Agendas, Meetings and Minutes - Agenda item

Agenda item

Notices of Motion - Notice of Motion 2 - Archives and Archaeology Service (Agenda item 6)

Minutes:

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R C Lunn, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Mr R M Udall, Ms P Agar, and Ms C M Stalker.

 

The motion was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr C J Bloore who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

 

The following amendment was moved by Mrs L C Hodgson and seconded by Mrs K J May:

 

"This Council calls on the Cabinet Member with Responsibility to endeavour to protect the County award-winning Archive and Archaeology Service from cuts in funding which would adversely change its nature and reduce its effectiveness.

 

Council calls upon the Cabinet Member with Responsibility to confirm how she will provide an effective service which recognises the historic significance of the county."

 

Those in favour of the amendment made the following comments:

 

·         The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities commented that the reference in the original motion to no compulsory redundancies being made could not be supported because no such guarantee could be given. To achieve the proposed savings set out in the budget for the next financial year, there would need to be a review of all aspects of the service to establish efficiencies by looking at other ways of working, a review of charging policies, and a review of staffing. The views of scrutiny had been taken into consideration. She felt that this motion was too early given that the budget would be determined at the February Council meeting. There were parts of the service that continued to increase its commercial activities and brought in grants for individual pieces of work. She would establish a Member Advisory Group, chaired by herself, to look at how these savings could be implemented and ways to improve income generation

·         The proposal to create a MAG could help protect the service. Compulsory redundancies might not be necessary but to rule them out would place an unnecessary restriction on the work undertaken to review the service

·         It was noted that there was no mention of the Archive and Archaeology Service in the Annual Report of the OSPB

·         The Leader of the Council commented that the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Communities had listened to requests to protect this award-winning service. It was impossible to rule out staffing changes at this stage with the budget out for consultation and the plans to redesign the service. He emphasised that the plans to redesign were concerned with exploring commercial possibilities not just cost-cutting.

 

Those against the amendment made the following comments:

 

·         The fact that this motion had not been rejected out of hand by the administration and the proposal to create a MAG were welcomed. However the amendment could not be supported because of the removal from the original motion of the reference to compulsory redundancies not being made. The aim of the original motion was to consider ways of improving the service without the added pressure of making the proposed savings

·         The removal of the reference to not making compulsory redundancies would have a detrimental effect on staff morale

·         There was no evidence to show that the administration had taken account of previous scrutiny task group recommendations. For example, the group's recommendation in relation to charging district councils for planning obligations had not been implemented

·         The scrutiny task group had found that the service provided an excellent award-winning countywide service. Many of the recommendations of the task group focused on the commercial opportunities and income generation. The budget reductions could reduce the ability of the service to pursue these commercial opportunities

·         It was right to bring this matter to the attention of Council in advance of the budget-setting process.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was agreed and became the substantive motion. Dr C Hotham requested that his abstention be recorded in the Minutes.

 

In debating the now substantive motion, the following points were made:

 

·         There was a danger that certain niche areas of this service would suffer disproportionately as a result of the proposed budgetary savings

·         Some consideration needed to be given to the timing of motions that had budgetary implications. Movers of motions were told that their proposals were either too early or too late for consideration as part of the budget-setting process

·         The proposal to establish a MAG showed genuine willingness on behalf of the administration to engage with back bench councillors on the future plans for the service

·         The service would struggle if the proposed savings of £405k were implemented. Although welcomed, the proposed role of the MAG was queried because if it was concerned with making savings then it would not change or achieve anything.

 

On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was agreed unanimously.

 

RESOLVED "This Council calls on the Cabinet Member with Responsibility to endeavour to protect the County award-winning Archive and Archaeology Service from cuts in funding which would adversely change its nature and reduce its effectiveness.

 

Council calls upon the Cabinet Member with Responsibility to confirm how she will provide an effective service which recognises the historic significance of the county."