Surrey Heath Liberal Democrats - working for you, for a better future

Below is a table of how Surrey Councillors voted on the 2.99% Council Tax rise at this morning's budget meeting. The main points are: All Liberal Democrat members were present and voted against the 2.99% increase. All Resident/Independent members were present and either abstained or voted against the increase. All Conservatives who were present voted for the 2.99% increase. A number of Conservatives, including the former Leader Andrew Povey, who has tweeted his opposition to the increase, were not present. Mr Agarwal Lab Against Mrs Kemeny Con For Mr Amin Lib Dem Against Mrs King Con Absent Mrs Angell Con For Mr Kington Res/Ind Against Mr Barker Con For Mr Lake Con For Mr Beardsmore Lib Dem Against Mr Lambell Lib Dem Against Mr Bennison Con For Mrs Lay Con For Mrs Bowes Con For Ms Le Gal Con For Mr Brett-Warburton Con For Mr MacLeod Con For Mr Butcher Con For Mr Mallett Res/Ind Against Mr Carasco Con For Mrs Marks Con For Mr Chapman Con For Mr Marlow Con For Mrs Clack Con For Mr Martin Con For Mrs Coleman Con For Mrs Mason Res/Ind Against Mr Cooksey Lib Dem Against Mrs Moseley Con For Mr Cooper Res/Ind Abstain Mr Munro Con For Mr Cosser Con For Mrs Nichols Lib Dem Against Mrs Curran Con For Mr Norman Con For Mr Elias Con Absent Mr Orrick Lib Dem Against Mr Ellwood Con For Mr Phelps-Penry Res/Ind Abstain Mr Few Con For Mr Pitt Con For Mr Forster Lib Dem Against Dr Povey Con Absent Mrs Fraser Con For Mr Renshaw Con Absent Mr Frost Res/Ind Against Mrs Ross-Tomlin Con For Mrs Frost Con For Mrs Saliagopoulos Con For Mr Fuller Con For Mr Samuels Con For Mr Furey Con For Mrs Searle Lib Dem Against Mr Gimson Con For Mrs Sealy Con N/V Chairman Mr Goodwin Lib Dem Against Mr Skellett Con For Mr Gosling Con For Mrs Smith Lib Dem Against Dr Grant-Duff Con Absent Mr Sutcliffe Con Absent Dr Hack Con Absent Mr Sydney Con For Mr Hall Con For Mr Colin Taylor Lib Dem Against Mrs Hammond Con For Mr Keith Taylor Con For Mr Harmer Con For Mr Townsend Res/Ind Abstain Mr Harrison Res/Ind Abstain Mrs Turner-Stewart Con For Ms Heath Con For Mr Walsh Con For Mr Hickman Res/Ind Abstain Mrs Watson Lib Dem Against Mrs Hicks Con For Mrs White Lib Dem Against Mr Hodge Con For Mr Wood Res/Ind Against Mr Ivison Con For Mr Young Con For Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

I request a recorded vote on the administration's budget for 2012/13. I will be voting against the administration's Budget, because an almost 3% increase in Council Tax is excessive. It is time for all County Councillors to stand up and be counted and to vote against the Budget. While there is no escaping that to protect services over the coming years there has to be an increase in Council Tax. The administration's plans are in excess of what is required to balance the books and are an unnecessary burden on Surrey's council tax payers in the recession. The legacy of years of the administration, by their own admission, failing Surrey's residents means that there is almost no choice but to increase Council Tax. The administration states in its own Corporate Strategy, being discussed today, that they failed Surrey residents for years. Surrey Council Taxpayers are still paying for that failure. The Corporate Strategy states: " In 2008 Surrey County Council was failing Surrey residents. Key essential services were not being delivered effectively: some were close to failure. Our costs were spiralling out of control: our projected spending over the years 2009 to 2013 was over £200 million more than the income we would have. We had little credibility with key partners. We had not invested as well as we should have in the skill and training of staff and the equipment that they had to work with." I agree with that statement. Millions of pounds of money were frittered away on such things as excessive reliance on consultants instead of spending it on frontline services needed by Surrey residents. I do not support the content of the administration's Budget because it cuts services to a greater extent than overheads and the back office. This is the wrong balance of priorities. Services for the benefit of Surrey residents should be protected and administrative functions should be cut first. I support the additional money for Surrey's highways maintenance and Youth Projects that are in the Budget. In addition, I would end the unpopular and ill-conceived proposals for libraries to be run by volunteers, reverse the penny pinching change of bus passes back to start at 9am from 9.30am and increase funding for road resurfacing. I would also increase funding for voluntary organisations that provide vital services to Surrey residents. The 0.49% additional Council Tax being proposed by the administration amounts to £2.7 million of revenue funding. I propose to reverse the Community Library plans costing £200,000. Reverting concessionary bus passes to a 9am start, costing £350,000, and not implementing £100,000 of administration cuts to voluntary organisations. These proposals total £3.35million. I propose that the funding for these proposals is taken from £1million from the Communications budget out of an excessive £2million budget. £1million from Agency staff out of a total of £12million. £1million from expenditure on consultants out of a total of £5million, and by bringing forward an £800,000 saving from the Chief Executive's Office reorganisation proposed for 2015/16, totalling £3.8million which is £450,000 in excess of the savings required to balance the books. I would also abandon the administration's expensive legal battle against Surrey residents in the High Court in order pursue its ill-conceived plans to replace professional library staff with volunteers in 10 of the County's libraries. In order to fund the £2million of capital or one off