At this meeting of Surrey County Council, a motion was passed calling on the next government to reform local government finance, and the Council agreed to set up a Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee with Hampshire County Council and Bracknell Forest Council to scrutinise the plans for the rebuilding of Frimley Park Hospital.

Local Government Finance

Councillor Robert Evans OBE proposed a motion calling for the reform of the system of local government finance. He described the current system, which is based on council tax, as “manifestly unfair”. He argued that “reform is overdue” and that “a wealthy county like Surrey should not forever be short of money and cutting services."

Councillor Will Forster seconded the motion. He highlighted the disparity between the council tax paid by Buckingham Palace, which is valued at £1bn, and that paid by an average three-bedroom semi in Blackpool, arguing that it demonstrates how “broken” the system is.

In the debate that followed, many members spoke in support of the motion, including Councillor Tim Oliver, the Leader of the Council, who said that he “completely agreed” that the system of local government finance was no longer fit for purpose. He committed to lobby the government for reform in his role as chair of the County Councils Network, a national body representing the interests of county councils in England.

Several members suggested specific reforms, including an airport passenger duty levied on passengers using Heathrow and Gatwick Airports, a local levy on fuel duty at Surrey petrol stations, and a review of business rates.

Councillor David Lewis argued that “you tinker with the system at your peril”, pointing to the poll tax as an example of a reform that was “hugely unpopular” and had to be reversed.

Councillor Trefor Hogg argued that “all taxation is unfair”, and expressed concern that a mansion tax would penalise people who had bought their family home many years previously and had subsequently seen its value increase.

Councillor Eber Kington argued that the focus should be on a review of business rates, pointing out that Surrey businesses pay approximately £600 million a year in business rates but Surrey councils receive back only £130 million.

Councillor David Harmer pointed out that 70% of the Council’s spending now goes on social care, and argued that there should be a serious conversation about whether county councils should continue to have responsibility for this service.

Councillor Mark Nuti argued that the motion was pointless, as it would have no effect on the next government. He suggested that the movers of the motion should instead lobby their national party colleagues to include a commitment to reform council tax in their manifestos.

Councillor Jane Weston expressed concern that people living in million-pound homes pay only a little more in council tax than people living in two-bedroom terraced houses, arguing that it is “morally right” for people in larger houses to pay “miles more”.

The motion was passed with one abstention.

Advertising and Sponsorship Policy

The Council noted the Greener Futures Reference Group's feedback on the motion concerning the Council’s advertising and sponsorship policy that was referred from the Council meeting on 11 October 2022. The Group did not endorse the officers’ recommendation not to change the policy, and recommended that the issue be considered by the Cabinet.

The motion called for the Council to take the lead in not promoting carbon producing products on advertising holdings and digital advertising devices located on Surrey County Council’s highways. The Highways Service briefing argued that it could result in a loss of income of £500,000 per year.

Councillor Lance Spencer, the Chair of the Group, criticised the Council for repeatedly referring motions about climate change to select committees instead of debating them in full council. He said that officers had suggested using the £500,000 of lost income to support greener future projects, but argued that “we allow the adverts to promote carbon emissions and then we spend the money from the adverts to reduce the carbon emissions. I’m not sure how that works”.

Councillor Jonathan Essex, the mover of the motion, urged members to support the Group’s recommendation. He argued that the £500,000 figure was unproven and spurious , and that allowing advertising for high carbon goods while taking action on climate change was “absurd” and like "tobacco advertising funding sports events in Surrey”.

He argued that changing the advertising policy would be a way for the Council to show leadership on climate change, and pointed out that Somerset County Council and Cambridge County Council have already introduced similar policies.

Councillor Catherine Baart, the seconder of the motion, argued that the Council should use its newly devolved powers from the County Deal and its new electronic billboards to promote Surrey’s green companies.

Councillor Oliver, the Leader of the Council, said that the Cabinet would consider the issue.

Establishment of a Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Frimley Park Hospital)

The Council agreed to set up a JHOSC with Hampshire County Council and Bracknell Forest Council to scrutinise the plans for the rebuilding of Frimley Park Hospital.

Councillor Trefor Hogg, the Chair of the Adults and Health Select Committee, said that Frimley Park is one of seven hospitals in England that are most severely affected by RAAC and are due to be rebuilt by 2030 as part of the Government’s New Hospitals Programme. He argued that scrutiny will be “particularly important” in this case, as the rebuild is part of a much larger programme that is facing “severe risk pressures”.

The new Committee will have four members from Surrey, four from Hampshire, and two from Bracknell Forest. In addition, local members from the divisions closest to the hospital will be invited to attend meetings as non-voting observers.

Councillor Catherine Powell called for councillors from Farnham, which is served by Frimley Park but is not geographically contiguous with the rest of the area, to be included as non-voting observers.

Councillor David Lewis argued that the Committee should focus on which GP surgeries are associated with Frimley Park, rather than on where people live.

The recommendations were agreed unanimously.