Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    10 questions submitted to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2018 (previously circulated).

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

Apologies for absence were received from Mrs E A Eyre, Mr L C R Mallett and Prof J W Raine.

Mrs T L Onslow declared an interest in Agenda item 5 as the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner.

Mr A D Kent declared an interest in Agenda item 11 – Question 3 as an owner of an electric car.

Mr P Grove declared an interest in Agenda item 5 as a Police and Crime Commissioner Ambassador.

Mr S M Mackay declared an interest in Agenda item 5 as Chairman of the West Mercia Police and Crime Panel.

Dr K A Pollock declared an interest in Agenda item 7 as a Director of West Midlands Rail Ltd.

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 7 November 2018). Further details are available on the Council’s website. Enquiries can also be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

None.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the signing of the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2018 (previously circulated electronically).

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any announcements to be made by the Chairman.

Noted.

An opportunity for councillors to ask questions of the Police and Crime Commissioner about his priorities and local policing plans. It is planned that the Chief Constable will also attend this meeting (Grey Pages).

The Chairman welcomed Mr John Campion, the West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner, to the meeting. The Chairman also welcomed and introduced Mr Anthony Bangham, the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police.

Both the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable gave a brief presentation of their respective roles, their vision for the future and the current state of policing in Worcestershire. The Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable then answered a wide range of questions posed by members.

The Chairman thanked Mr Campion and Mr Bangham for their attendance.

To consider the annual report of the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority (Red pages) to be presented by Mr P A Tuthill, Vice-Chairman and to receive answers to any questions asked about this report.  

The Chairman welcomed Mr John Hodges, the Deputy Chief Fire Officer, to the meeting.  The Vice-Chairman of the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Authority, Mr P A Tuthill, presented his report to the Council and he and Mr Hodges answered questions asked by members of the Council.

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

a)    Reports of Cabinet – Matters which require a decision (Yellow pages); and

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

The Council considered the addition of the A38 Bromsgrove Major Scheme to the Capital Programme.

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

·         The Leader of the Council introduced the report. He indicated that it was proposed to add £6.3m to the capital programme to enable package 1 of the A38 Bromsgrove Major Works Scheme to proceed which included work on 2 key motorway junctions. There were 5 packages overall totalling over £40m, of which the Worcestershire LEP had secured £7.5m funding (£1.5m for package 1) 

·         It was recognised that there was much work to be done in particular to improve access to the A38 however this Scheme was the first stage towards the improvement of the road infrastructure in Bromsgrove

·         Although these minor changes were welcomed, a member expressed concern that this proposal did not in any way meet the economic and housing growth needs of Bromsgrove which required a sustainable and fit for purpose road network. The creation of a western bypass and changes to the motorway network were the only way to meet these needs. In response the Leader responded that this was the first of five packages and the Council needed to be realistic and proportionate about its impact on the islands on the motorway junctions however it would improve traffic flow and make them as efficient as possible. The A38 had been named as a major route network road by the Government which could open up opportunities for bids for significant sums of money to support the other packages in the scheme

·         Concern was expressed that this urgent scheme would be delayed due to a lack of certainty about funding. The Leader commented that to overcome this concern, the Council would be using cashflow to fund the initial payment of £1.3m until the planned funding sources became available, to enable the works to proceed in a timely fashion. There were risks associated with this approach but not to do so could put other sources of funding at risk 

·         The ability of traffic to access the A38 itself was the main highways issue affecting Bromsgrove and no suitable proposals had been put forward to address this issue. An assurance was required from the Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure and the Leader that meetings, as and when necessary, would be arranged with officers at the highest level possible to discuss the highways issues for Bromsgrove  

·         This scheme was the first phase of the plans for the economic development of Bromsgrove

·         The Leader recognised the concerns about tackling congestion in Bromsgrove but emphasised that a partnership approach was necessary to weave together alternative means of funding to move this proposed package of changes forward to resolve this issue.

RESOLVED that the addition of £6.3m to the Capital Programme for the A38 Bromsgrove Major Scheme - Package 1 be approved on the understanding that this is fully funded by external funding sources, namely Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership, Highways England's Growth and Housing Fund  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2040.

The Council considered the updated Capital Programme.

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

·         The Leader introduced the report. The proposals included the addition of £2.25m to the capital programme for a series of capitalisation measures as part of the proposals to ease pressure on the revenue budget. It also included monies for Kidderminster Town Centre, Kidderminster Railway Station, flood resilience and the pothole challenge. The Council had been able to move schemes forward as a result of a successful bid for ERDF funding. The report also set out how the Council would deploy its Highway Infrastructure Improvement Fund

·         The capital programme for 2018/19 amounted to £153m. The Government's additional funding for potholes and flood mitigation measures was welcomed

·         The additional funding in the capital programme demonstrated excellent partnership working between the County Council as a strategic highway authority and its partner district councils to secure funding from the GBSLEP for an overall public realm regeneration project in the heart of Kidderminster. The Leader acknowledged the importance of this partnership working which had enabled an extra £750k funding to be brought in

·         In response to a concern about the impact on neighbouring roads of the lack of parking provision at Kidderminster Railway Station, the Cabinet Member for Economy and Infrastructure (as Director of West Midlands Rail Ltd) undertook to press West Midlands Trains to fulfil their promise to increase the car parking capacity at Kidderminster Railway Station. The Leader added that it was also important to provide adequate public transport to the station

·         It was queried whether the Council was on track to be able to fund the projected 10% of the capital programme through the use of capital receipts. The Leader of the Council was confident that the capital programme was affordable. The Council tended to fund capital schemes up front which meant that any slippage would be affordable

·         The Leader undertook to provide a written response to a query as to how the Council expected to receive £129k back for the Parkside Redevelopment

·         The Leader offered to attend divisional visits as and when requested by members.

