Transcript

County Council, I would like to welcome the newly elected Councillor for Norfolk and Tottenham's Division, Peter Harp. I will now run through some housekeeping rules. Social media, in line with our guidance on the use of social media, I am happy for anyone attending today's meeting, including members of the Council, to use social media. This meeting will not disturb the business of the meeting. Mobile phones, please turn mobile phones on silent. Webcast, members, please may I remind you that this meeting is being webcast live, although I have the right to suspend filming if the need arises, and it is open to the public. Also, to mention that this meeting allows for participation by video conference via Microsoft Teams, and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, please know that the chat feature is disabled, and it limits the transparency and open discussion. We aim to maintain in a public meeting. Microphones, members will have to indicate that they wish to speak to the chair, and when called, use your microphone to speak. Please remember to turn this off after you have spoken. Fire drills, there are no fire drills expected, so in the event of a fire alarm sounding, everyone 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 and address the chair and council. Speeches will be time limited as usual. We will be using the timer light system. The clock will appear in the corner of the screen when a member has 30 seconds remaining. The clock will change to amber, and a member's time is up. The clock will flash red. Voting for the item of business to be done electronically unless a voting record is called understanding order 28.1. Conduct. Members, please remember to act courteously and with respect to colleagues across the chamber. Members are to remain seated until I've concluded and close the meeting before leaving the chamber. I hope that we can have a civil meeting and conduct the necessary business of the council today without disturbance or disruption. Item 1, apologies for absence. I ask the assistant director of governance and democratic service to be able to report apologies for absence. Thank you, Chair. Apologies for absence have been received from John Beckett, Nick Darby, Paul Deitch, Chris Farr, Paul Follows, Will Forster, Matt Furness, Frank Kelly, Robert King, David Lewis-Camberly-West, Michaela Martin, Julia McShane, Cameron McIntosh, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Becky Rush, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, and Mark Sugden. We do have a number of members attending remotely today who will have speaking rights but no voting rights. Thank you. Are there any other apologies? Item 2 is the Declaration of Interest. I would like to confirm that the Audit and Governance Committee have approved a general dispensation for all the members on an ongoing basis to enable members to participate and vote in the matters relating to local government reorganization, respective to them otherwise having statutory, disclosure, pecuniary interest. Are there any declarations of disclosure, pecuniary interest, significant personal interest, or previous interest that members wish to make at this point? Councillor Chris Townsend. Thank you, Chairman. I rise as a Councillor. I have been a Councillor for over 30 years and have never had a complaint against me, ever. However, at the February budget meeting, a Councillor made a comment about the independent NRA group always voting with the Conservatives. And I took exception to that and I was rather annoyed. So when I spoke at that meeting, I actually used the words about that particular Councillor, about put down. I also meant that I wanted the Chairman to actually take action on that particular Councillor and I regret and I apologise sincerely to all involved for using that phrase and I will not be using that phrase again. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. Item 3. Just to say, I would endorse Mr Townsend's comment. I have always known him to be an upwards standing gentleman and I'm sure it was a mis-speak. Thank you. Thank you. Item 3 is Devolution and Local Government Organisation. On pages 5 to 324 of the reissued supplementary agenda, pages 5 to 6, supplementary agenda, Annex 2, Appendix 7. I now call the leader to introduce the report. Thank you very much, Chair. Members will know that the most extensive powers and funding going forward will be granted to mayoral strategic authorities, including greater local control over transport, infrastructure, strategic housing, planning, skills, economic growth and climate change. These are all issues that directly affect our residents and a prize worth pursuing on their behalf. But for Surrey, that means we must reorganise into a combined authority model which requires the consolidation of the existing 12 councils into a number of unitaries. A high level options appraisal showed that a single unitary across Surrey would of course be the most financially sustainable, but we know that Devolution cannot be unlocked just on a Surrey footprint. Our analysis of the evidence clearly shows that a two unitary east-west model is the best option for Surrey residents. The three unitary model offers less financial resilience when needing to manage key areas of demand and in particular social care. It would have less agility to redeploy resources in response to growing service demands and there would be higher costs associated with the need to disaggregate services across three new unitaries. In view of the time constraints on proposing this report, Chair, this morning, I will comment in more detail at Cabinet this afternoon on the flawed assumptions and data contained in the three unitary submission. The view that two unitaries is the way forward is shared by the Chief Constable of Surrey and the Police and Crime Commissioner who will be reorganising their service delivery to reflect the two unitary model as well as Surrey Heartland's health system and indeed is supported by a number of the District and Borough Councils in Surrey including Mole Valley and Elmbridge as well as other key partners. The community boards we are establishing will provide real local engagement actively led by elected Councillors bringing together the resident voice, health partners, community safety, the voluntary sector as well as town and parish councils where they currently exist who will have a key part to play if they so choose. It is disappointing but not surprising that the leader of the Liberal group on this Council is misrepresenting to residents how those boards and councils will be engaged. Collectively, we will drive forward the prevention and early intervention agenda which is absolutely key to delivering our 2030 community vision for Surrey and our health and wellbeing strategy. The east-west option and indeed either option 2.1 or 2.2 delivers strong correlation between adult social care and children's social services budgets and key funding resources. The two new councils will also experience compatible levels of population, land area, total household numbers, homelessness, house building targets, waste collection, business activity, pupil distribution, number of births and death registrations and total miles of public highway. Inevitably the issue of debt is particularly pertinent in a number of the district councils in Surrey but there are ongoing conversations with the government in relation to the Woking debt. We will of course continue to lobby hard to the government to ring fence and write off any irrecoverable debt incurred by any of the districts and boroughs in failed commercial investments. I am confident that the government will provide financial support to any borough council that needs it going forward. Chair, the report to Council and the final plan sets out a transformative vision for the future across Surrey with streamlined operations, enhanced service delivery and unlocked financial efficiencies. We are living in a climate of huge uncertainty, increasing demand for all our services, the likelihood of even less funding for those services from central government. But the final plan is bold, forward thinking and evidence led and a plan that seeks to modernise local government and create a more sustainable and resilient future for Surrey. This is about the future for our residents and what is in their best interest and that must be the delivery of high quality services at a cost that is both affordable and fair. Chair, I recommend the report to Council. The item is open for debate. The speaker is Catherine Palmer. Thank you, Chair. The option the cabinet is proposing to send to government is option 2.1, two unit trues split east-west with Spellthorne in the west. The appendices clearly show that option 2.2 is more balanced with Spellthorne in the east and the equality impact assessment is based on half 2.1 and the other half on 2.2. There is still critical information missing from the papers, particularly regarding the split of council tax bans across the new unitary authorities. The papers only look at council tax in this year. The three unitary option is the most balanced in terms of this key tax raising criteria. Option 2.1 is the least. The percentage of ban G and H properties is 21.4 in the east and only 15.2 in the west, a difference of 6.2%. Putting Spellthorne in the east takes this down to 2%, still significant. The west would still be worse off but nowhere near as bad. Spellthorne has the highest percentage of children in need, children with social workers and children with EHCPs. The second highest being Runnymede closely followed by Woking. Option 2.1 puts all three in the west. They