Five takeaways from leader of Surrey County Council in hotseat
Surrey County Council leader Tim Oliver has been in the hotseat on BBC Radio Surrey.He has been the leader of the council since 2018, and is a Conservative councillor for the Weybridge division. In 2024, Oliver was awarded an OBE for services to local government.In a wide-ranging interview on Wednesday, he fielded questions from BBC Radio Surrey Breakfast presenter James Cannon.Here are five takeaways from what he had to say…
1. Community boards
Tim Oliver has been leading the proposal by Surrey County Council (SCC) to have two new unitary authorities when local government is reorganised. Most of the borough and district councils have said that there should be three instead and there is a fairly robust debate about the issue. One of the ideas is to set up 'community boards' in areas which do not already have a town or parish council, to allow people to have more of a say locally on how services are run.Not everyone is convinced. For example, the leader of the Liberal Democrats at SCC, Paul Follows, has described them as "unelected community boards which will have no legal standing, no powers and will basically be talking shops".But Oliver told BBC Radio Surrey it was ultimately about how these bodies are set up."If you give them powers and responsibilities and money, then they will be effective and that's absolutely key that that happens," he said.
2. Reigate & Banstead and Crawley plan 'a surprise'
Another proposal is for a merger of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council and Crawley Borough Council.Again, that concept has not gone down well with some. Tandridge District Council, for example, has rejected the plans.Oliver said it came as a surprise."It came out of the left field," he said."It was raised very early on in the conversations and then it went very quiet. I think all...the other 11 councils were very surprised to see a submission was put in."
3. Writing off council debt
A lot of the concerns being raised are about what would happen to the debt owed by councils in Surrey when local government is transformed.For example, Woking Borough Council, which effectively declared itself bankrupt in 2023, is estimated to have more than £2bn of debt, although it says the government has agreed to help "aid the reduction".Oliver said there was "active conversation" with ministers and the request would "always be" that the money should be written off."I'm not going to ask my residents in...my division or indeed any resident in Surrey to pick up the debt of those councils," he said."The government will have to step in and they will have to write it off."The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been approached for a comment.
4. Fixing the roads and utility works
When members of the public are asked what service they would like to see dealt with, they will, more often than not, talk about potholes and the amount of utility roadworks.It is a problem which Oliver said that he recognised.He said there were issues with the impact of weather on the roads and the current amount of money being spent by the council and the government to fix them, which he said was "not enough.""The real issue is around utility companies and we have 88 interventions...every single day in this county and that is where you see all these temporary traffic lights going up," he said.He has called for greater powers to prevent firms digging up roads and said ministers had now agreed to set up a working group, which will include SCC.Previously Streetworks UK, the trade association for utilities companies, had said it was "engaging constructively with highways authorities" across the country, while the government has also said it was taking action.
5. 'National challenge' on special educational needs
One of the biggest pressures on SCC is providing support to children who have special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).The support being provided by the service has been criticised by parents, as well as the six Liberal Democrat MPs in Surrey.Oliver, who has previously apologised to families, said there was a "national challenge" and that the number of children with additional needs, including mental health issues, had increased "exponentially", particularly since covid."We have 15,000 children in this county that have an education health and care plan," he said."I absolutely understand, as a parent, that parents want the best for their children...there are times when we can't actually give the parent what they ask for."Oliver said he acknowledged there were people who were struggling with the system and SCC was trying to do its best to help them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
State is ‘stifling criticism of Islam over fear of violent mobs', says Tory MP
The state is stifling criticism of Islam because of fears of a violent mob reaction, a senior MP has claimed. Nick Timothy, a front-bench Tory MP, issued the warning ahead of his Bill aimed at protecting free speech and the right to criticise religions, including Islam, being presented before Parliament on Tuesday. It follows the conviction of Hamit Coskun, 50, for setting fire to a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London earlier this year while declaring that Islam was a 'religion of terrorism'. He was found guilty of committing a racially aggravated public order offence during a peaceful protest. Politicians and free speech campaigners claimed the 'grotesque' prosecution was an attempt to revive long-abolished blasphemy laws. In an attempt to prevent future prosecutions, Mr Timothy, who is a columnist for The Telegraph, is proposing a Freedom of Expression (Religion) Bill that would rewrite the Public Order Act to prevent it being used as a 'de facto' blasphemy law. His bill, which is co-signed by 11 other MPs, would extend legal provisions – which protect the freedom to criticise religion in specific circumstances – to the whole of the Public Order Act. 'The Public Order Act is increasingly being used as a blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism. The Act was never intended to do this. Parliament never voted for this, and the British people do not want it,' said Mr Timothy. 'To use the Public Order Act in this way is especially perverse, since it makes a protester accountable for the actions of those who respond with violence to criticism of their faith. This is wrong, and it destroys our freedom of speech. 'We should be honest that the law is only being used in this way because the authorities have become afraid of the violent reaction of mobs of people who want to impose their values on the rest of us. 'My Bill will put a stop to this and restore our freedom of speech – and our right to criticise any and all religions, including Islam.' At Westminster magistrates' court, Coskun was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly conduct, which was motivated 'in part by hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam'. Coskun, who is an atheist of Armenian-Kurdish descent, attended the Turkish Consulate on Feb 13 while holding a burning copy of the Koran above his head and shouting 'F---- Islam' and 'Islam is religion of terrorism'. He was ordered to pay £240, but despite the conviction he has pledged to continue burning Korans and intends to go on a tour of the UK, visiting Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow where he will set fire to the holy book. It is unclear whether he will resist doing so until the case is heard at the Court of Appeal where it will be decided whether he is able to challenge Monday's verdict.