RESOLVED that the updated Capital Programme in the attached Appendix to the report be approved, including the capitalisation of items under the additional saving proposals totalling £2.250 million.

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

·         Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2017/18

·         Children at the Edge of Care and Children's Homes

·         Libraries Re-modelling

·         Future Use of The Grange, Kidderminster

·         Meeting the requirements of the Code of Practice for Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure

·         Balanced Scorecard Performance and Corporate Risk Update

·         Resources Report.

To consider the future work programme recommended by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance Board (Yellow pages)

Council considered the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme 2018/19. The details were set out in the report.

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

·         The Chairman of the OSPB indicated that there was now a standing item for representatives of the LEP to attend. Performance budget monitoring had been included in the programme and he emphasised the importance of scrutinising the budget throughout the year particularly given the importance of forthcoming budget decisions. Panel meetings needed to be less lengthy and more focused on the necessary follow-up work. He had been impressed with the work of the task groups, particularly on short-breaks and the ongoing bus scrutiny. The scrutiny structure needed reviewing so that it was able to respond a fast-moving Council. He hoped that the programme met members' needs but any proposed changes during the year could be facilitated wherever possible

·         This work programme could only be delivered with the appropriate resources and structures in place

·         The work of the small team of scrutiny officers was commended. The Chairman of the OSPB responded that it was important to find the necessary resource to fund staffing to allow the scrutiny process to work effectively 

·         Was there any merit in amending the Constitution to allow Panel Vice-Chairmen to attend OSPB and speak as substitute for the Panel Chairman?

·         The OSPB Chairman was thanked for his work over the last year

·         All members were encouraged to take part in the scrutiny function rather than relying on the regular attendees

·         In response to a request, the Chairman of the OSPB undertook to add the continuing Bus Scrutiny to the work programme to enable further monitoring

·         Consideration should be given to the provision of support to young people leaving care to help them to understand the universal credit system because the training from the DWP was insufficient and there was a danger that young people were being left destitute.

·         It was important that the structure of the scrutiny function allowed the outcomes expected by the public to be achieved. There was a concern that the existing system was being used to satisfy members' curiosity

·         Was there an example where scrutiny had had a profound effect on service delivery over the last 12 months? The Chairman of the OSPB argued that the focused work of task groups had had the most effective impact, in particular the work of short breaks task group.

RESOLVED that the 2018/19 Scrutiny Work Programme be endorsed.

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 Tuesday, 30 October 2018.   

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

The motion was moved by Mr M E Jenkins and seconded by Mrs F M Oborski who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The IPCC had warned that the world was at a tipping point in terms of the impact of climate change and the WWF had reported its impact on the loss of biodiversity. If nothing were done now, there would be a devastating impact on eco-systems. Collective action was needed by communities and councils now. The Government response and targets had been inadequate. The proposals in this motion would keep the threat of climate change constantly in the Council's sight

·         The form that the proposed carbon scrutiny committee would take was open for discussion but it must be a permanent committee

·         Tackling climate change was an opportunity and a source of income generation, for example through renewable energy, although more work needed to be done in this area. The aim of the motion was raise the profile of climate change throughout the Council and provide a political focus for action

·         Rejection of the motion implied that the Council did not require any more ideas or leadership on climate change and would represent a missed opportunity. This motion would allow members to take ownership of the issue and provoke ideas for change 

·         Even if doubts about the impact of climate change were accepted, it did not mean that it was not sensible to take precautions to prevent it

·         To counter concerns about the impact of the additional carbon footprint created by the proposals in this motion, meetings could be held via a conference call

·         The work already being undertaken by the Council was welcomed but it was not being effectively communicated to members

·         It appeared that motions were being rejected by the administration on the basis that a small part of the motion was unacceptable. In these circumstances, the administration should propose an amendment to ensure that the aspects that were not contentious were adopted. This would encourage cross-party engagement and member involvement

·         It was alarming that two Cabinet Members with key responsibilities that impacted on the environment had such differing views on climate change

·         At the current rate the Council would not reach the carbon neutral target by 2040.  

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The Cabinet Member for Environment commented that the Council had led on numerous low carbon opportunity programmes to reduce the county's carbon emissions. A 24% reduction in carbon emissions had been achieved under the Council's Energy and Carbon Management Plan. The Council had reached its 2021 target to reduce emissions from Council owned estates by 20% within 2 years

·         Energy efficiency measures installed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2044.

