Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    13 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the Council held on 20 November 2016 (previously circulated electronically).

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

Apologies were received from Mr S C Cross, Mr T A Muir, Mr R J Sutton and Mr R P Tomlinson.

Mr M L Bayliss declared a general interest as a member of his wider family worked for Children, Families and Communities within the County Council.

Mr A C Roberts and Mrs F M Oborski declared an interest in Agenda item 6 (a) as being in receipt of a local government pension.

Mr A C Roberts declared an interest in Agenda item 8 – Notice of Motion 1 as a member of the Board of St Richards Hospice.

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,11 January 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 C Bloore and Mrs N Reed presented a petition on behalf of residents on Redditch Road, Stoke Heath, Bromsgrove in relation to the request for a 30 mph speed limit along the A38 at Stoke Heath.

Mr Martin Benbow spoke in support of the Notice of Motion in relation to Motor Neurone Disease at Agenda item 8.

Mr R C Lunn presented a petition on behalf of parents of children attending Webheath Primary School Academy and Mount Carmel School, both in Downsell Road Webheath, to highlight the need for a zebra crossing outside Webheath Primary School Academy.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2016 (circulated previously electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

The Chairman drew members' attention to the printed announcements and gave particular thanks to Mr Philip Gretton for his contribution to the Council over his time serving on the authority in a number of key posts. 

To consider the reports of the Cabinet and to receive answers to any questions asked on the reports. Matters where decisions have already been taken are on white pages.

The Leader of the Council reported the following topics and answered questions in relation to them:

·         FutureFit – Proposals for Change and Reform to support the Medium Term Financial Plan

·         2017-18 Budget and Council Tax

·         Resources Report

·         Worcestershire Safeguarding Children's Board Annual Report 2015/16

·         Fair Funding Consultation Outcomes for 2017-18 – National and Local Changes to the Funding Arrangements for Schools

·         Local Transport Plan (LTP4)

·         Energy and Carbon Management Plan 2016-2021

·         Disbanding of South Worcestershire Shared Service Joint Committee arrangements

·         Balanced Scorecard – FuturFit Performance and Corporate Risk Update.

To consider the reports of the Audit and Governance Committee, the Pensions Committee and the Planning and Regulatory Committee. Matters that require a decision by the Council are on yellow pages. Matters where decisions have already been taken are on white pages.

The Council had before it a recommendation from the Pensions Committee for the establishment of a Joint Committee with the participating authorities under s102 of the Local Government Act 1972 to oversee LGPS Central arrangements and the endorsement of the proposal to become a joint shareholder of LGPS Central as a private company limited by shares.

The report set out details of the LGPS Central Pool arrangements, the impact on the role of the Worcestershire County Council Pension Fund Pension Committee, pooling costs, LGPS Central key risks and operator setup options.

RESOLVED that subject to a condition that a cost share agreement is agreed with all LGPS Central pool members that ensures value for money in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer for the Worcestershire County Council Pension Fund from entering into the LGPS Central investment pool:

a)    a Joint Committee be established with the participating authorities under s102 of the Local Government Act 1972 to oversee LGPS Central arrangements in accordance with this report and that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to finalise the formal terms of reference for such a Joint Committee in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer; and

b)    the proposal to become a joint shareholder of LGPS Central as a private company limited by shares as set out in this report be endorsed.

The Council had before it a recommendation from the Audit and Governance Committee that the Council 'opt-in' to the appointing person arrangements proposed by the Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) for the purpose of appointing the County Council's external auditors.

The report set out the advantages/benefits and disadvantages/risks of the following options for local appointment of External Auditors:

·         Option 1 - To make a stand-alone appointment

·         Option 2 - Set up a Joint Auditor Panel / local joint procurement arrangements

·         Option 3 - Opt-in to a Sector Led Body (Preferred option).

The closing date for opting in to the PSAA was 9 March 2017 to enable audit contracts to be awarded by end of June 2017. The County Council had until December 2017 to make an appointment of external auditors from April 2018.

RESOLVED that the Council 'opt in' to the appointing person arrangements proposed by the Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA) for the purpose of appointing the County Council's external auditors as set out in the report (option 3).

The Council received the report of the Audit and Governance Committee containing a summary of decisions taken.

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

The Council received the report of the Planning and Regulatory Committee containing a summary of decisions taken.

The Chairman of the Committee undertook to provide a written response to a question raised about the compliance with Government Policy of the Travel Plan set out in the Planning Statement for the application for the proposed change of use of agricultural buildings and associated land to reclamation facility (MRF) at Weights Farm, Weights Lane, Redditch, Worcestershire.

To consider a procedural alteration proposed by the Cross-Party Council Working Group on the work of the Council and its councillors.

