Agenda and minutes

The members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    9 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2017 (previously circulated).

To receive apologies and invite any Councillor to declare any interest in any of the items on this agenda.

Apologies were received from Mr A A J Adams, Ms P Agar, Mrs J A Brunner, Ms T L Onslow, and Mrs M A Rayner.

Mr P Grove declared his DPI in Agenda item 8 – Notice of Motion 5  (Police and Crime Commissioner's proposals for the Fire Authority) and left the room during the debate.

Prof J Raine declared an interest in Agenda item 7 as a work colleague of two members of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

Dr A J Hopkins declared an interest in Agenda item 7 as a work colleague of a member of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

To allow a member of the public to present a petition, or ask a question relating to the functions of the Council, or to make a comment on any matter on the agenda.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by e-mail indicating both the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case Wednesday, 12 July 2017). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

Mr Yeomans, Head teacher of Riversides Special School commented on Agenda item 8 – Notice of Motion 1 – Looked After Children at Riverside Special School.

The Chairman thanked Mr Yeomans for his comments and said he would receive a reply from the relevant Cabinet Member.

Ms Hayward, Executive Principal of the Advance Trust commented on Agenda item 8 – Notice of Motion 1 – Looked After Children at Riverside Special School.

The Chairman thanked Ms Hayward for her comments and said she would receive a reply from the relevant Cabinet Member.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2017 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2017 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

The Chairman referred Members to the printed announcements.

To consider the nature of the post sought as Head of Paid Service/Chief Executive (Yellow pages) (To follow).

The Council was required by law to have a Head of Paid Service, appointed by full Council. There was no legal requirement to have a Chief Executive, but this was the model the Council has operated under to date.  The Council's Chief Executive had also been the statutory Head of Paid Service.

The Panel considered three main models: Managing Director (MD), Chief Executive (CE) and Head of Paid Service.

In speaking with an experienced Executive search agency regarding the market conditions and the remuneration 'reality', the data they provided showed that the recruiting benchmark set for CX roles for County/Unitary authorities ranged between £140 - £180k (14% average reduction over last 5 years). For MD models they would advise that the salary would normally be pitched at about 20-25% above the level of our existing Director posts. For Head of Paid Service the salary offered would be less, but they would recommend that this was still 5% above the Director remuneration level.

The Panel considered that the best 'fit' for what the Council needed in the difficult years coming was the CX model. This was the model most likely to attract strong candidates, and the salary range needed to reflect the demands of the job.  The Panel resolved to recommend the CX model to Council.

Following the Council decision on the preferred model, the Panel sought authority to progress the recruitment process.  It was proposed that the following steps would then take place:

a)    Development of a final job description and person specification for approval by Panel;

b)    Development of a 'candidate pack' for use as part of an agreed recruitment campaign; and

c)    Development of a recruitment process including timeline and recommended panels for interviews/assessments etc. including by the Appointments etc. Panel in order for a recommendation to be made to Council.

The Leader introduced the report and moved the recommendation, seconded by Mr A I Hardman. The Leader commented that the Appointments etc Panel had taken professional advice and examined all the options and concluded unanimously on a cross party basis that the CX model was most appropriate for the Council. There was a clear view that high-quality professional managerial leadership was required for such a large authority. The Panel therefore felt that the CX model would provide an opportunity for the widest cross-section of candidates to apply. Independent advice indicated that the average salary range for a CX for a county of the size of Worcestershire was £140-180k which fitted in with the current salary of the CX so there was no need to change the current salary band.

The seconder commented that the CX model had served the Council well for a number of years and there was no reason to change it. A large number of councils were moving towards paying a similar salary band for a CX to this council. There were a number of different leadership models which had been adopted by councils to varying degrees of success.

An amendment to (a)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1903.

To consider the reports of the Cabinet and to receive answers to any questions asked on those reports as follows:

a)    Report of Cabinet – Matters which require a decision by Council (Yellow Pages); and

b)    Report of Cabinet – Summary of decisions taken (White Pages).

Connecting Worcestershire Phase 3 Broadband Programme

Following the original contract for 90% coverage for residential and business premises, the Council subsequently secured an additional £4.8m from BDUK and through the Local Growth Fund to invest further into extending superfast speeds across Worcestershire – Phase 2. This further investment was aimed at extending a better service to 95% of the county's businesses and residents, when the contract was agreed it was expected that 94% of the county would be able to access superfast speeds (in excess of 24Mbps) by an accelerated date of Autumn 2017, from an original projected date in Summer 2018.

Due to the progress of delivery, as well as higher than expected take-up rates (Phase 1 current take-up was currently in a region of 42%, against the projected 13% at this stage); BT offered the Council the opportunity to recoup funds early and invest in extending fibre coverage even further.