schemes in paragraph 50 of the Budget I would use the two new reserves totalling £7.6 million. I believe that these two new reserves are unnecessary, given that the County Council has total reserves of £112million of which £81.9 million are earmarked and £30 million are available balances. This leaves £5.6 million of these two new reserves that I propose are used for road resurfacing capital expenditure. The additional £5.6 million I propose to spend on road resurfacing would be a step towards addressing the massive £400 million backlog of roads maintenance in the County which the administration's Budget has inadequately addressed. In fact the additional £2million proposed by the administration in their Budget is a mere drop of tarmac in a sea of Surrey potholes. All in all, the administration's Budget places an excessive burden on Surrey Council Taxpayers, does not provide the services that Surrey residents want and need. Instead it piles up money in the bank that would be better spent resurfacing Surrey's potholed roads. I urge councillors to vote against the administration's Budget. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for action not words in repairing Surrey's roads. Cllr Stephen Cooksey, the Liberal Democrat Transportation Spokesperson has tabled a written question to today's meeting of the County Council regarding failings in the new highways maintenance contract. Cllr Cooksey said: "The answer from the Conservative Cabinet Member raises as many issues as it answers. "Whilst it is encouraging that the contractor is penalised for failing to achieve contract targets, this is not getting Surrey's roads repaired. After this week's downfall of snow there will a fresh new set of potholes and cracks that need repairing. With a roads maintenance backlog of £400million, Surrey's residents want to see Surrey's roads being fixed, not just empty promises. "The new contract seems to have brought welcome improvement to the implementation of major schemes but has left much to be desired with regard to the smaller repair and replacement jobs that are so important in local communities. Residents have been kept waiting for months, for example, for the replacement of signs and bollards or grate and manhole covers regardless of the pressures from local members and County highways officers. Emergency repairs are not followed through with permanent repairs, residents are not given advance notice of works and members are unable to obtain information about local schedules. "The Council has received a somewhat complacent, 'everything will be alright' response from the Cabinet member which does not instil confidence that sufficient pressure is being applied to achieve the rapid improvement that is necessary. "The fact that the present arrangements might be an improvement on the appalling situation that was allowed to develop with the previous contract is of little comfort. We will continue to press the Council to ensure that the situation is improved and the promised level of service attained." Stephen Cooksey's question to today's meeting of Surrey County Council and the reply are: CABINET MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT (1) MR STEPHEN COOKSEY (DORKING AND THE HOLMWOODS) TO ASK: On 12 January the Environment and Transport Select Committee received a report on the performance of the newly appointed highways maintenance contractors. While it was clear the new contract is working better than the old one a number of issues were raised including: Failure to deliver follow up permanent repairs to emergency repairs within the stipulated 28 days. IT and operational problems preventing the contractor achieving the productivity required to deliver contract response timescales for safety repairs. The contractor not having sufficient resources to meet surface protection work demands. Problems with road marking sub contractors. Carriageways not being swept of stones after surface protection within agreed timescales. Residents and businesses being given advance notice of works in their road too late or too early. Failure to promptly answer councillor queries. What actions will the Cabinet Member be taking to ensure Surrey residents and businesses receive the standard of road maintenance that they pay for? Reply: The report presented to the Environment and Transport Select Committee did identify a number of areas where May Gurney had not achieved the required level of performance. Two key issues were identified in the report: 1) Repair of Safety Defects - It was anticipated that there would be on average 30,000 safety defects to repair each year, however in the 6 month period between April and October, May Gurney repaired 20,000 safety defects, partly due to a large backlog of defects inherited from the previous contract, partly caused by the bad winter. In spite of this higher than expected defect level May Gurney achieved an average of 85% repaired within the required timescale, and October's performance confirms an average 95% success rate. This is steadily improving, and we are confident that May Gurney will achieve the required targets before April 2012. 2) Surface Dressing/Microsurfacing - May Gurney did not effectively plan and resource the surface treatment programme, and as a consequence residents were not always advised of works and May Gurney could not secure necessary resources to deliver the full programme in 2011/2012. We have now addressed the issues that caused these problems, which included a national equipment shortage and Surrey not producing the Capital programme until March, 3 months late. We are confident with the better pre-planning May Gurney will deliver the expected performance for 12/13. We have learned our lessons from the SHiP Contracts, and there are two key mechanisms contained in the new contract to ensure May Gurney are focussed on resolving these issues. These are: 1) May Gurney are paid a fixed lump sum for repairing all safety defects. This means that the additional resources that have been brought in to deal with the increased number of safety defects are at their expense. 