The Council had before it a proposed procedural alteration proposed by the cross-party Council Working Group (CWG) in relation to lateness of budget amendments being moved during the debate of the budget.

The Council Working Group therefore proposed the following amendments with immediate effect so that paragraph 2.5 of the Budget and Policy Framework rules would read as follows:

'To ensure that the obligations contained in Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 are fulfilled and to allow prior consideration by all Groups, alternative budget, Council Tax proposals, or proposed amendments to the budget recommended on behalf of the executive must be lodged with the Chief Executive by noon 5 working days prior to the meeting scheduled to determine the budget and Council Tax precept (i.e. by the Thursday preceding the Council meeting on Thursday).  The Chief Executive will ensure that all such proposals for alternative budget, Council tax precept or amendments to the recommended budget are passed to the Chief Financial Officer and all Group Leaders as soon as practicable after receipt.   This provision is without prejudice to the rights of the executive to accept, partially adopt any such proposals or alter its recommendations in the light of them at the budget Council meeting itself, provided the Chief Financial Officer is able to comply with his statutory obligations. The Chairman of Council may also permit an amendment to be moved which has not met the above requirements if he or she considers there are urgent or exceptional circumstances which justify this.'

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         The proposed procedural alteration was one small part of the work of the Working Group and did not bear any relation to the intention of the Notice of Motion approved by Council in January 2016

·         This proposal allowed the administration time to consider amendments and alterations to budget proposals and discuss them with opposition groups. Under the current system there was often insufficient time to consider and adopt sensible last-minute amendments, and this sought to improve the process. If no agreement could be reached under the proposed arrangements then it would always be possible to debate and decide the proposed amendment at the Council meeting itself

·         The problem with this proposal was its timing so near to the next budget-setting Council meeting. The new Council should be given the opportunity to discuss the matter

·         There was no complete consensus at the Working Group to support this proposal and there was not cross-party agreement in the debate. The proposal would not give opposition groups sufficient time to provide meaningful amendments after consultation with officers. The proposal should be referred back to the Working Group to reconsider and provide a consensual proposal

·         Until now, members of the controlling group had been denied the opportunity of scrutinising the budget proposals put forward by the opposition groups. This proposal would allow proper scrutiny of all budget proposals for the benefit of Council taxpayers

·         This proposal would deny members of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1860.

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, 5 January 2017.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mrs R E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs M A Rayner and Mr M E Jenkins as set out in the agenda papers.

The Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

An amendment was then suggested and adopted as an alteration by the Mover and Seconder to add the CMR for Adult Social Care.

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         Supporting the Charter would send out a statement of respect, care and support to people living with MND and their carers that they deserved.  Sufferers had complex needs and their condition could deteriorate rapidly. The complex nature of MND posed a major challenge to health and social care services and it was vital that all partners worked together to provide the right care in the right place at the right time. Sufferers had the right to early diagnosis and information, high quality care and treatment, treatment as individuals with dignity and to maximise their quality of life

·         Due to the nature of MND, it was important that the Council and its partner organisations provided a speedy and timely response to the needs of sufferers

·         Education was a key tool in raising awareness of this illness and breaking down barriers for sufferers

·         The important role that St Richards Hospice played in working with sufferers of MND was highlighted.  

The motion as altered received general support and the Council RESOLVED:

"This motion is to endorse the Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Charter, which sets out the care and support that people who are living with MND and also their carers deserve and should expect and to call upon the Cabinet Members for Children and Families and Adult Social Care to ensure the Council adopts the Charter.

By adopting the MND Charter, this Council would be agreeing to promote the Charter and to make it available to all councillors, council staff, partner organisations and health and social care professionals who deliver services for the council.

As Worcestershire County Council we would raise awareness of MND and what good care for those living with this devastating disease looks like, as stated in the Charter, and we will do everything we can as the Council to positively influence the quality of life for local people with MND and their carers living in our community.

Adoption would also mean taking on successful steps including identification of key programme leads by the Council, publicity and developing links with the Motor Neurone Disease Association who would provide resources and advice."

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr M E Jenkins, Mrs F M Oborski, Mrs E B Tucker, Mrs S Askin and Mr T A L Wells:

"In November last year, Worcester City Council voted to switch to a committee system to run the council.

Worcester joins a growing list of councils, including county councils like ourselves, which have either switched or are actively looking at switching to some form of committee system to run their council.

The current Cabinet system excludes most councillors and Worcestershire residents from any meaningful input to decision-making. The elected representatives of the people of Worcestershire would serve their residents better through a cross-party committee system, which works from published papers and reports and thus gives far greater transparency and leads to better decision-making.

Council believes that we should start the process of moving to a form of committee system."

The Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

An amendment was then suggested by Mr R M Udall and adopted as an alteration by the Mover and Seconder that the final sentence of the Motion be deleted and replaced with:

"Council asks for an OSPB investigation into the future governance of the County Council and how a committee system could be introduced."