In November 2015, Council agreed the addition to the Capital Programme for the purposes of extending Phase 2 by reinvesting up to £3.25m from clawback funds to further coverage of fibre broadband across Worcestershire. Cabinet in October 2015 delegated authority to the Director of Commercial and Change in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and CFO to make the final decision on reinvestment in order to achieve this; the resultant change "gainshare reinvestment" was completed in March 2017.

In addition to the gainshare reinvestment, that was anticipated to increase superfast coverage to 95%, Council officers had applied for further funding to extend broadband coverage into areas of need. The consequence of this was the proposed Phase 3 contract leading to further deployment of superfast broadband.

A third phase of provision of superfast broadband services had been made possible through the Council's funding applications and request to BDUK. This provided the Council with the opportunity to procure and appoint a supplier to extend services into areas without access to 24Mbps as a result of commercial deployment or our existing plans.  This Phase 3 aimed to extend superfast broadband to as many Worcestershire business premises as possible (ensuring ERDF compliance to draw down the funding), whilst, at the same time, deploying superfast infrastructure to as many residential areas of Worcestershire as was possible within the parameters of the allocated funding. Dependent upon supplier responses and the solutions offered it was anticipated that this phase could make superfast speeds available to 96% of premises; it was recognised that despite the investment to date and this potential investment it was not expected to reach 100% superfast broadband coverage.

Approximately £1.1m from the ERDF had been approved in principle. A requirement of the ERDF funding was that it was fully matched, which had been provisionally secured from BDUK for £1.5m, increasing the amount of funding to be added to the Capital Programme by £2.6m. The total budget for the Phase 3 procurement would be £2.5m, as £100k was being utilised to match the County Council programme resource.

In the ensuing debate, the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1904.

The Leader of the Council reported the following topics and questions were answered on them:

·         Connecting Worcestershire Phase 3 Broadband Programme

·         Resources Report.

To receive the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel on Members' allowances (Yellow pages) (To follow).

The Council appointed a statutory and independent Panel to advise and recommend the level of allowances for members.  Council itself decided the members' allowances scheme and any amendments to it, having regard to the Independent Remuneration Panel's (IRP's) report.

Council considered and endorsed an interim report in September 2015 and agreed at that time to consider a further report on the allowances scheme.

The IRP report made a number of recommendations for increases to allowances for the reasons set out in the report.  If the Council accepted all of these it would increase the amount spent on basic and special responsibility allowances by £18,500 in a full year. The total budget for members' allowances and other support for 2017/18 was £983,700.

The Leader introduced the report and moved (seconded by Mr A I Hardman) that Council:

a)    notes the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel and Panel members be thanked for their hard work;

b)    adopts the Panel's recommendations 1-13 inclusive; and

c)    authorises the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to amend the scheme of Councillors' allowances in the light of Council's decision.

The Leader explained that Council was not bound to accept the findings of the Independent Remuneration Panel but had to have regard to them and convention dictated that Council took their recommendations seriously. The Panel had taken longer than expected to report their findings. However their findings were comprehensive, taking into account allowances paid by other councils and members' diary sheets. He paid tribute to the work of the Panel. The main recommendations included:

a)    a 2% increase in the basic members' allowances. However there was a reduction in the amount paid for IT consumables from £505 to £240 which represented an overall reduction in basic remuneration for members;

b)    SRAs had been frozen since 2008 and the Panel recommended a series of raises to these allowances; and

c)    The Panel proposed to end the £1,000 drawdown option for members' IT and recommended that councillors received their IT and support through the Council. This made compliance with IT security rules and servicing of equipment easier to facilitate.

The seconder commented that the review of members' allowances was overdue as the roles and responsibilities had changed during that time. Although there were elements of the Review that members might not agree with, the report was independent and should be supported on that basis. This was the last report presented by the Chairman, Michael Clarke and he thanked him for the time and effort put in to produce the report.

An amendment was moved by Mr P M McDonald and seconded by Mr R C Lunn that:

"Council resolves to consolidate the consumables allowance of £510 into the basic allowance before the application of the increase proposed to the basic allowance. To limit all SRA's to no more than 2% and not accept the proposed new SRA for the Deputy Leader."

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services asked the proposer of the amendment to clarify whether the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1906.

To receive the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on any Notices of Motion received by him (Lilac pages).  Councillors are asked to note that any Notices of Motion must be received by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services no later than noon on Thursday, 6 July 2017.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr P Denham, Mr R M Udall, Mr P M McDonald, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Mr C J Bloore and Ms C M Stalker.

The motion was moved by Mr P Denham and seconded by Mr R M Udall.

