so I'm really keen not to repeat myself, but I have to say the local government reform and the role that adult social care has is an area, an area, the significance adult social care has in that is an area of concern to me when I think about support across the county, and that number is increasing. I think it's a real opportunity for housing to come into this model, and I hope as discussions move forward that there's scope for that to sit within adult social care, because that's where I think the real synergies are. But, you know, the director has been on an incredible journey, really, and we had our CQC assessment not that long ago where really positive things came out of that. And for a service of the size and scope that we have in Surrey, there was talk around staff proud to work in Surrey, feeling they're making a positive difference to people's lives through the work that they do, and staff showing energy for change and will for change and improvement for transformation. And I think these are really important headlines, and my concern would be if we went to something larger than two unitary authorities, I think these really strong qualities. Great. Yeah, thank you very much. Okay, I don't see any other hands up. So just to, it looks as if our executive director of adult social care didn't hear your speech there. But I think you were saying to Claire what a great job she was doing. There are two, there's one item, recommendation six here, which talks about devolving land, assembly and homes, England, compulsory purchase powers and adult skills fund. And that relates to the existing devolution level two deal that we agreed with the last government and has been confirmed by this government, which gives us compulsory purchase powers alongside Homes England, and also will give us the adult skills budget from next April, which again was just an example of both governments having the confidence in this council to administer that fund and those powers across the existing county footprint. So I'm going to just read now the recommendation. So there is no uncertainty in anybody's mind in terms of what this cabinet and the administration of this council is agreeing. So it is recommended. The first recommendation is that we note the letter received from government on the 5th of February 2025, inviting all councils in Surrey to submit an interim plan for local government reorganisation by 21st of March 2025, and a full proposal by 9th of May 2025. Secondly, we approve the council's interim plan for local government reorganisation in Surrey. And the interim plan comprises Part A in Annex 6 and Surrey County Council's authored Part B in Annex 7. Thirdly, agree that the leader of the council submits the interim plan to government for the 21st of March deadline. Fourthly, notes the district and borough councils authored Part B which is in Annex 8. Fifth, delegates authority to make any final amendments to the interim plan and other associated information for local government reorganisation in Surrey to the chief executive in consultation with the leader of the council before submission within the deadline given by the Secretary of State. And then lastly, delegates authority to the chief executive in consultation with the leader of the council to consent to the making of the necessary regulations to devolve the Land Assembly and Homes England compulsory purchase powers and adult skills fund, thereby implementing and giving effect to these aspects which form part of the county deal and agreed with government in March 2024. Just before I ask you to vote on that, you know, this is a relatively short meeting only because we had a good debate this morning and only because we have had weekly, I have had weekly meetings with the chief executive, with the other chief executive and the other leaders and we have had a number of internal groups as well. So we have discussed, we have many, many occasions, many opportunities to discuss the documents that we have now kind of landed on at this stage in the process. And indeed, we will continue to, I'm sure, spend many hours preparing the final submission. So a lot of work has been done and a lot of opportunity for all members of this council and others to have their input. So on that note, there are six recommendations. Sorry, David. Tim, sorry, can I just ask a question just for clarity? Because recommendation two talks about approving the interim plan, which is defined as Part A and the Surrey Part B. It then says that the item three is that you will submit the interim plan. So that's defined as paragraph two. And then it just says notes the district and borough authored Part B. So do we submit that or do they submit that? We're all going to, they're going to be submitted together. That's what I thought. But it doesn't actually say that in terms of these recommendations in terms of that Part B and X8. Well, okay. So my understanding is that we will, I will send a letter co-signed by the leader of the, the chair of the Surrey leaders, Hannah Dalton, with Part A and both Part Bs. So that, that letter will go with those three documents on Friday. So should recommendation B actually include, say that we're going to do that? Because when you read it, it looks as if Part B, Annex 8. Okay. So if we say notes the district and borough councils authored Part B annex and submit, submit it to government for the 21st of March deadline. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's the intention. And that's why we've been kind of holding back. Yeah. Sorry. I was looking through the recommendations. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll make that clear. I mean, if in the event that the, the, the, well, I think I've agreed the, the, the covering less already, but in the event that they want to submit it themselves, then of course, they can do that. But I, I don't think that's the plan. It's, it's to go in as if the government have asked us to submit a single document, which is, which is what we will do. Okay. Um, in that case, six recommendations are those agreed. Agreed. Good. Thank you very much. Um, that brings us to the end of the, uh, agenda. There are no part two items. So I, on that basis, I will close the meeting. Thank you very much.