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised. Those speaking in favour:

·         This Motion was concerned with establishing the best way to run the Council by fully representing the views of local residents, openly debating and scrutinising issues and using the local knowledge and expertise of local councillors. This could be best done through the introduction of a committee system

·         An increasing number of Councils were reverting to a committee system because it was recognised that the majority of councillors were being side-lined and disenfranchised under the cabinet system. All councillors needed to take an active role in policy development and the committee system made this possible

·         To ensure that a consensus was achieved, the OSPB should be charged with investigating the future governance arrangements of the Council before a decision was made on the future governance model

·         Experience of the committee system at district level showed that the quality and quantity of debate at meetings was better. The recent survey of county councillors indicated that there was much support for this proposed change

·         The cabinet system undermined the role of the local councillor in that cabinet members were not just involved in strategic implementation but also day-to-day matters in local divisions

·         No power or mandate would be removed from the administration by the re-introduction of the committee system but it would give every member the opportunity to discuss and improve the decisions made by the Council.

Those speaking against the Motion:

·         There was no evidence of popular support in the country for the committee system with only 3 councils adopting it to date, all of whom had no overall control. This Council in contrast had a clear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1862.

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

"Council is aware of a number of Children's Centres that have either significantly reduced their services or have announced their closure. This is despite the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) claiming at scrutiny meetings that "no children's centre will close". Council therefore calls upon the CMR to consider offering an apology to the service users who have been disadvantaged by his decision"

The Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised. Those speaking in favour of the Motion:

·         The publicity/consultation ahead of the decision on the future of Children's Centres was misleading and unclear. People were told Children's Centres were not closing which was not the case. In particular, it was evident that Woodrow Children's Centre had been shut. The closure of these centres would have a serious impact on young mothers with young children

·         Negotiations about future provision were still ongoing with the provider of services at Children's Centres so the public still did not know what services they would receive at which centre and how frequently. The onus was on the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families to clarify matters. 

Those speaking against the Motion:

·         The Cabinet Member for Children and Families commented that there had not been any misleading statements or any pledges broken. The Council had been clear and transparent about the proposed changes to service provision. All 32 Children's Centres (including Woodrow) remained open and information on service provision for each centre was available on the Council's web site. There was a period of transformation whilst these changes were being implemented. There would also be a loss of certain services albeit with a particular focus on those families in most need.

On being put to the meeting the Motion was lost.

The Council had before it a Notice of Motion standing in the names of Mr P M McDonald, Ms P A Hill, Mr R C Lunn and Mr G J Vickery:

"Council has been impressed by the number of Councils such as Oldham that have become leading Co-operative Councils. This was achieved by implementing a new council structure that reduced the financial burden, bureaucracy and administration. Council therefore requests the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board to consider an investigation on how this Council could achieve its required savings by advancing towards a new structure incorporating Co-operative values and principles."

The Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised. Those speaking in favour of the Motion:

·         This Motion provided an opportunity to look at an alternative means of delivering services. Oldham Council had become a cooperative council with an ethical framework ensuring fair treatment of its employees and embracing the fair employment charter in which everyone contributed and everyone benefited. Services would be provided on behalf of the council through staff-owned co-operatives and mutuals. It represented a bottom-up approach that would respond to residents' concerns, protect services and ensure staff received the living wage

·         The Motion was about redesigning services to make the necessary savings for the Council in a co-operative way and putting co-operative values at the heart of what the Council did. These values included self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, solidarity, open and voluntary membership, democratic control, economic participation, autonomy and independence, education and training and concern for the community

·         As proposed in the Motion, the OSPB was the appropriate body to examine alternative ways of working

·         The co-operative approach allowed the community to feel directly engaged with the Council and helped them to feel ownership of the political process and engender trust.

The following principal points were raised against the Motion:

·         It was not Council's responsibility to amend the work programme of the OSPB through Notices of Motion

·         It was right that this Council examined other ways of working and indeed Oldham Council had some good practices which the Council could learn from, many of which this Council had already adopted. However there was no evidence to suggest that Oldham Council was a panacea for its approach to service delivery.

On being put to the meeting the Motion was lost.

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

"Council recognises the concerning news that despite the large investment into Bromsgrove Railway Station, Cross-country Trains have put forward proposals to axe four long distance trains servicing Bromsgrove Railway Station.

Council asks the Leader and Chief Executive to write to Cross-county Trains on behalf of this Council to urge them to reconsider these damaging proposals"

The Council agreed to consider and deal with the Motion on the day.

An amendment was then suggested by Dr K Pollock and adopted by the Mover and Seconder.