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         All councillors had a role as corporate parents and therefore had a responsibility for the care of Looked After Children including their education. There were seven Looked After Children currently attending the Riverside Special School and they were being educated in a building, owned by the Council that was not fit for purpose in terms of its inadequate rooms, unsuitable location and poor security. Although the school was an Academy, the education of children was part funded by the Council. The Council should take responsibility for the Looked After Children educated at the premises

·         The Chairman of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Panel indicated that she would welcome a visit to the School. As a corporate parent, councillors would not expect a lower standard of educational provision for its Looked After Children than any other parent. She encouraged the CMR for Children and Families to visit the school   

·         It was perfectly reasonable as a corporate parent to raise concerns about the education of Looked After Children in the school in terms of the Council's responsibility for the safeguarding of children in its care. How could the attainment levels of Looked After Children be increased in such unsuitable surroundings?

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The CMR for Children and Families indicated that he would visit the school alongside the Director of Children, Families and Communities. The Academy Trust was responsible for maintaining the suitability of accommodation. Should it be found to be inadequate, the Trust should make representations to the Education Funding Agency. The Council constantly reviewed the attainment levels of Looked After Children and acted on any concerns. This Notice of Motion used Looked After Children as a means to make a political point and this was not the right way to act as a corporate parent

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost. 

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn, Ms C M Stalker and Mr R M Udall.

The motion was moved by Ms P A Hill and seconded by Mr P M McDonald.

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The Local Government Ombudsman had rightly investigated a complaint against the Council whereby social workers had failed to assess the needs of a woman or taken proper responsibility for her care and had acted contrary to the law. The Council had stopped paying for her care thereby leaving the family to deal with her care arrangements on their own. It was important to establish what arrangements were in place for vulnerable people and therefore the OSPB should be asked to carry out an immediate investigation into this case and report back to Council

·         Contractors were being permitted to deliver services that were sub-standard. Elderly people should expect the best quality of care whether in care or in their home.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The CMR for Adult Social Care apologised to the client's son for the fact that the support for his family did not go to plan. The Director of Children, Families and Communities had already issued an apology. An error had been made in an individual assessment in this case but there was no evidence of a systematic failure. OSPB could examine the issue if it so wished. He would ensure that the Ombudsman's findings were reported to the next Cabinet meeting. The individual social worker that had made the assessment was no longer with the authority. It was important that all social workers should not be judged on the basis of this one case. Members should also bear in mind the impact of this Motion on staffing and the ability to recruit and retain social workers

·         It was acknowledged that something had gone wrong in this case however the Council had recognised this and taken the appropriate actions to address the shortcomings.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of  Mr R M Udall, Ms C M Stalker, Mr C J Bloore and Mr R C Lunn.

The motion was moved by Mr R M Udall and seconded by Ms C M Stalker.

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The Council was a large commissioner of contracts for infrastructure projects in the county. The Council should use its power to influence change to ensure equal access to employment in the construction industry.  It was right that women should be treated equally in the work place and unions and employers needed to work harder in this respect. Women were not getting a fair opportunity in the construction industry and retention of women in the work place was an issue. The Council should engage with the private sector to improve equality practices and policies in the construction industry. A Fair Employment Charter should be introduced

·         Bullying did take place in the work place in the construction industry. This Notice of Motion promoted good practice in terms of equality in the work force and should be supported

Those against the motion made the following points:

·         The UCATT survey quoted in the Motion dated back to 2011 and therefore the findings could be out of date.

·         It was difficult to generalise about the appropriate gender balance in the work place. The principle should be that the best person gets the job. The survey mentioned bullying of women in the work force but what about the bullying of men? This Council had a strong record of encouraging and promoting women and there were a number of examples in the Council where women had reached important and key positions.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr R C Lunn, Mr R M Udall, Mr P M McDonald, Ms P A Hill, Mr C J Bloore and Ms C M Stalker.

The motion was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr P M McDonald.

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The Council had successfully run a Skills on Show event for a number of years at County Hall, Worcester in July. It was proposed that the event be re-instigated as opportunity to use an under-used facility at County Hall as a means of demonstrating the skills that the county could offer to the widest possible business community. This could help to address the earnings gap and productivity levels of this county compared to neighbouring counties. The event would be cost-neutral or low-cost and could be streamed live on the internet to access the widest possible audience and attract overseas investment through contacts with consulates 

·         The event would demonstrate the Council's commitment to its Open for Business Policy and attract inward investment to the County. It would provide an opportunity for young people, especially NEETs, to access the business community and other sectors and provide hands on experience and  inspire and motivate them to take on apprenticeships and acquire new skills

·         The event would provide an opportunity to promote the local produce of the county to a wider audience

·         The purpose of this motion was not to roll out the original event but to provide a show that was relevant to 2017. If the administration did not like the proposal to reintroduce the event, then perhaps they could suggest other ideas to use County Hall in a positive way to create an event that broadened the skills of the work force in the county and promote the county to a wider audience.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The original Skills on Show event was not a skills/employment show but an arts/cultural event. With the work of the LEP, Employment and Skills Board and the Council's Open for Business policy, there was considerable progress being made improving the skills and salaries of the work force in the County. Although the original event was successful and right for its time,  there was no longer a need for a centralised event of this nature.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mrs E B Tucker, Prof J W Raine, Mr M E Jenkins and Mrs F M Oborski.