2) May Gurney's profit is directly linked to their performance, and therefore deductions have been made from their profit to reflect the actual levels of performance achieved. These two features ensure that Surrey only pays for the level of service it receives, and also provides a strong incentive for May Gurney to achieve the required performance and productivity levels. The mobilisation of a new contract is always a difficult and challenging time, and May Gurney have faced some real challenges, including problems with IT systems and managing the transfer of staff from the previous contracts. However, the quality of the work is noticeably better than the previous contracts and performance continues to improve. We will work with May Gurney to ensure they achieve the required performance standards, particularly in the areas identified above. Information on the performance of the highways contract is now published on the Council's website. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for county councillors from all parties to support them in voting against the excessive 2.99% Council Tax rise being proposed by the Conservative Leader and Cabinet to the County Council budget setting meeting on Tuesday. Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council, says: "The Budget setting meeting is the time for all County councillors to stand up and be counted. While there is no escaping that to protect services over the coming years there has to be an increase in Council Tax, the plans by the Conservative administration are in excess of what is required to balance the books and are an unnecessary burden on Surrey's Council Taxpayers in the recession. "I will be calling on county councillors from all parties to join with the Liberal Democrats in voting against the proposed 2.99% Council Tax increase." Surrey County Council Liberal Democrats propose to save money to protect services include: halving the excessive £2 million communications budget spent on PR spin and glossy magazines bringing forward from 2016/17 the reorganisation of the Chief Executive's Department, a saving of £800,000 cutting the £17million spent on consultants and agency staff using a small proportion of the County's £112 million of reserves and available balances to fund road resurfacing and important capital projects an end to the costly High Court fight against residents over the plans to replace professional library staff with volunteers. Cllr Watson adds: "We support the additional money for Surrey's highway maintenance and Youth Projects that are in the Budget. In addition we would end the unpopular and ill-conceived proposals for libraries to be run by volunteers, reverse the penny pinching Conservative change of bus passes back to start at 9am from 9.30am and increase funding for road resurfacing. "We would increase funding to voluntary organisations that provide vital services to Surrey residents." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for the Conservative administration to show restraint in increasing Council Tax in the 2012/13 Budget. Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council, says: "The legacy of years of the Conservative administration at Surrey County Council, by their own admission, failing Surrey's residents means that they now have almost no choice but to increase Council Tax. "The Conservative-run Cabinet states in its own Corporate Strategy being discussed today that they failed Surrey residents for years. Surrey Council Taxpayers are still paying for that failure." The Corporate Strategy states: 'In 2008 Surrey County Council was failing Surrey residents. Key essential services were not being delivered effectively: some were close to failure. Our costs were spiralling out of control: our projected spending over the years 2009 to 2013 was over £200 million more than the income we would have. We had little credibility with key partners. We had not invested as well as we should have in the skills and training of staff and the equipment they had to work with.' Cllr Watson continued: "Council finance officers have been clear that the Council Tax increase that is needed to stick to the Council's five year financial plan, and not have unacceptable further cuts than those already planned, is 2.5%. In the present financial climate, with many Surrey residents struggling to make ends meet, it is irresponsible for the Conservative administration to want to put up Council Tax by more than 2.5%. "We support the additional money for Surrey's highway maintenance and Youth Projects that are in the Budget. In addition we would end the unpopular and ill-conceived proposals for libraries to be run by volunteers, reverse the penny pinching Conservative change of bus passes back to start at 9am from 9.30am and increase funding for road resurfacing. "We would increase funding to voluntary organisations that provide vital services to Surrey residents. "Our proposals can be achieved by halving the excessive £2 million communications budget spent on PR spin and glossy magazines, bringing forward from 2016/17 the reorganisation of the Chief Executive's Department and cutting the millions spent on consultants and agency staff. We would use a small proportion of the County's £112 million of reserves and available balances to fund road resurfacing and important capital projects. This can be done without increasing Council Tax by the excessive amount proposed by the Conservatives." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are calling for the Conservative administration to abandon their plans to replace professional staff in 10 of the County's libraries with volunteers, rather than continue with a costly legal fight against Surrey residents in the High Court. Following the High Court order on Friday by Hon. Mr Justice Wyn Williams, that the County Council should 'take no irrevocable steps towards implementing the Community Partnered Libraries (CPLs) decision impugned in these proceedings until further order of this court', Cllr Hazel Watson, the Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition on Surrey County Council, said: "I am calling on the Conservative administration at Surrey County Council to immediately end its unpopular and ill-conceived plans to axe professional library staff and replace them with volunteers, and to abandon the squandering of council taxpayers money on an expensive and drawn out legal battle in the High Court. "The Conservative administration should be listening to Surrey residents who value their local libraries and want to protect them from being downgraded and potentially being closed. Local communities want their libraries to be fully staffed with professional librarians to ensure a good service is maintained. "Continuing with the ill-advised and unpopular High Court battle is not a good use of Surrey council taxpayers money. The Conservative controlled County Council should be serving Surrey's residents, not fighting them in the High Court. "At the Budget Meeting on 7 February Surrey County Council Liberal Democrats will be calling for a change to the County Council's Budget for 2012/13 to reverse the Conservative administrations' Community Partnered Libraries plan so every library across the County is fully staffed with professional librarians." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Following the announcement by the Conservative Leader of Surrey County Council that he is proposing a 2.99% rise in Council Tax, Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are demanding to know why councillors have been denied papers to properly scrutinise the proposals by the Conservative administration for the County's 2012/13 Budget. At a meeting of the County Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Friday which was meant scrutinise the 2012/13 Budget, and at which papers were meant to be available for scrutiny, no papers were presented. Members, behind closed doors, were given a two-minute presentation by a senior Finance Officer and brief verbal summaries by Conservative Scrutiny Committee Chairmen of their views. In a number of briefings to Select Committees by council officers that were held behind closed doors, councillors have been denied any background papers or even printed copies of the PowerPoint presentations they were being shown. Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson is submitting two formal questions to the Council's Cabinet challenging the secrecy behind Surrey County Council's decision making. Cllr Watson says: "Secret Surrey is denying proper scrutiny of major proposals about cuts to services in the County. "Surrey's residents must come first, and proposals should be discussed in an open and transparent way that ensures they get the best value for money and that essential services are protected. The lack of real and effective scrutiny of proposals means that this isn't happening." More like North Korea than Kent Cllr Watson is also tabling a question asking why Surrey is taking so long to publish any sort of budget. Kent County Council published its detailed 59 page "Draft Budget Book 2012/13" on 20 December 2011, giving Kent residents and businesses one month to examine the detailed plans and comment on them. Cllr Watson added: "When you couple the secret way in which proposals are discussed by Conservative controlled Surrey County Council, with the very late availability of information, you end up with crucial decisions being taken in a manner more in keeping with North Korea than democratic Britain." Notes Councillor Hazel Watson is tabling the following questions for the meeting of the Conservative Cabinet of Surrey County Council on 31 January: Question 1: The first paragraph of the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee set out at the Annual General Meeting of the County Council stated "Monitoring performance, risk and budget across all services", how can the Committee perform this function, when at the 20 January meeting under the item on the County Council Draft Budget, no papers were provided to members to perform either the role of overview or the role of scrutiny? Question 2: Who is responsible for issuing the instruction to officers that Members of the Council should not be provided with copies of the PowerPoint presentations or any background papers at the recent budget briefings to Select Committees? Question 3: Kent County Council published its detailed 59 page "Draft Budget Book 2012/13" on 20 December 2011, giving Kent residents and businesses one month to examine the detailed plans and comment on them. By contrast Surrey County Council published a far less detailed outline budget with no details of proposed cuts to services and no time for detailed consultation, a month later. Why cannot Surrey County Council conduct the budget setting process in the open and transparent way in which its neighbour does? Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are asking "Where is Conservative-run Surrey County Council's Budget?" Liberal Democrat Leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson says: "With only three weeks to go until Surrey County Council's 2012/13 Budget setting meeting on 7 February, the Conservative administration has not yet even published a draft budget for consultation. "Enquiries by the Liberal Democrats of other county councils across the country have revealed draft budgets being published in December 2011, allowing an open public debate about proposals. By contrast, Surrey residents and businesses are kept in the dark; there is no openness or transparency about Conservative-run Surrey's Council Tax and spending plans. "If Kent, which is bigger than Surrey, managed to publish a detailed draft budget for consultation in December 2011, why couldn't Surrey? "When is the Conservative administration at County Hall going to get its act together? The late publication of the budget means that there will be little opportunity for councillors and residents to scrutinise it. We need to be reassured that Surrey residents will be getting good value for money, that the budget is realistic, that it will protect services and not waste money. "Every year it is the same. Every year I ask why the plans of the Conservative controlled Council are not made public earlier. It is not as if it is a surprise that they have to take budget decisions at the same time every year. Surrey County Council 's Conservative administration needs to look at how and why other county councils manage to be much earlier and more open with publishing their budget proposals, rather than the last minute muddle they come up with every year." NOTE: Kent County Council's draft budget can be accessed by clicking here. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

The Government introduced the Feed-in-tariffs (FiT) to encourage early take up of renewable technology in April 2010. Surrey County Council finally approved a scheme to install solar panels on 25 buildings in July 2011. Yet when the Government announced a cut to the FiT rate, they still had not installed a single solar panel. SCC Lib Dem Environment spokesperson Cllr Will Forster said, "Surrey County Council has been so slow in acting that the Conservative Council Leader has axed all the proposed solar photovoltaic panel installations at a cost of £60,000." "This is in complete contrast to Liberal Democrat controlled Eastleigh Borough Council, which partly by installing so many solar panels will be carbon-neutral in 2012. Surrey is paying the price for County Hall's half-hearted approach to climate change." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Conservative controlled Surrey County Council could have kept bus passes starting at 9.00 am and still underspent by £150,000 on this year's local buses budget! £351,000: The amount saved by Conservative controlled Surrey County Council by cutting concessionary bus passes for the elderly and disabled from a 9.00 am start to a 9.30 am start. £500,000: The amount Conservative controlled Surrey County Council is projected to underspend on the budget for local bus services this year. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council have condemned the censorship of e-mails to Members of the Council. Members of the County Council have been blocked from receiving e-mails from the Chairman of the Surrey Libraries Action Movement. Liberal Democrat leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson says: "It is fundamental to democracy that members of the public, constituents, Surrey businesses and local organisations can communicate freely with elected members. The heavy handed decision to decide that e-mails from SLAM are Spam is undemocratic and unacceptable. "Even the County Council's Constitution explicitly states that the delivery of correspondence will not be delayed or interfered with by officers or Members." NOTES: 1.) County Councillors received the following email at 13.28 on 12 December: "Over the past two weeks you will have received a series of unsolicited emails from Mr Michael Alsop, Chairman SLAM, which he has addressed to all Surrey County Councillors, the CEX and other senior officers. This is part of his campaign against the council's plans for Community Partnership Libraries. Whilst he is at liberty to pursue his arguments as he chooses, his frequent broadcasting of email messages has become unreasonable. I have written to him today to ask him to reconsider and to address any future email to Customer Relations. Meanwhile, any further emails from Mr Alsop will appear in your Lotus Notes in-box as junk mail, giving you the option to open or discard it." 2.) Not all County Councillors are able to retrieve email from their "junk mail" as many who are also Borough/District Councillors have their email auto forwarded. 3.) The Member/Officer Protocol of Surrey County Council, which forms part of the Constitutions states: "42. Information and correspondence will be sent to Members by post either directly or through the pigeon holes at Members' Reception, by email or by fax as appropriate and its delivery will not be delayed or interfered with by Officers or Members." The protocol is available online here (pdf file) Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

The gathering Eurozone crisis - particularly the dramatic summit on Friday when David Cameron dug his heels in - has generated a variety of comments from Lib Dem spokespeople. The news media do not generally give Lib Dems much coverage, so here are some key comments, including some not widely reported. First three defining comments by Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. Back on 30 November, the Lib Dem leader in Brussels Guy Verhofdtstat gave an early warning about Sarkozy and Merkel. Significantly, on 1 December the European Liberal Congress in Palermo rejected the Socialists' proposed Transaction Tax. Following speeches by President Nicolas Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris on 2 December, Guy Verhofstadt rejected their Intergovernmentalism. Also on 2 December, South-East Lib Dem MEP Sharon Bowles posted her crisis warning. Then on 5 December Guy Verhofstadt again warned that Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, offered nothing new. On 7 December, Lib Dem MEP Andrew Duff expressed doubts about EU President Van Rumpoy's plans to avoid Treaty change. Following the summit, on 9 December Sharon Bowles posted her analysis that Cameron played a dangerous game and lost. Also on 9 December, Sir Graham Watson MEP, the European Lib Dem President accused the Centre Right Establihment of Letting Europe Down. However earlier on 9 December, Sir Graham Watson had also describd the UK's decision to stay out of the EU Treaty deal as regrettable. Finally again on 9 December, Andrew Duff deplored the UK decision not to participate, but described the summit as a New start for the Euro. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council are presenting a motion to next week's Full Council raising concerns about the County's performance with regard to child adoption and children in care. Liberal Democrat leader of the Opposition Cllr Hazel Watson says: "The Child in Care and Adoption Performance Tables published last month by the Department for Education show many major failings by Surrey County Council. Just taking two of the most concerning findings for Surrey County Council in the tables: Surrey came 139th out of 152 in the proportion of young people aged 19 who were looked after aged 16 who were in suitable accommodation, only 9 councils performed worse, and 2 of those - Rutland and the Isles of Scilly - had no figures reported. "Surrey also came 111th in the percentage of children looked after continuously for 12 months who achieved at least level 4 at Key Stage 2 in both English and Mathematics. "If the Conservative-led Council cannot ensure the children in its care have a decent roof over their head and receive an education that prepares them for later life it is failing those children. "When presenting the Budget Monitoring Report to the Cabinet on 1 November, the same day as the tables were published, the Leader of the Council said; 'Our number one priority is looked after children'. At the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Communities Select Committee on 16 November the Leader restated that looked after children are his personal priority. It is time for the Leader to ensure Surrey's Children in Care and adopted children are not left wanting." NOTES: 1. The league tables can be found here (Excel spreadsheet). 2. The text of the motion (proposed by Hazel Watson, seconded by Fiona White) reads: On 18 November the Cabinet Member for Children and Families sent out two emails to Members highlighting some good news about Surrey's Adoption Service in the light of National Adoption Week. However, the Child in Care and Adoption Performance Tables, published by the Department for Education on 1November 2011, showed many major failings by Surrey County Council in its performance for children in care and adoption services. In fifteen key indicators, Surrey was in the bottom half of the country in nine, and in the bottom quartile in four. Council calls for urgent action to: Ensure that looked after children have a stable home life with a minimal number of placements and that they are fully supported so that they fulfil their full potential in education, training and employment.Ensure that young adults who were formerly looked after are living in suitable accommodation.Strive to maximise the number of looked after children who are adopted and to improve the speed of adoption. Council calls on the Leader to establish a cross party Member Working Group to urgently examine the issues highlighted by the Department for Education performance tables and to learn from the best practice of other authorities. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

The controversial waste processing development in Charlton Lane, Shepperton has been given clearance to go ahed by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, despite calls from local residents' representatives for a call-in for review of Surrey County Council's decision by his department. After months of delay and uncertainty, he has ruled that there is no need to further review the decision to grant planning permission for this development, which is designed to deal with 60,000 tonnes of household rubbish and 40,000 tonnes of food waste, intended to help Surrey County Council towards achieving its long-term aim to eliminate the use of landfill. Eric Pickles spokesperson said "The Secretary of State has carefully considered this case against call-in policy, as set out in the 1999 Caborn Statement. In his opinion, the proposals do not conflict with national policies or have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, nor does he consider that there is any other sufficient reason to call the application in for his own determination. The decision to grant planning permission will therefore remain with Surrey County Council." However Lib Dem county councillor Ian Beardsmore (Ashford Common and Sunbury Common) described the spokesperson's statement as "a cop out". Ian was one of the two Lib Dems who were the only County Councillors who voted against SITA's proposal when it was considered by the county council's Planning & Regulatory Committee in June. The one Spelthorne Conservative Councillor on the committee abstained, thus failing to oppose the development, even though the Planning Committee of Conservative-controlled Spelthorne Borough Council had earlier objected very strongly to the plan. "However, the Conservatives controlling Spelthorne Borough Council did nothing practical to try and prevent this damaging development being dumped on Spelthorne", said Ian. "In response to persistent questioning by Lib Dem councillors, the Tory leader of Spelthorne consistently refused to voice any opposition to SITA's plans. This passive acquiescence was in marked contrast to other Surrey