Daily Mail
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: Criticising Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long hanker for another plateful
China 's vice-premier He Lifeng, a big yam, is in London and spent his morning with Rachel Reeves. MPs, perhaps sensing that he (that is to say, He) might need a laugh after his ordeal, laid on a Chinese-related show in the afternoon: An urgent question attacking a 'nefarious' plan for a Chinese super-embassy in London. Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Con, Chingford & Woodford Green) led demands that planning minister Matthew Pennycook block the embassy. He and a surprising number of Labour backbenchers argued that the site was a security risk, being bang next to a telephone exchange that serves the City. 'Dark cabling' runs underneath the premises. These may be used for the transmission of delicate material. Our spooks are said to be uneasy about this, as are the Americans and, oddly, the Dutch. Much Beijing-bashing ensued. China operatives might cut those dark cables. National security was at risk. It would cost a fortune to police the site. Criticism of Red China is a moreish activity. You try some and before long you hanker for another plateful. Moreover, there is now an electoral consideration: Many British constituencies contain large numbers of Hong Kongers, some of whom worry that Chinese diplomats present a mortal threat to them. This is not a concept entirely easy to explain to President Xi, but these Hong Kongers may be swing voters. MPs therefore feel under pressure to deplore the Beijing regime. Comrade Pennycook was a credit to his profession. He stood there and repeatedly said nothing. It takes years in Communist-approved training camps to perfect this verbose art. Mr Pennycook's tongue was tied because this was a 'quasi-judicial matter' on which he, as planning supremo, would allegedly have to pass judgment. 'I cannot comment in any detail,' he regretfully told Sir James Cleverly, a former foreign secretary. 'I didn't ask for any detail!' yelped Sir James. Mr Pennycook shuffled his papers and regretted that that did not alter matters. He still could not dilate. What he possibly meant was that Sir Keir Starmer, diplomatic genius that he is, may already have given Premier Xi an undertaking that the super-embassy can proceed. Sir Iain suggested 'Project Kowtow' was under way – 'a walk of shame for the Government'. Mr Pennycook murmured: 'It would not be appropriate for me to comment.' Unhappy Labour MPs included Alex Sobel (Leeds C), burly Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) and even the House's leading Starmerite greaser, Mark Sewards (Leeds SW). It is almost unheard of for little Sewards to express anything but ravished delight at the Government's behaviour. Whips may need to check his circuit board to make sure a virus has not infected his central controls. We also had an eruption from Marie Rimmer, a magnificent old Labour pudding from St Helens who normally does as commanded by her party. Ms Rimmer, like a runaway truckle of cheese, proved hard to stop once she was rolling. 'China has a record of state-backed espionage,' she cried through some whistly-sounding teeth. 'There has been a massive under-estimation of the risk.' Deputy Speaker Nusrat Ghani tried to get her to shut up but Ms Rimmer did not notice. Bits of cheese-wheel, or at least her oratory, were by now flying here and there. Words were splintering. Sentences were disintegrating. A nearby MP took a shard of cheddar in the eye and went down like a fallen warrior. Even Beijing's most accomplished code-breakers might have struggled to understand what our Marie meant. At one point she seemed to talk of 'signals contraception'. Did she mean 'interception'? Or something else? Maybe the wheezy dinner-lady routine is a brilliant front. Maybe she is an MI6 ace under deep cover. In other news Torsten Bell, pensions minister, explained the Government's rethink on winter fuel payments. What a twerp! Arrogant young Bell's nose twitched as he pushed his excuses past a set of vegetarian-looking teeth. Rabbit with a quiff. Any pensioner would have been tempted to truncheon him with a furled brolly.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Tinkering with smartphone rules won't save our kids – the damage they do means we must BAN them now