The motion was moved by Mrs E B Tucker and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski. The mover and seconder of the motion withdrew the final paragraph of the Notice of Motion prior to the debate.

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The consolidation of the responsibility for the Fire and Rescue Authority with the Police under an individual, albeit democratically elected, would create a democratic deficit. It was difficult to see how the proposals would benefit the Fire and Rescue Authority and it was important to see the detail of the proposed £4m savings

·         It was vital that a business case analysis was undertaken of the proposals put forward by the Police and Crime Commissioner and that Council had an opportunity to debate the proposals

·         The Fire and Rescue Authority was well-run and it was important that it did not become a lesser partner in the proposed arrangements. It was particularly noticeable that "rescue" had been left out of the title for the position of Police, Crime and Fire Commissioner. 

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The Leader indicated that there would be an opportunity at the next Council to debate the merits of the proposal. Concern about the proposals had already been raised by leaders with the Police and Crime Commissioner. OSPB should have an opportunity to examine the proposal and report its findings to September Council. If the mover and seconder had removed the reference to a democratic deficit then he may have been in a position to support the motion.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mrs E B Tucker, Prof J W Raine, Mr M E Jenkins and Mrs F M Oborski.

The motion was moved by Prof J W Raine and seconded by Mrs E B Tucker.

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

The mover of the motion commented that a cross-party working party had been established to consider how the skills and expertise of members of this Council could best be optimised to the benefit of the Council. The working party provided a valuable insight into councillor experience over the life of the previous council. Unfortunately the work of the Group was left unfinished by the time of the Council elections. The Motion proposed to reinstate the Group to continue its work on a ongoing basis.

The previous chair of the Working Group (Mr A P Miller) requested that the proposer and seconder of the motion withdrew the motion on the basis that the result of the survey conducted by the group be made available to all councillors and a report be brought back to the meeting of Council in September 2017 to consider whether to continue the work of the Group.

The proposer and seconder agreed to withdraw the motion.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mrs E B Tucker, Prof J W Raine, Mr M E Jenkins and Mrs F M Oborski.

The motion was moved by Mr M E Jenkins and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski.

The Council agreed to deal with the motion on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         For a number of disabled residents, it was essential to have a dropped kerb to enable access to their property. It was right that disabled residents were given the opportunity to receive a discount on dropped kerbs. The proposal would provide great benefits to those individuals affected without any significant cost to the Council. A number of other councils had already introduced this policy

·         Many residents had added the cost of the service to their mortgage because it increased the value to their property. However some families with disabled relatives were unable to fund the work and it was reasonable to compensate them for the cost 

·         Concern was expressed about wheelchair users who had particular issues with the kerb lip levels and insufficient turning space

·         Any review of the dropped kerb policy should include an end to the monopoly of service provision of Ringway and allow customers the opportunity to pay for the work in instalments

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The CMR for Highways explained that the pavements crossing service had been out-sourced to Ringway to ensure high standards of workmanship and compliance with necessary consents. Customers made payment direct to Ringway. The Council would have responsibility for any shortfall in the cost of the installation. The motion did not stipulate the level of discount and it was impossible to access the level of demand. On this basis and to avoid setting a precedent, he was not prepared to create a demand-led change to the policy. However he undertook to ask officers to review the dropped kerb policy to ensure that Council was providing a competitively priced service; and information about other sources of funding would be made available to disabled residents at the time of application

·         Did the Council reinstate the kerb after the disabled applicant had moved?

·         The Council had previously opened the pavement crossing service contract to tender but successful contractors had withdrawn. The difficulty with permitting customers to pay in instalments was that it was costly to administer and there were practical issues should an applicant default on payments.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost. 

To receive answers to any questions asked by Councillors (Orange pages).

(Members are reminded of the timescale adopted by Council for notice of questions. A Councillor may only ask a question if:

·         It is delivered in writing to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services by noon on Monday 10 July 2017 or

·         If it relates to urgent business, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services is notified at least half an hour before the start of the meeting.)

Nine questions had been received by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and had been circulated before the meeting.

To consider the report of the Pensions Committee and to receive answers to any questions asked on that report.

The Council received the report of the Pensions Committee containing a summary of the decisions taken.