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         Cross Country Trains were proposing to remove four long distance trains services from Bromsgrove Railway Station. A considerable amount of money had been invested in the station and the Council should be looking to expand train services at this station, not reduce them

·         The Cabinet Member for Infrastructure, Skills and Economy indicated that train service provision was an evolving situation. The amendment to the Motion asked the Chief Executive to write to all train operators to get the very best service for all current and potential train users. The franchise to run the commuting services for the West Midlands was currently out to tender. The specification in the invitation to tender greatly increased the quality of the service for all the people using Bromsgrove Station. It therefore put into perspective the existing very limited use of the Cross Country Train service at the station. Bromsgrove Station was unique in that often passengers were left on the platform because all the carriages were full. The current franchisee did not intend to add any carriages to trains stopping at the station until the line was electrified in early 2018. He would ensure that the tender requirements of the new franchise were fulfilled and Bromsgrove Station received a better service in the future 

·         The level of use of the Cross Country Train Service at Bromsgrove Train Station quoted by the Cabinet Member, was disputed. It was vital to fight against any decision to remove train services because once they were cancelled by the operator, they would not be re-instated         

·         The letter from the Chief Executive to Cross Country Trains should emphasise the importance of the provision of the cross-country rail link at Bromsgrove Station because of the potential impact on the services for Worcestershire as a whole. It should also impress the importance of the rail links between the north and south of the county

·         It was important to receive information from members and residents about what train services they required to be delivered in the county. It was also vital to ensure that whatever service was provided was properly advertised to ensure everyone was aware of the services available to them.

The Motion as altered received general support and the Council RESOLVED:

"Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1865.

To give the Council an opportunity to debate the role of the Council as Corporate Parent.(Blue pages).

The Council had before it a briefing note that set out the responsibilities that County Councillors have as corporate parents to inform the County Council discussion including:

·         What is corporate parenting?

·         Why is corporate parenting important?

·         Corporate Parenting Strategy, and

·         What should Councillors do?

Any emerging views would be used to inform the Council's continuing provision for any child where the Council was the Corporate Parent.

Council received an introduction to the debate from the Cabinet Member for Children and Families and the Director of Children, Families and Communities followed by a presentation by representatives of the Children in Care Council.

No formal decisions were taken but in the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         The Council as corporate parents should be achieving better than average outcomes for its Looked After Children

·         The Corporate Parenting Board (CPB) used to undertake Regulation 33 children's homes visits and these should be re-instated. All members also previously had the opportunity to attend foster care meetings in their local division. The CPB needed strong member leadership and a designated officer lead with sufficient stature in the organisation to ensure that any actions were implemented

·         The majority of CPBs in the country had an element of scrutiny responsibility but not in this Council. The Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Panel had a huge range of areas to scrutinise and did not have the time to dig deep enough into the issues associated with Looked After Children. Given the county and district council input into the CPB, it would be appropriate for it to have a scrutiny function

·         All Looked After Children should be provided with an up-to-date care plan and be able to contribute to it. No Looked After Child on reaching 18 years of age should be sent to unsuitable B&B accommodation. The attainment  gap between the majority of young people in the County and Looked After Children was unacceptable

·         Awareness and participation of all councillors and partners in the issues associated with corporate parenting should be increased, perhaps with compulsory training for all councillors

·         The Minutes of the CPB should be circulated by email to all councillors. Periodic reports from the CPB and the governing body of the Virtual School should be brought to Council. An action plan from the CPB should be reported to Council on an annual basis

·         The Terms of Reference of the CPB should be amended to allow nominated substitutes

·         The following issues should be added to the corporate parenting pledge: driving lessons for every care leaver; apprenticeships with the Council; join the teenager to work scheme and link it to other businesses; mentoring scheme within the Council; cooking groups; money management; access to rights and entitlements; and Personal Occupation Plans

·         The work of the Virtual Head Teacher was important in challenging schools to improve the attainment levels of Looked After Children. All governors of schools had a role in monitoring the attainment levels of Looked After Children in their school

·         The CPB should report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1866.

To receive the annual report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board and answers to any questions on it (grey pages).

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board introduced the report. He thanked participants for their contribution to the scrutiny process over the past year. He thanked scrutiny officers for their assistance over the course of the year.

The report was noted.

To receive the report of the Chief Executive and any answers to questions on it (cream pages).

The Chief Executive presented her report to Council which covered various topics including:

·         Worcestershire residents – what residents said and what we did

·         Delivery of change in challenging times

·         Investing in a workforce fit for the future

·         Looking forwards to 2017.

The Chief Executive then answered a broad range of questions from members.

The Chairman thanked the Chief Executive for her report.

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 9 January 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.)

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

It was agreed by Council that, rather than receive answers at the meeting, all members of the Council would be sent the written response to the questions raised by the Monday following this meeting.  (All answers are also enclosed with these Minutes.)