Sophie Winkleman, Actress and campaigner Published: Invalid Date, ARE we finally witnessing the tide turning against kids' use of smartphones? Head teachers are now calling for a limit on children's screen time and the government is considering an 'app curfew.' 2 2 The government's Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said he wants to 'break some of the addictive behaviour' of the online world. Okay B+ for effort Peter but could try harder. 'Some' was your downfall. There's no such thing as temperance when it comes to smartphones. They're unputdownable. A two-hour cap on each app is better than nothing but with Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok being just three of children's favourite brain-melters this is already six hours of social media before they've even got out their homework. The idea of a curfew with a 10pm cut-off point is also a good one but come on, go tougher on the app limits - make it a two-hour total - or, grow a pair and illegalise social media for the Under 16s. None of them would miss it and they might actually meet up with a friend, kick a football around or read a book. The 'nanny state' has a bad rap as a concept, and quite rightly when it comes to adults - let us do what we want please. But when children are malfunctioning this seriously a nanny state is exactly what we need. We parents are doing our best, but we just can't do it alone. Peer pressure is immense. What parent hasn't felt cruel denying their child a phone to 'keep up with friends' and ended up surrendering? 'It was so loud,' ex teacher says banning phones transformed school overnight But smartphones are turning fun-loving and inquisitive children into hollow addicts the minute they get hold of them. The premise that smartphones are 'connecting' our children in a positive fashion is false. Because rather than playing with their friends or family they are alone in the rooms with their phones. The Sun's revelation last week that a Year 6 primary school student received 9,000 messages on Whatsapp over a 15 hour period reveals exactly what we are up against. The stats are truly horrific. More than a million British children per year are referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Services, the vast majority suffering from severe depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders and suicidal behaviour. Conspiracy theories It is not surprising when they are subject to graphic images of real murders, massacres and terrifyingly violent porn, algorithms feeding on their insecurities and sending them more and more damaging content. Children are encouraged to take part in potentially lethal games and challenges, resulting in many accidental deaths. Girls are told that anorexia is empowering then sent starvation tips and 'how to make mum think you've eaten your dinner' pointers. Children are fed conspiracy theories, radicalising their eager young minds, they're connected to gang members in their area, they're groomed, sextorted, preyed on and they're even told how to kill themselves. While government action is welcome, none of the restrictions suggested go nearly far enough. Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Or the 16 US states which have done the same thing? Or France - where all pornography users now have to verify their age using government ID or a credit card. Britain was meant to lead the way in child safety with the Online Safety Act. But Ofcom, responsible for implementing the legislation, is just not as tough as many international regulators. Or why can't we ban smartphones for the Under 16s and come up with a brand new product - a child-appropriate, safe phone with limited app functionality for things like banking and travel, simple calls and texts? Also UK, just STOP IT with the EdTech (educational technology)!!! We don't want our kids drowning in screen time during class and for their homework!! Sure, teach them how to use AI judiciously in senior school but no more of these silly apps masquerading as educational PLEASE. Doctors advise that children up to 17 should not be spending more than 1-2 hours a day on any form of screen. Schools have a responsibility to heed this advice. Not only is too much screen time bad for children's eyesight but it damages their sleep rhythms, their hormones, their spinal health and their attention spans. Bill Gates himself has admitted that 'devices have a lousy record in the classroom'. Steve Jobs didn't let his own kids have iPads. UNESCO found that children who used computers frequently in the classroom did a 'lot worse' academically than their book-based peers. A massive study by educational researcher John Jerrim showed that students who revised for academic tests by reading books and handwriting outperformed their computer-based counterparts twenty times over - the equivalent of six months of extra school!! Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment' Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment'. Many Big Tech employees in the US send their children to low or no-tech schools such as the Waldorf School of the Peninsula in California. So why does our government continue to listen to social media and EdTech firms when they argue that their products are good for our children? Where is the clinical evidence? Because few children or parents believe it. I have spoken to countless teens around the country and they all say that they're only on social media 'because everyone else is'. Most would love to be liberated from it all and free to learn, relax, have fun and sleep well. A survey last year found that 77 percent of parents wanted a smartphone ban for under 16s. Saving our youngest, most vulnerable minds from these corrosive devices is a vote-winner. Come on, Peter Kyle. Must do better. Teachers want it, parents want it and children want it. It's time the government wanted it too.