boroughs, who had made their opposition perfectly clear and have been prepared to help fund legal challenges - something Spelthorne refuses to do". "Local residents presented overwhelming evidence against the so-called Eco Park but were completely ignored. This development represents untested technology on an unparalleled scale in an unsuitable location which already has unsatisfactory air quality." "Spelthorne Tories shouted long and hard against the incinerator. This is nothing more than a cosmetic U-turn against the idea that they have supported for so long. This change of attitude fools no one. Spelthorne's Tories were not prepared to put their money where their mouth is and support local residents in their legal challenge to Surrey's shameful decision, which flies in the face of science, logic and common sense. It has more to do with where Surrey Conservatives want to dump their waste, whilst retaining grant funding of millions of pounds from DEFRA." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Surrey County Council Liberal Democrats have launched a Facebook page to increase the County Council group's social networking profile in campaigning on issues for the residents of Surrey. The page can be found at http://www.facebook.com/surreycclibdems Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge Commenting on the announcement that the Coalition Government will not go ahead with a planned 2% increase in the maximum amount by which train operators can raise fares, Co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee for Transport, Julian Huppert MP said: "This is good news for train passengers. The Liberal Democrats are determined to stand up for passengers and I am glad the Coalition has done the right thing and protected them from the planned increase." "Liberal Democrats want to see rail fares come down after years of Labour pushing them up above inflation, but as the Coalition deals with the mess we inherited from Labour it has not been possible to go as far as we would like. Liberal Democrats have cut taxes for working people and scrapping the fare hike is another sign of how we are determined to do as much as possible to give people practical help in difficult times." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Surrey County Council's Liberal Democrats have welcomed the major U-turn by the Conservative administration in its plans to turn a further nine libraries into "Community Partnership Libraries", but say it doesn't go far enough. The U-turn, announced today by the Council Leader sees nine libraries; Ash, Caterham Hill, Frimley Green, Hersham, Horsley, Knaphill, Lightwater, Shepperton and West Byfleet saved from the plans, but the original ten libraries; Bagshot, Bramley, Byfleet, Ewell Court, Lingfield, New Haw, Stoneleigh, Tattenhams, Virginia Water and Warlingham still being pushed ahead to be managed by volunteers, although it was also announced they would receive one member of staff for 20% of their opening hours. Cllr John Orrick, the Liberal Democrat Communities Spokesperson on Surrey County Council, says: "Liberal Democrats have consistently argued for many years that all of Surrey's libraries should remain open. We have argued against two tiers of library, with no second class libraries, and we want professionals at the heart of Surrey's library network. "The Conservative County Council have effectively admitted by their U-turn on the plans for the second tranche of libraries that the idea is disastrous, they should go further and announce that the whole plan is going to be scrapped. Throwing the ten threatened libraries a crumb from the table of one member of staff for one fifth of their opening hours will do little to remove fears of a downgraded service and eventual closure." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

The Coalition Government has announced ambitious measures to kick start house building, help first time buyers get on the housing ladder and make social housing fairer. Andrew Stunell MP The housing strategy has two main aims. First, to help drive local economies and create jobs. Unblocking the market will provide a much-needed boost to employment. Secondly, these plans are designed to spread opportunity in our society. The Strategy will receive £400m of funding and will target those schemes that have stalled through lack of development finance. This will help to unlock the construction of 16,000 homes and support up to 32,000 jobs. The strategy includes measure to help home buyers; help house builders; improve fairness in social housing; support the private rented sector; act on empty homes; support green housing; support older people to live independently; and extend Right to Buy while ensuring any social home bought is replaced. Liberal Democrat Housing Minister, Andrew Stunell MP said:"The Liberal Democrats are determined to kick start the economy by getting houses built." "This hugely ambitious strategy won't just boost the economy, it will help first time buyers who are priced off the housing ladder, make social housing fairer, help to end the scandal of empty homes and boost green housing." "These are things the Liberal Democrats have campaigned on for years and now we are delivering them in government." The measures include: Help for home buyers Help for house builders Improving fairness in social housing Support for the private rented sector Action on empty homes Supporting Green Housing Supporting older people to live independently Right to Buy * * Importantly, the new Right to Buy will also involve replacing every social home sold, with no loss of social housing. Click here for more details of this announcement. Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