are also the three councils with the highest levels of debt. Woking's debt is still unresolved although everyone agrees that selling off assets will not solve the problem and residents of Woking can't cover the cost. Spellthorne and Runnymede both have debt gross financing costs of more than 100% of their annual revenue budgets. Even if these debts can be serviced by sell-offs and revenue, they represent a high level of ongoing financial risk. Whilst we here today can debate and raise issues, the reality is the cabinet will make the decision. Our vote is a vote to note. So I propose that a vote for should be taken to mean a councillor believes that the papers are consistent and fully support option 2.1 as being the best option for all residents of Surrey. And a vote against should be taken to mean they don't. The cabinet is made up of nine councillors, five in the west in option 2.1, four in the east. How many in the west will vote to doom the west of Surrey with all areas of higher need, the lowest council tax bans and to cap it all off the three highest debt districts and boroughs? I will be voting no and I hope many others will join me, sending a clear message to the cabinet to think again. Thank you, Chair. David Lewis. Thank you, Chairman. It appears that Councillor Powell has been working again over the bank holiday. And I wish to specifically address some of the points that she made in the paper that she sent to us all on bank holiday Monday. I do say my capacity as portfolio holder for finance and resources. Councillor Powell claims, and I quote, the differential in council tax bans between the east and west is of particular concern given the increasing dependence of Surrey County Council and any future unitary authorities on council tax. She claims that data has been deliberately admitted from the submission. She refers to the introduction of a banned eye council tax and draws misleading conclusions. She states that option 2.1 would mean that the west unitary would have less ability to raise additional funds through council tax and have a higher likelihood of increasing demand statutory services. Mr Chairman, this conclusion is simply incorrect and is based on flawed assumptions and analyses. Let me explain why. Firstly, let's be clear. The number of council tax bans is set by the UK government. In England, there are eight bans, bans A to H. It's not within any local council's gift, unitary or otherwise, to introduce new bans. The number of ban D equivalent properties for pre-secting purposes is known as a council tax base. This takes into account the number of properties in each council tax ban and converts them into a ban D equivalent. For example, a ban H property is worth two ban D equivalents and a ban A property is worth six-ninths of this. This process equals out the differential in the tax base and any future increases are applied using this leveled out tax base. It is wrong to calculate increases based on individual bans. No council works out their budget this way. It is worked out using ban D equivalents. We've considered the tax base and reviewing all the unitary options and for option 2.1, the tax base difference is marginally more equal than option 2 and favours the West. The data on council tax base used for this modelling is publicly available on the government website. The imminent funding reform, fair funding reforms, will look at relative need and relative resource. The government will use needs-based formulas to allocate grants and support to local authorities, considering factors like social care requirements and local economic conditions. Based on current indications, it's likely that a formula will then be applied to the needs assessment to adjust the allocations to take into account an authority's ability to raise council tax locally. This is known as council tax equalisation and would likely see Surrey councils lose government funding overall. Contrary to council power's assertions, it is therefore not the case that an area with higher ability to raise council tax results in additional funding, as this ability is considered in the government's assessment of funding distribution formulas and the level of funding then received from government. Council power also talks about equalising to the highest council tax level, which is working in the West. This cannot be done as it would breach the current referendum levels and Surrey County Council and indeed all the D's and B's submissions talk about harmonising to the weighted average in year 1 to keep within those referendum levels. This part of council power's brief is flawed, as well as the banned I suggestion. Mr Chairman, I apologise for the somewhat technical nature of this speech, but it's really essential that members have confidence in the work and the analysis that's been done by our officers. Had council power been willing to take advice from those officers and work with the team, I feel that she would have had a much more enjoyable bank holiday. I would urge you all to support the council's recommendations and support option 2.1. Thank you, chair. Robert Evans. Thank you, chair, colleagues. Firstly, I'd like to commend the leader and all the officers for what I know has been a huge amount of time and effort that has been put into this paper. However, I'm afraid I cannot commend nor recommend the conclusions that they have come up with. Conclusions and a plan which I believe to be impossible to sell to local residents. Dividing Surrey into two unitary authorities would mean both would be oversized and geographically challenged in an area of anticipated growth. The white paper listed principles for devolution. These included guidance that unitary authorities must cover, and I quote, sensible economic geographies. The two unitary model doesn't do that. That the areas must cover travel to work areas. The two unitary model doesn't cover that. It also said the ability for local residents to engage and hold their devolved institutions to account. Colleagues, it's difficult to see how this works in the two unitary model, covering huge areas with two member divisions, fewer councillors, covering a larger area with more ground to cover. I've spoken to many councillors, county councillors, borough and district councillors. I've discussed these options at length with a large number of members of the public. A cross section of people in my division and in other areas, through a range of other links and other circles in which I move, sporting circles, social, museums, education. There have been borough council meetings across the county which I followed, and we held a public meeting in my division to explain the plans to my local residents and to answer questions. I've received a huge number of emails and messages from a wide range of people. Some of the messages have to be short, being blunt and to the point. But apart from a few councillors in this room, not one other person, not one, has said that he or she supports two unitary authorities. Some have offered other ideas like becoming a London borough, but we know those options are not on the table. In the documents, point 25 before us talks about an online panel wanting better value for money, clearer accountability and a more financially resilient council. Of course they do, we don't need a panel to tell us that. Can we see the findings of this panel in regards to the two or three unitary options? Point 26 says the two unitaries strengthen and simplify local government in Surrey. The council boundaries as proposed do nothing to simplify nor strengthen democracy in Surrey. Point 31, I look forward to the results of the engagement with residents because I believe they will show that they don't like it. None of points 42 to 53 in the document reflect the opposition to the two unitary model in this council. Had the leadership wanted to, they could have started from the premise, promoted and developed plans to show that three could be made to work. Elmridge, we know, has heavily influenced the thinking in the manner that does not sound to be in the interests of the whole of Surrey. Two unitaries I believe to be the worst option and we could be making an awful mistake this morning. Thank you. Please. Thank you, Chairman, to try and dispel some of the hysteria. We look to the future and to our democratic responsibility to improve the daily lives of our Surrey residents. It is our duty to do all we can to identify the local government model that will simplify their experience, save money and strengthen the connection between our residents, our communities and the services we all rely on. The case has been made for securing greater vital local control over transport, infrastructure, housing, planning, skills, growth and climate change. The analysis before us is thorough and exhaustive and has been shared with and endorsed by our key partners who have been walking alongside us as this work has developed. Collaboration with our partners through our community boards will be a transformative vehicle for prevention and early intervention and will enable a renaissance of local influence, accountability and direct action from our health, community safety, voluntary sector partners, town and parish councils, our residents and communities at the centre. We are advocating for our residents and communities and are proposing a local government structure that will serve their needs for now and the future, provide the security and services they expect and make life easier, more affordable where we can all work as a collective to tackle the challenges that modern life brings. Together we are stronger and for our residents we are on your side. Let us look forward to a future for our Surrey residents that is simpler, saves money and improves their quality of life and on the eve of the 80th anniversary of D-Day is fit for decades to come. In the closing years of Surrey County Council, let the initials SCC expand and stand for Saving, Serving and Strengthening Surrey's Communities. George Potter, George Potter. Thank you. Incidentally it's the anniversary of V-Day not D-Day. This report is filled with what I can describe as dodgy figures. The analysis which is proposed to show that two unitaries is better is based on dubious and flawed assumptions and I'd say it is notable that the districts and boroughs have taken the time to benchmark against other unitary councils, against other organisations to take a fundamentally fact and evidence based approach. Here we have as usual for County Council making the figures fit the predetermined conclusions but no surprise there. We have a report which in its appendices regurgitates demographic statistics instead of doing any actually valuable analysis of what those demographic statistics mean. We have pages of lyrical prose about the imagined benefits of devolution but no substance about the actual practicalities of splitting up, reorganising into two unitaries. Again, time and time again the government criteria as mentioned by Councillor Evans on things like travel to work areas are ignored. The analysis is simply omitted. And what you have is effectively a glossy sales pamphlet padded out with figures to make it look convincing when the actual substance is very thin. I have to say that in all honesty you would have to have a very small brain to be impressed by such an approach, such an important document but doubtless the cabinet is filled with this report. The fact is, and I will also note that Councillor Oliver referred to the idea that there is police support for this. Well forgive me but the appendices say that there is a letter of support from the police and crime commissioner to ascribe that as being support from the police constable, a politically neutral public servant, I think does a disservice to both the chief constable himself and to the position which he holds. Also, Councillor Oliver talks about community boards and about how they are going to work. Well, all I have to simply say about this Tim is that is not your decision. Any new structure will be decided by the new unitaries after by the elected members of that unitary so why you are including proposals on community boards I do not know. But again, I suppose some people do have a strange need to try to make themselves look relevant even when the conversation is moving beyond them. These proposals to unitaries will split economic areas, they will fail to fulfill government criteria, they are a bad option for our residents, they will eliminate the local voice and make government unaccountable and remote. And I will say one final thing, it is quite clear that had the county election taken place last week, as they took place for the rest of the country, this administration would have lost the majority of its seats and would have been swept away. They are desperately trying to rig the system before they are forced out of public, but I promise you, you might be able to dodge the electorate for a little while, but you cannot dodge the people forever, your reckoning will come. Thank you, Liz Townsend. Thank you, thank you Mr Chairman. This is a farce really. We are here to note that a report is going to cabinet later today for them to make a decision. What kind of democracy is this? This is a once in a generation decision, one that will shape how our communities are governed, how our services are delivered and how the voices of our residents are heard for decades to come and we have, in this place, no vote. Last night at Waverley I voted for three unitaries as outlined in the district and boroughs proposal, not even available here for us to look at. This was created through collaboration and consensus, cross party and with elected representatives and officers. But in that meeting, councillors were also provided with the Surrey proposal as well to make comparisons. We were given that opportunity, one denied to us councillors here. We could compare the huge disparity then between predicted implementation costs and payback periods. I know for a fact some of the figures within this report are heavily disputed by the section 151 officers across the district and boroughs. So much for evidence led. This actual process we are going through here today represents the considerable drawbacks in centralising power in local government in the hands of few people. This proposal slashes council numbers and local representation from 534 to a just 162 councillors. And I would like to congratulate Councillor Powell on all her hard work and all of the common sense she has displayed but actually we know it's going to be ignored. This is a split that suits the Conservatives alone, concentrates debt in the west of the borough, in the west of the county, cuts across well established functional economic areas. A primary driver for growth and as mentioned by Councillor Evans as well, part of the key principles of devolution and disaggregates key services. It reflects Surrey Conservatives bigger is better ideology, one that's been repeatedly disproven by academic studies, hundreds of them. And isn't that one of the key drivers as well for devolution, to bring decision making closer to the people, improve local accountability, responsiveness and economic development. It's ironic eh? It's been proven the larger the council the weaker the democracy, less voter turnout, less public engagement and more public distrust. And we are ignoring the voice of our residents. The district and boroughs carried out a survey. 3300 residents, 63% of them supported three unitaries, only 17% of them supported two. And I know that some of the Conservatives think only 3300, well look at your own voting figures, look at the leader's voting figures when he got elected. That is more people than most votes. Thank you, that's time, thank you, that's time, thank you, that's time. Now please, can I just say please, be respectful, be courteous, I did say if anybody has to say anything, say it to the chair, you have a right to speak, you can put your hand up and speak your bit. But please, hear others, they have every right to be heard. Next speaker is Sneyd Mooney. Thank you very much chair. I'd just like to say actually, before I refer to this, what I really want to say in this substantive matter. Councillor Turner-Stewart and I had the pleasure of meeting a young person at our surgery on Saturday who wants to stand for Surrey Deputy Young Mayor. And I would say to that young person, if she happens to be watching this and I think she expressed an interest, very interest in local government, I think she's probably just heard two examples of how not to do it. Thank you chair, so what I'd like to say is since the publication of the papers and the release into the public domain, I have been contacted by a number of spell form residents and organisations expressing concern about the proposal to place the borough in the West unitary. This includes representatives from community groups, residents associations and youth providers. I've also received enquiries from charities supporting vulnerable adults about the implications of the proposed reorganisation. We are all familiar with the pros and cons surrounding spell form. The recent best value inspectors report makes for stark reading and leaves no stone unturned. However, putting aside views on debt management and governance, spell form does possess several characteristics that make it better suited to inclusion in the East unitary proposal. Now what real difference would it make to the main business of the unitary council and its key partners if spell form was placed in the East rather than the West unitary? Quite frankly, I believe the numbers don't shift significantly. There would be no additional strain on adult social care or children's services. As I've stated before, the real challenge there would arise if we move beyond the two unitary framework and that would introduce issues such as reduced economy of scaling commissioning, inconsistent application of the care act and increased overhead costs. The relocation of spell form from West to East would not contribute to any of these issues. The same logic may apply when considering our partners, be it the fire service and health. Coterminous boundaries are helpful, but placing spell form in the East does not significantly disrupt them. The practical difference is minimal, although I am aware that the Chief Constable has expressed a preference for the police service being placed in the West unitary. There are, however, clear synergies in favour of spell form joining the East. We have strong business ties, particularly in the tech sector. We benefit from excellent connectivity, both road and rail. Heathrow Airport, which lies partly in our borough, views expansion and future heavy rail links to the South East as critical for its survival. The River Thames and the Thames scheme are vital regional assets. The M25 runs primarily through the proposed East unitary corridor. Like other districts and boroughs in the East's proposal, we border London, or spell form borders London, and this opens up opportunities for affordable travel and greater regional cooperation. Most importantly, there is a strong sense of local identity with the East. As one resident put it to me, we have nothing in common with Woking, Guildford or Waverley, and no public transport links to them