Sir Graham Watson MEP On the first day of the UN's climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, UK Lib Dem MEP and President of the ELDR party Sir Graham Watson,has urged the EU to join forces with smaller nations in trying to urgently secure a new climate agreement. Ahead of his own arrival at the talks in Durban next Sunday, Sir Graham who is also Chairman of a global network of MPs and MEPs from all mainstream political parties campaigning for investment in renewable energy and electricity supergrids called the Climate Parliament, said: "The curtain is up, the show has begun, and yet the 2011 climate summit in Durban seems already to be under threat thanks to the sheer cowardice of the world's big players. But it would appear that it isn't just the usual suspects such as the US, Russia and Japan, but now also Brazil and India, that are lacking in backbone." "As the Chair of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with India, and the chair of the Climate Parliament, this is disappointing indeed. I urge Obama, Medvedev, Noda, Roussef and Singh to change their tune." "I therefore call on the European Union, more than ever the global leader of the fight against climate change, to forge an alliance with smaller developing and developed countries - both those such as small island states who are in immediate danger from climate change, and those who still understand that our common future as a planet depends on taking collective action fast - to make sure a strong new climate agreement comes into force as quickly as quickly as possible, not in 2015." Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY

By Tim Prater, Lib Dem County Councillor for Folkestone West, Kent County Council. [Originally published by Tim Prater with the title "Access to Meetings: The Government View".] While some Councils seem to still want to stop public reporting of what happens in Council meetings through Facebook, Twitter and other routes, it's worth looking at the advice sent by Bob Neill MP, the Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to Councils in February this year. In that letter, Mr Neill says "There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience." Here is the full text of the letter from Bob Neill to Council Leaders and Monitoring Officers in February 2011: As part of the Government's transparency drive I want to highlight the importance of your council giving citizens the opportunity to access and experience their local democracy using modern communication methods. It is essential to a healthy democracy that citizens everywhere are able to feel that their council welcomes them to observe local decision-making and through modern media tools keep others informed as to what their council is doing. The mainstream media also needs to be free to provide stronger local accountability by being able to film and record in meetings without obstruction. Councils are now faced with important budget decisions affecting the day to day lives of people living and working in their communities. Council meetings have long been open to interested members of the public and recognised journalists, and with the growth of online film, social media and hyper-local online news they should equally be open to 'Citizen Journalists' and filming by mainstream media. Bloggers, tweeters, residents with their own websites and users of Facebook and YouTube are increasingly a part of the modern world, blurring the lines between professional journalists and the public. There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience. The public should rightly expect that elected representatives who have put themselves up for public office be prepared for their decisions to be as transparent as possible and welcome a direct line of communication to their electorate. I do hope that you and your colleagues will do your utmost to maximise the transparency and openness of your council. I do recognise that there are obligations on whoever is filming or publishing information - be it the council itself or a citizen or mainstream journalist - under the Data Protection Act 1998. But I do not see these obligations as preventing access for journalism. Nor are there grounds for any council seeking to obstruct a citizen or other journalist from processing information. The Information Commissioner's Office has told us that: In the absence of any other legal barrier to comment, publication, expression and so on, the Act in and of itself would not prevent such processing of information. In the majority of cases the citizen blogging about how they see the democratic process working is unlikely to breach the data protection principles. In the context of photographing or filming meetings, whilst genuine concerns about being filmed should not be dismissed, the nature of the activity being filmed - elected representatives acting in the public sphere - should weigh heavily against personal objections'. Moreover there are within the Act itself exemptions from the data protection principles which might apply in the circumstances of the citizen journalist. The first exemption relates to processing of information for journalistic purposes (section 32), the second for the processing of information for domestic purposes (section 36). In short transparency and openness should be the underlying principle behind everything councils do and in this digital age it is right that we modernise our approach to public access, recognising the contribution to transparency and democratic debate that social media and similar tools can make. I copy this letter to your monitoring officer given their responsibility for advising on your council's procedures and decision-making arrangements. Bob Neill MP Published by Hazel Watson on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, both at 27 Highacre, Dorking RH4 3BF Printed (hosted) by Prater Raines Ltd, 98 Sandgate High Street, Folkestone CT20 3BY