either. So, Chairman, I will close by asking colleagues to give serious consideration to leaving it open to further discussions with Government about the best fit for spell form in a two unitary model, particularly in light of any decision they propose to take in relation to the appointment of Commissioners, which I understand is imminent. Thank you, Chair. Jonathan Lexics. Thank you, Chair, and firstly, thanks to the work done by Officers and Councils across Surrey to produce both proposals we are discussing here today, under such a short timescale whilst elections have been cancelled. We urge Government to write off Woking and other councils debt, unserviceable debt, in full. If private sector banks can be bailed out, then why not risky loans to fund the delivery of public services. The three unitary option with population growth is close to the average 500,000 residents per unitary desired by Government, and has far better, far more sensible, natural, social and economic geographies. The three unitary proposal to not split county-wide children and adult care directorates, but have these as shared services, makes sense. But we urge that the place-based aspects, such as sufficiency in fostering and children's homes, SEND and school-place planning, are done at the unitary level. Reflecting this in the financial assumptions, as in the three unitary proposal, leaves a far smaller financial difference. This is a small price to pay for limiting the centralisation of these plans for local council services and the consequential reduction in local democracy it represents. A strong majority of Surrey councillors prefer the three unitary option. Public engagement by the boroughs and districts, so residents are three to one in favour of the three unitary option too. And our engagement in Rygate and Bancid has given similar feedback. Contrast that to the county council's resident engagement. The first question asked to the residents panel was whether they preferred a one, two or three council option, but their answers remain secret. Is this council's lack of transparency because it's pursuing plans at odds with our residents' views? It would appear so. Please publish before the cabinet decision this afternoon and address it as part of the cabinet decision. The two unitary future local decision-making plans also appear weak. The community boards appear far more engagement than decision-making. The holy child raised, and they left the borough council to manage, failed expectations. It is not clear how this will work in unparished areas. The only focus on what local councils currently do now is a brief reference to new local area committees. Finally, on councilor numbers, we support three councillors per division. Not just for better resident representation, but acknowledging the work to shift to unitaries will take a further three to four years beyond vesting day in April 2027, as noted in the county council submission. Therefore, we urge the government to choose the three unitary option for Surrey, even though this hasn't been shared for these councillors here today. Thank you. Point of order, Chair. I rise on Standing Order 18 to do with length of speeches, and I note you've been giving cabinet members five minutes and ordinary members three minutes. I wonder under which standing order, which interpretation you're doing that, because we are being asked to note an officer report to council. Under Standing Order 18, it refers only to a cabinet member speaking on a cabinet report or a committee report. Eighteen, 89. Yes, but that's referring to a member on a cabinet or committee report. It doesn't refer to an officer report, which we're being asked to note, and I think it's giving an imbalance to the debate. Thank you. Noted, but my decision is final. Edward Hawkins. Thank you, Chairman. Can I firstly go back to Robert Evans' comment about the people he's spoken to. The people I've spoken to must reflect a different part of Surrey. They really haven't been that bothered about the changes. What they're interested in is a reduction in the level of administration across the county, but they really want the bins emptied, and they want their roads repaired. I won't go down that particular route, because there is one road that they always mention, but that's a different story in a different place. For Catherine Powell, I have a lot of respect for her. Actually, that's not strictly correct. I have respect for every councillor in this chamber, notwithstanding their political views and the way they speak to us. It's a shame that sometimes politics gets in the way of common sense, but never mind. We're used to the Liberal Democrats doing that, aren't we? Catherine majored on council tax. Now, it's very interesting, because in the past, she has agreed with everybody that council tax is a very blunt instrument, and it needs to be reformed. But if you go to the valuation office website, and they're responsible for setting council tax, it says that value is based on the price of the property that it sold for on the open market from 1st April 1991 and 1st April 2003. That's in Wales, and then it's a similar figure for England. Wales has had a revaluation, and I think what we're seeing from this government, Robert Evans's government, is a transformational change in the way local government runs. And I support them in that. I think it's about time Michael Gove started this, and I think a lot of the work has been built on that carried out by Michael, but it didn't follow through. My hope is that a government will finally, and I speak as having been a portfolio holder finance in a borough, finally grasp the nettle and revalue properties to the true value, and therefore we can then look at how we can fund local government running through. That's not going to happen yet, but Robert, maybe when you're speaking with your lords and masters, you can bring that one idea forward, that they will be brave on the second front and take that on board. I support the two unitaries, and that is the feedback I've had from my residents, and I will be following them, so thank you Chairman. Rachel Lake. Thank you Chairman. I haven't got a prepared speech because I didn't actually plan to speak today. I went through the report. Did I understand every single word, every single figure? No, I didn't, and I'm not going to pretend that I actually did, but what we are missing here is how it is affecting residents. Everybody keeps talking about residents. They should be first in our thoughts, and I totally agree, but what I've got is a lot of residents telling me of the scaremongering that's going on, and they've received a leaflet, and it's this, and they've received another leaflet, and it says something opposite, and that is what we're supposed to be here for, the residents. So the first thing I'd say is that we need to get more communication out of the residents, explaining so that this ridiculous amount of, I'm not going political, of literature currently going out is just not factual. The truth is, when this goes to government, it will be their decision. It will be their decision whether it's two, or whether it's three, or if they don't want it at all and start again. Oh my God, I hope not. But at the end of the day, it will be their decision, but look at what happened when the government, the Secretary of State said that the election's going to be delayed a year. All of the scaremongering because it was a particular party in the cabinet of this side, but then you get Councillors coming up with the cabinet's got small brains. I mean, Mr. Chairman, I know you would have stomped on that had it not gone on so quickly, because I found that absolutely insulting, and I can't tolerate that sort of thing. I don't think that, or at least I've tried never to be overly political in this arena. I never planned to, because my first thought has always been to my residents, and when they're scared, and trust me, a lot of them are scared of what's going on, we, all of us, need to get our act together and communicate the true facts, straightforward, with no political views on it. So I ask you, please, and the Chairman's asked you, other people have asked you, let's just get on with it, get it sorted out for the residents, and then everybody can lose this. And what does it say to the officers that have worked so hard and under such time restraints about the work that they've done? And I don't believe our officers, and I'm looking at our Chief Executive, I don't believe our officers would have produced something that wasn't of the best quality for what we're hoping for. And they weren't given that much, to the best of my knowledge, information that they had to go anywhere. They followed the rules, and they produced the work. Fiona Davidson? Thank you, Chair. As Chair of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee, I want to comment on LGR proposals from the perspective of the most vulnerable children and young people in Surrey and their families. Whatever the ultimate decision made by government, I have absolutely no doubt, as do many of my colleagues on the Select Committee, that Surrey Children's Services needs to be broken up. It is too large to be responsive to the very people it's supposed to serve, and there is very little accountability to Councillors whose role is to represent them. Far too often it presents as a cold, uncaring bureaucracy, more interested in maintaining its position than in the wellbeing of children and young people, particularly those with special education needs and disabilities. For example, last year in response to widespread concerns about SEND, the Select Committee set up a task and finish group to explore the experiences of parents and children and what changes the Council could make. The result was a very thoughtful and balanced report which explored the experiences of SCC staff as well as parents and carers. It was even commended by an academic who researches how SEND case officers deal with the challenges of their work. However, the Service dismissed the Committee's recommendations as unnecessary or already in progress. Despite this dismissal, nine months later, little has changed if the volume of issues and complaints to Councillors is anything to go by. At the heart of the directorate's issues with SEND is organisation culture, and culture is very difficult to change from within. There seems to be a view that Surrey parents are too articulate, too demanding, somehow overprivileged. If you were the parent of a child whose mental health has seriously deteriorated because they are unable to cope with school, and have been left without any education at all, or any support for more than nine months, wouldn't you be fighting for them? Any parent would, and this is not an exceptional case. Would you be happy to be a parent of one of the 32 children with an education, care and health plan, who in May 25 still doesn't have a school place, they should have started in September 24? Or the parent of one of the 364 pre-16 age children with an EHCP who don't have a school place for September 25? Wouldn't you be anxious? Wouldn't you be worrying? Wouldn't you want a response to your emails and phone calls? As concerning is that less capable and articulate parents often don't know how to navigate with a complex system, or how to complain, and it's their children who are far too often left behind. And if they do know how to complain, they can receive responses that are dismissive and don't address the issue. Evidence suggests that in such a large organization, senior managers are detached from what's happening on the ground, and they don't have a good appreciation of the experience of service users. I suspect if they reviewed some of the communications from this council, they'd understand why so many parents of children with SEND have completely lost trust and confidence in Surrey. There are good, caring, compassionate people in children's services doing their very best for children, but the current culture simply does not promote that ethos. I've argued that change requires that the service is broken up. However, the successor organizations need to be viable in the short term and sustainable in the longer term. Surrey's preferred options puts the districts and boroughs, which have the largest and riskiest debt, the least opportunity to raise additional council tax, the most demand and the most need from children's services in the same unitary, that is option 2.1, the West. The SEND costs met by Surrey County Council from tax and council tax are already higher in the West. Even without Spellthorne, which has the highest needs of all, this isn't a viable or sustainable proposition. Surrey has not undertaken any analysis of SEND school places, despite this sufficiency data being mentioned by government in its feedback. SCC is apparently unconcerned and is assuming that new government policies on SEND will solve the current issues. In the ground scheme of LGR, SEND may not be financially material to Surrey County Council, but to the families and children with SEND, it is very, very material. Stephen Cooksey. Yes, thank you, Chairman. I think, as Council is aware, Mull Valley District Council last night voted to support the county submission for the two unitary options, with Allambridge joining with the four eastern boroughs and districts in the larger 2.1 option. Chairman, Mull Valley has never endorsed the original four district and borough eastern proposal, to which it is allocated and expected to accept. But the addition of Allambridge made a significant difference. And I have to say, Chairman, that there was not a single member of Mull Valley Council who voted against that proposal. There were several independents who abstained, but everyone else was in favour. That decision, Chairman, was taken on the basis that the enlarged eastern authority would be financially viable, able to sustain economic growth and protect our environment and balance urban and rural communities. That balance was very important to the predominantly rural south of the district, where there was really real concern that the north would actually dominate. Inevitably, Chairman, members had concerns about some of the content of the county proposal, and these were outlined in the resolution and will be notified to the Secretary of State and the leader of this council. Essentially, Chairman, we were very much in support of electing three councillors to reach division and to address the democratic deficit. All unitary authorities are large and potentially remote, and it's how you address representation and community involvement that's important. We were concerned that all authorities should be included in determining the transition arrangements in the nomination of the lead authority and of the senior responsible officers. That was important. We were concerned that the establishment of town and parish councils with precepting powers was much more strongly preferred than the establishment of boards. However, Mulvaney is, I think, in a unique situation in that we have been offered the opportunity of a test so far as the boards are concerned, and that proposal we've accepted, and we will also be undertaking our own community governance review. So running those two alongside each other will give our residents the opportunity of deciding which is the best way forward. We were also concerned, Chairman, about the future of community assets and discretionary spending, that these should be safeguarded. Chairman, the resolution of many of those will be in the hands of the new authority. Thank you. That's time. Thank you. Thank you. Bob Hughes. Thank you, Chairman. I want to start by thanking the officers, led in this case by Nicola Kilvington, for this very detailed report from them, which, frankly, answers the questions that are posed by the Minister and gives detailed analysis of the costs and realities of delivering vital services at scale and at high quality. And that's my starting point, really, and finishing point. How can we best deliver services across Surrey? How can we be sure that services that need to be delivered at scale can be delivered at scale, and that can only be with two unitary authorities, not three? Now, I have read the whole of the paper from some of the boroughs. It seems to be a declining number of boroughs supporting that. You can only describe it as a political paper. It's got Paul Follows political fingerprints all over it and, frankly, doesn't seem to have any connection to reality or any description of how that would work. For instance, the local strategic statement is quoted as being the basis for having three different unitary authorities. What they don't say is that that statement is eight years old or that it talks about four economic areas in Surrey, not three. So, to use that is extraordinary. So, using economic data that's outdated or, indeed, skewed to fit their political arguments, it just lacks reality and depth and must be treated as the political diatribe that it is. It also assumes, unlike the analysis in the county paper, it assumes that care services are configured locally. That's simply not true. There are significant parts of the service that are county-wide, and in that borough paper, unlike, again, the county one with a lot of detail in it, I accept that Catherine Power would like more detail, wouldn't we all? But this was done in a remarkably short space of time. There are two short paragraphs devoted to adult social care and four short paragraphs devoted to children's social care. That's for services where the expenditure is around two million pounds a day, and it's treated as if it doesn't really matter. Worse than that, and I don't know whether the borough document was partly written by reform or, indeed, Donald Trump's team, it's an inspired rant about how they could deliver the services cheaper. Now, of course, the services could be delivered cheaper, but only by delivering worse services, less care, and causing suffering to people who rely on our support, and I would not back such reckless policies that would harm vulnerable people. And also, three unitaries would unreasonably drive up costs for the charities and agencies delivering essential services, which is why the charity and faith bodies backed the two unitary proposal. And the paper for three unitaries allows for half a million pounds of costs to take account of that. That doesn't even touch the sides, so it's just another bit of unrealistic work. To reiterate what has been said by a number of colleagues, it isn't us who will make the decision, it's the minister who will make the decision, and he'll make those decisions on the basis of the facts. And the other thing that I would say about the paper from a few of the boroughs is that it doesn't answer the questions the minister posed. He's going to want to have answers to that 13 page letter that we've all seen. He wants to know how this will work, what it will cost. So he'll look at the facts, the costs, the ability to deliver services, and frankly, he will find it in our document, but he won't find it in the paper coming from some of the London boroughs and districts. Chairman O'Reilly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I make my short comments, particularly to the leader of the council, I have to say I'm very disappointed, but possibly not surprised, at Fiona Davidson's comments. Now, she is entitled to make her points. She is not entitled to use her position as chairman of the select committee to make those disgraceful, in some cases, slurs on our services, who do their best, and in many cases, in most cases, do it successfully. I'm just talking very briefly to four members of that committee, and all of us agree to dissociate ourselves from the extraordinarily inflammatory language that Fiona Davidson used. It is quite deplorable and quite disgraceful. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to raise, particularly to Tim Oliver, and it's a really important issue, is about the local community boards. To answer George Potter, yes, of course, it's up to the successive authorities to put such structures as they feel in place, but if we, with our colleagues, with our stakeholders, can produce something that is viable and credible, the hope would be that the new successive authorities would implement them, would keep them. So the question that all of us have, and I ask as a member of an Elmbridge councillor, and I'm very pleased that Elmbridge is going to be one of the trial, the pace setters, as it were, for the community boards. My question to the leader of the council is, the hope is that these will kind of be up and running in the autumn. That doesn't give us much time, the pallet studies, that is, part of areas, that doesn't give us much time given the summer holidays. It really is critical, whether it's officers or the leader himself, to invite, to involve divisional members and other councillors as part of that process before we even begin, so that we don't start in October or September or October with a blank sheet. This is a really important legacy that this counts could leave to our residents. We have to get it right. It is going to be complex. So the more work that is being done, the more consultation, the more bringing in to this process that Tim Oliver and his team can bring at this early stage, the better. I think it's potentially a really exciting and innovative way of being that buffer between the Unitary Authority and local residents, but it really needs careful handling. I'm sure when Mr Oliver replies, he will give me some reassurance on that point. Andy McLeod. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to start by quoting from the guidance from the Secretary of State for proposals for Unitary local government. This is a three page document with loads of guidance, but the very first point in the first paragraph states that proposals should be for sensible economic areas with an appropriate tax base, which does not create an undue advantage or disadvantage for one part of the area. I believe that Carson Powell's analysis of the Surrey proposal clearly demonstrates an unfair and unbalanced nature of the 2.1 to Unitary proposal. The technical points may be disputed, but there's a very obvious point that we can all understand that the Surrey's proposal puts all three councils that are deeply in debt and included in the West Surrey area. In the normal course of events, this would result, and has resulted elsewhere, in such councils being put into special measures, commissions being brought in to help run the council, and normally results in large council tax increases and reductions in services. However, what's going to happen here is that all of these three councils will disappear in two years' time into the West Surrey Unitary, but they'll leave this legacy for the West Surrey Unitary. The problems will not disappear. This clearly creates an undue advantage for the East Surrey Unitary and a disadvantage for the West Surrey Unitary, which is completely against the guidance from the Secretary of State. I think the cabinet needs to rethink this afternoon and switch to the 2.2 proposal, which is a slightly more balanced and fair advantage. Now, I understand actually why a couple of better councils, and we've heard from Councillor Cusi already, are supporting this proposal. These are two councils in the east side, which are going to be advantaged by this proposal, and I understand that councils have to represent the interests of the residents, and that's the reason that they're actually doing it. But the cabinet actually has to consider the whole of Surrey, and should be looking at it from that point of view, and they really have to reconsider this proposal. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Chris Townes, then? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I want to start by congratulating Councillor Peter Hart, winning the one election we had at Surrey County Council last week. Interesting that the independent RA group maintained its numbers and thrashed every other party. Even reform, I think. Even reform. Maybe the Conservatives need to think hard and long about what might have happened. The other point is, and I want to pick up the point that Councillor Kington made, I'm deeply disappointed in the language that Councillor O'Reilly used. He's usually a sensible gentleman, but I found that very disappointing. I'm a member of that committee, and I have evidence along the lines that the Chairman said in her speech. And I don't think we were showing words that, like slurs, is relevant. I know there's been other comments made by other people, but let's leave that. I've dealt with that earlier. I'm deeply disappointed with him, but let's move on. Let's move on. Everybody can talk about, I spoke to Charlie Farley, I spoke to Gladys Aylward, and they said, and they supported you. What a surprise. You're talking to them, so they would be supporting you, wouldn't you? Highly unlikely you're going to have a rut with them in the street, or when you speak to them. So most people you speak to will be along the same lines as you. The people I spoke to in my division are deeply concerned about the debts, deeply concerned about SEND, which Fiona Davidson quite rightly touched on. And we all have evidence of that in our own divisions that have been running for a while. And there is a deep concern, there is an imbalance between the East and the West there on what actually is happening and what can be delivered. So that's a really deep concern. I do praise the officers, they've done their best, and I had a very, very short time, and that's not their fault, that's the government's fault. But I think it's been said by only one other person, I think funny enough from the committee that I'm on, that at the end of the day, we aren't making this decision, the government are making this decision. All we're doing is putting forward what we think might be the best shot at it. The cabinet's going to make their decision this afternoon, a number of us will not necessarily agree with that, but it's only a recommendation. The minister can turn around and say, go jump. They can say, come back, God forbid, as the other councilor quite rightly said, we don't want to go through that again. But they might not come back with what we want, or what we best think is in the best interest of our residents. And that's what really matters. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And may I also add my voice of thanks to the leader and to officers for preparing this detailed report before us this morning. Now, it is critically important that we don't leave behind any town, village, community, or neighborhood behind as we press ahead with local government reorganization. The report is right to highlight that Surrey is blessed with rich civic life, with active community groups, resident associations, charity organizations, town and parish councils, and particularly in Runnymede, neighborhood forums tasked with developing and delivering neighborhood plans. It is not just right, Mr. Chairman, but vital that all these organizations have a seat at the new community board tables when established. It is also right and vital that all 86 Surrey town and parish councils continue to be empowered to carry out their vital services for their communities. I thank a representative of the Surrey Association of Parish and Town Councils for meeting with me recently to discuss concerns they have about their future role in reorganization. I place on record my support for those organizations and the work they play in our communities, both as members of a future community board when established, but also on their own, functioning independently. It is right that they play that role, and it is the view and the attitude, indeed, the position of this council that they continue to play that future role. Mr. Chairman, I have also mentioned the role of neighborhood forums. In areas where no town and parish councils exist, a neighborhood forum can lead on coordinating neighborhood planning for an area. At last comes, there are over 20 neighborhood forums established in Surrey, and in Runnymede, in communities like Englefield Green, Ottershaw, Thorpe, and in Virginia Water, neighborhood forums are established and already play a crucial role in enabling and promoting and serving their communities and helping shaping local developments. That is a key role that I believe they need to play as members of future community boards. The report makes no mention currently of neighborhood forums, and the community engagement model does not specifically refer to their role as a member of a new community board. I am quite sure that this is a small oversight, because if we are serious about bringing together all local partners and drive together collaborative actions... Thank you, that's time. Thank you. Eber Kenton. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I would also like to congratulate County Councillor Peter Harp and the North Cantatman Residence Association for their excellent victory in the North Cantatman by-election. A victory also for the electors of North Cantatman who were able to cast a vote while the rest of the voters in Surrey were denied the opportunity. My congratulations also to Councillor Oliver. Whilst the Conservative Party across England were losing over 600 seats and controlled quite a few, Councillor Oliver's campaign to cancel the council elections meant his LGR plans and his party's record on Surrey County Council were not put to the test, and they've kept their seats. Chair, I have been asked by residents why they've been denied a vote, and I always advise them to listen to the webcast of the February council meeting, called to approve Councillor Oliver's request for Surrey County Council to be considered as an earlier doctor of university status and an elected mayor. It's there in the words of Conservative members of this council. Apparently, residents get confused by council structures. Anyway, counselling local elections doesn't matter, as many people don't turn out to vote. Perhaps the most astonishing comment was made by one of the Conservatives who said that residents might elect new councillors who are not as knowledgeable as their current representatives about the issues facing local government. How dismissive of both the potential candidates who were denied the opportunity to stand and Surrey electors who want to exercise their right to vote. But it sums up the position we are in today. As far as Surrey County Council and the LGR is concerned, no mandate for unitaries and an elected mayor, no elections to test public opinion, one councillor out of 81 with the executive power able to determine every aspect of the submission to government, and a final LGR submission rushed in its publication and subject to no scrutiny at all. Chair, the fact that the only option I have to express my opposition to the LGR submission is to vote against noting it, says it all. Chair, not a great day for local democracy and certainly not for the disenfranchised residents of Surrey. Thank you, Chairman. My apologies, I don't have a prepared speech, but listening to the debate I thought I probably ought to put my two-panet in as well. I find this whole situation really sad because I don't think anybody would say that local government is perfect in its current form. It probably does need to be reorganised, but it doesn't need to be organised at the sort of break-neck speed that we've been forced into to put Surrey into the first tranche. It would have been far better because the impact of what is decided is going to affect residents of Surrey probably for the next 50 years or so, to look at it very carefully, to have proper debates about it and to think it through, get together all the evidence that we need. The other thing that's missing from this, and I noted from a number of speakers, they've referred to, we've talked to our partners, we work with our partners. Not one of those people referred to our residents as being our partners. There was one speaker who said we should explain to residents so that they understand what we're doing, but even that Councillor didn't say and we should consult them on what they feel is the best outcome. They're the ones who are going to have to live with this, they and their children, and there is a real democratic deficit in this whole process. So I find it really sad that we are coming up with solutions that, and I'm really sorry, I don't wish to insult anybody, but this paper does look to me as though a decision was made and the evidence has been produced to support it. Now my apologies to anybody who feels insulting, but that is my assessment of this. Finally, can I also say bravo to Councillor Davidson, she actually told it like it is, and anybody who thinks that that was a slur really hasn't been listening to the residents of this county. So finally, Chairman, at the risk of incurring your loss, I do congratulate the leader of this Council, his cabinet and the whole Conservative group on their survival tactics. It's a bit much to cancel elections to save your own seats, but it worked. Thank you, time. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Chair, clearly, like you, I regret, and others, some of the language that has been used today, which belittles not just Council but also the work of officers that's gone into preparing documents, not just here at county but across the other boroughs and districts, in a very short space of time, have been done extremely well. And I think, you know, as a past chair, I know how difficult it is to run meetings like this, but it does, it does behold us to maintain the Nolan principles. And I think today, one or two of us have challenged those principles a bit. So now the government's decision, when they were elected last year, was to seek for a change in local government, and they invited us and all two-tier authorities to offer our choices. And I think, on the whole, in spite of everything we've heard today, most of us and our residents seek that unitary government will be more efficient, will provide better services, will have less cost. And I think that that is generally thought to be that after, you know, nearly 50 years of no change in the way that local government is run, it's all about time that we should. And the government's written to us and told us that we should look at all the various different options, and that's quite rightly has been done. So we are looking at two unitaries, three unitaries, or possibly even three unitaries plus part of our existing county moving into Sussex. We're also being told to benchmark it all against one unitary solutions as well, which I think is very important. And the government also told us that in our work we should be looking at how we might improve community engagement. And as a divisional member in Dorking Rural, that's the name of my division, which is totally perished, I understand how local engagement through parish councils works and how important it is for opportunities for residents to be heard at their very regular monthly meetings. And I'm very pleased that the area that I serve will be included as one of the pilots going forward, because actually local community engagement with our partners, with our residents, is really important. And to be able to understand what people are saying on the ground about the services that they receive is essential if we're going to improve those services. Going forward, whatever the government decides about all of these options, we will have to deliver it, and we will have to scrutinize how that's delivered. And we should do this with care and consideration of our residents. Thank you. I have three more speakers and I'm calling it a day now. Next is Hazel Watson. The group's report will be considered by the cabinet this afternoon. I will set out now the recommendations of the report to bring them to the attention of members. The group recommends continued lobbying of government for a solution on debt, which includes government assistance, so that Surrey residents do not have to unfairly bear the burden of debt run up by specific districts and borough areas. This is vital to ensure that both shadow authorities are financially sustainable and that critical services are not impacted by historic debt. In relation to IT, the lessons learned from the Surrey's implementation of the ERP replacement project and the report of the Digital Business and Insights Task Group made recommendations for future IT programs. The group recommends that these should be revisited to ensure that all those involved, including districts and boroughs, understand the cost and other risks involved to service users and their data. The group recommends that the executive prioritize implementation resource to support planning for the effective transition of IT systems and data and seeks specific additional resource from government, recognizing that managing the aggregation and disaggregation of IT systems and data is likely to represent one of the most significant challenges to local government reorganization in Surrey. The group recommends that work to understand sufficiency of supply for SEND in the proposed geography is prioritized by the executive so that shadow authorities can be fully informed early on of the demand for critical services in their areas and where there may be gaps and pressures in supply, which is likely to impact capital and revenue budgets, particularly for home to school transport and school places. The group is deeply concerned about the financial picture of Surrey and the pressures that may be placed on residents, including from council tax harmonization, and urges continued efforts by the executive lobby government to mitigate the impact of any funding reforms, including the fair funding review and subsequent council tax equalization by writing off Woking's existing stranded debt. The group recommends that resourcing future work on the community board's model is prioritized by the cabinet so that the county council can put forward sound recommendations to shadow authorities on the approach to local engagement and to ensure that the board is able to perform a meaningful role, delivering real results and improvements for residents. The group recommends that the model is developed to include spending powers for the boards to make decisions on allocations of monies to deliver results for local residents. The group also requests that councilors are actively involved in the pilots and that outcomes and lessons learned from these pilots are reported back to institutionally for review. Thank you, there's time. Thank you. David Harmer. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, it's interesting that I have got the last speaking position because, no, okay, there'll be somebody else. Good, I'm pleased about that. My view is, and this is, I'm not being particularly critical of the present government, but having decided to go down this path, the rules that were created by the Secretary of State, I think, left us effectively with very little alternatives to reaching the point we're now at. Because the starting point was that we needed to, if we were to take advantage of the devolution propositions that he was putting forward, that we would need to have a reorganization along the tracks of where we are now discussing. Now, when we look at the map, one of the restrictions that he had placed was that no district or borough should be divided, but there should be the resulting authorities, one, two or three, whatever you decided to choose, should be geographically in a single unit. And working from that basis, if you look at the map, that immediately drives the position of who should be with Mole Valley, because Mole Valley divides Surrey North-South completely. And so that's an interesting starting point, which takes away what I would prefer, which is a North-South division, which you can't do, obviously, without splitting Mole Valley in some way. So, given that that was a starting point, it seems to me that we're then saying how many authorities should there be, and I think the analysis correctly shows that the best advantage would be to have two. And in that case, when you then say which of the proposals that we're discussing today would be more appropriate, and sadly, because I would have preferred not to do it that way, I have to say that the proposal that is before us, I have to support, and I hope that the Cabinet will continue to do so later on today. Thank you. So, whether we end up with one, two or three unitaries, I think we can all agree that this whole process has been rushed by this Labour government. Something that should have taken years, and we will probably be stuck with for half a century, is being bulldozed through in months. It speaks volumes about a government who does not care for Surrey, and why would they when they had two out of 81 Councillors? It's up to all of us today to step up and protect the whole of Surrey. When reorganisation takes place, it should be about opportunity, but unfortunately, it's been hijacked by historical Tory debt, which this government won't write off. Without a clean slate, this government is setting us up to fail from day one. The proposal to lump that debt in one half from day one means we won't stand a chance. These reports which state what residents want are a gimmick. In spell form, 3,000 residents were asked, what about the other 100,000? However, out of the 3,000, the majority want three unitaries. The Community Board's proposal are another gimmick. What should have happened was the elections should have gone ahead, and on the ballot paper, an option like a mini referendum on asking sorry residents what they wanted. Now around 80 of us are making that decision for them. The bigger the monster, the worse the service will be. We have heartbreaking evidence of this across a number of services, ask send parents across Surrey. The proposal would destroy local democracy and local services. I request you all to put party colours to one side and do what's best for the whole of Surrey and not just your individual patch. Thank you. The leader to respond. Your five minutes. Thank you, Chair. Can I start by thanking the Select Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs for their engagement in this process? I, like everybody else, I'm sorry that it has had to be pushed through so quickly. But to Robin Evans, I would remind him who reran his usual pre-COVID old three unitary arguments. I would remind him that it is his government, his government that is requiring us to reorganise and indeed every other two tier authority. It is his government that has been clear that the real powers are going to be given to directly elected mayors and it is his government that will decide on the future of Surrey. In relation to the Select Committee's report, which we will consider at Cabinet, I can say now that we accept in totality all recommendations from the Select Committee. I am very grateful to them to say for the work that they have done. I'm only going to make a few comments just on inaccuracies. I absolutely respect Catherine Power. I have a very good working relationship on many areas of the work of this Council. But increasing the number of bans is a government decision and it may well be that that is coming down the line, we shall see, but until it does, we have to work on the existing banning system. I think most of us think the Council tax is an old tax and probably needs reform. But I think the point you are misunderstanding is that the funding review will look at adult social care formula, children's formula and those Councils will have two ways of getting money. First is to raise Council tax and the second is to get government grants. If you raise more Council tax in one area, you will get less government grants and vice versa, so it will balance itself out. The second point I am really interested in is around the debt in the Western Unity, the three boroughs. Unfortunately, neither the leader of Spelthorn Borough Council or the leader of Runnymede Borough Council are here to defend themselves. But they would say, I am sure, that they do not accept what is being said around their levels of debt. But in the three unitary proposal, two of those Councils would be in a single unitary. So Spelthorn, Runnymede and Elmbridge would be put in one unitary. How can that possibly be better than splitting them across or having them in a thing? So I just find that an odd argument. And of course, actually, the District and Borough's original three unitary proposal included Surrey Heath, which would actually have been a much better balance. I am grateful to the other Councils, to Moll Valley and to Elmbridge and the leaders of those Councils, but also to all of the other leaders of the District Councils. We have had regular meetings, as have the Chief Executives, over the last few weeks and months. And it is wrong for people to suggest that these reports have just been created out of thin air. There is a huge amount of work that has gone into it. This is a difficult subject. This Council alone has a 1.2 billion budget, which 900 million has spent on adult social care. You know, you can't just make these assumptions. And some of the numbers, I'm afraid, in the three unitary proposals are just simply wrong. Simply wrong. To Fiona Davison, you'll see, actually, this afternoon, there is a recommendation regarding SEND, and indeed, that work is underway. The surface efficiency strategy is being updated, and we can talk about that in more detail, if you wish. To John O'Reilly, absolutely, the community boards will be up and running. Certainly by the autumn, there will be a member session, as soon as we can get that in the diary. Absolutely would ask for member input into the terms of reference, how that will work. I keep making the point, though, these boards must be more than just about local government services. You know, the prevention agenda, which we must absolutely progress, is dependent upon the health system, and to a lesser extent, upon community safety. And that is what I want these boards to do, not just to be a mini version of local government. And I think, Chair, I'm sorry that this has been a pretty bad-tempered debate, and that we have got distracted on other subjects. But at the end of the day, we are all here, trying to do our best, in the best interests of Surrey residents, and on our analysis, that is for two unitaries, as you know, in the plan. Thank you very much. Mr Chairman, under standing order 28.1, I would like to request a recorded vote on this item, please. Do you have a support of ten members? The Council is asked to note that on 7th of May, Cabinet will make a decision on whether the leader of the County Council should submit the final LER plan to Government, ahead of the deadline on the 9th of May. As we have requested a recorded vote by us. Thank you, Chair. Members, you're voting on the recommendation as printed on page 25 of the reissued supplementary agenda, as just read out by the Chair of Council. I'll call you alphabetically. Please clearly state, for, against or abstain, when I call your name. Maureen Attwell. For. Ayesha Azad. For. Catherine Bart. Against. Steve Backs. For. Luke Bennett. For. Amanda Boot. Dennis Booth. Harry Bipari. Against. Liz Bowes. For. Helen Clack. For. Lauren. For. Fiona Davidson. Against. Kevin Dines. For. Jonathan Essex. Against. Robert Evans. Against. Angela Goodwin. Against. Jeffrey Gray. Against. Tim Hall. Peter Harp. Against. Edward Hawkins. For. Marissa Heath. Trevor Hogg. For. Robert Hughes. For. Jonathan Hully. For. Rebecca Jennings Evans. For. Risak Khan. For. Nick Orr. Victor Lewinsky. For. David Lewis Cobham. For. Scott Lewis. Andy McLeod. Against. Ernest Mallet. For. Jan Mason. Against. Stephen McCormick. Abstain. Sinead Mooney. Against. Bernie Muir. For. Mark Nuti. For. John O'Reilly. For. Tim Oliver. For. George Potter. Against. Catherine Powell. 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. Buddy Wirasinghe. For. Fiona White. Against. Keith Witham. For. Total for 36. Total against 20. Abstain 2. So is carried. This concludes today's Extraordinary Council meeting. Thank you members.