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 P M McDonald, Mr P Denham, Ms C M Stalker, Mr C J Bloore, Mr L C R Mallett, Ms P A Hill, and Ms P Agar.

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

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         The funding issues related to Adult Social Care could not be solved from within the Council's funding streams without the help of the additional funding from the Government. Unless other forms of funding were sought, there was a danger that the Council would become a social care council. The Government had not produced a Green Paper or any proposals to fund Adult Social Care. It was also a failure of financial services companies to design products/solutions to enable long term planning

·         The aim of this motion was to enable the Council to come up with a plan to fund Adult Social Care up to 2021 and to provide for a framework for the next budget. It was noted that a report was going to Cabinet on this matter but no reference had been made in that report to member involvement 

·         People were living longer and healthier lives but as a result needed more care as they became more fragile. It was clear that this Council and society in general was not addressing this issue. The money from this Government and preceding Governments had not been forthcoming and this Government should be lobbied accordingly

·         There was no reason to refuse the motion given that everything in it would be approved by Cabinet next week

·         An assurance would be welcomed that ideas on Adult Social Care would be sought from all councillors.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care commented that although it was recognised that a national framework set out in the Green Paper was necessary, on a local level, the Council was taking action and producing a business plan for the next 3 years. The problem was complex and multi-layered. The plan focused on the Council meeting eligible needs under the Care Act, preventing, reducing and delaying the need for care, engaging with the market to establish need and increasing the number of people who stayed in their homes. The Plan included a Market Position Statement, a demand and capacity plan and a review of all existing policies including transport and charging. The Plan would considered by Council as part of the normal democratic process. He could not support the motion because the Council was already fulfilling the requirements of the motion with the exception of the request for a Council debate

·         Members of the Council were already receiving information on Adult Social Care through the scrutiny process.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2045.

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, Ms C M Stalker, Mr P Denham, Mr P M McDonald, Ms P A Hill, Mr R M Udall, and Ms P Agar.

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

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         Officers were thanked for stopping the decommissioning process on a temporary basis to allow this motion to proceed. The school library service was the only available access point to books for some children. The number of users might suggest a service in decline but the service provided did not meet the needs of the customer at an increased cost. The Council should have changed the service years ago to meet these needs

·         The delegation to the Cabinet Member for Communities to make this decision was inappropriate and prevented adequate scrutiny. Other Councils in the country were able to provide the service and sell it to neighbouring councils and there was no reason why this Council could not use its business acumen to build this service and make it profitable

·         Libraries provided education and knowledge to all ages and were the cornerstone of the local community, reflecting its diversity, character, needs and expectations. The social benefits were clear including the prevention of loneliness. The administration were more interested in selling off assets than in educating children and the well-being of the local community

·         It was queried why this service had not been included in the wider library consultation. If it had been, this motion would have been unnecessary

·         The school library service was suffering a death by a thousand cuts

·         Given the neglect of the service and its increased cost, it was no surprise that the take up rate was low. The Council had not asked the people if they valued the service but instead asked schools who were operating in a pressured financial environment whether they could afford to fund the service from their existing budgets.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The Cabinet Member for Communities commented that the decision to close the school library service had not been taken lightly but was based on the steady decline in its use which had resulted in it operating at a loss. The less the service was used by schools, the more the cost increased. Despite surveys of schools and promotion of the service, there remained insufficient demand for it and it was decided that the service was no longer financially viable and would have to close. Instead, schools had been encouraged to work with their local libraries. Stock would be offered for schools to purchase

·         The Council had looked at the way other councils had provided the service eg Essex County Council but found  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2046.

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

The motion was moved by Mr P M McDonald and seconded by Ms C M Stalker who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.

Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:

·         This Council had moved from being a model employer to one practising some of the worst terms and conditions in the country. Zero hour contracts were an unreliable form of employment at best and exploiting the workforce at worst. They left employees with little stability or security and open to exploitation. There was no clear guarantee of a working pattern or future income for staff on these contracts which lead to increased stress and anxiety. Employers bore no risk without the need to provide sickness or holiday pay. The Council argued it provided flexibility to the worker but in reality it had a negative financial and emotional impact

·         For the Council to claim to be world-class, it needed to be beyond reproach in its employee relations and not use zero hours contracts

·         Some staff, particularly the most vulnerable, had very little option in the current market place but to accept zero hours contracts which left them open to exploitation. It was notable that unionised workforces tended to have the best terms and conditions.

Those against the motion made the following comments:

·         The Cabinet Member for Transformation and Change commented that the Council used a variation of contract types including casual contacts. Casual workers undertook an essential role in terms of emergency cover and to provide service continuity, particularly for short term sick leave in residential and social care frontline services. The Council was not obliged to provide casual workers with minimum hours and the worker had a choice to take the work or not or take work elsewhere. Many employees preferred these contracts because of the higher rates available to cover the non-payment of sick and holiday leave

·         The Council was a model employer and staff had some of the best terms and conditions in Worcestershire. It was right to offer staff a range of different job options to reflect the modern job market

·         People used zero hours contracts to boost their income in addition to their existing commitments and contracts.

On a named vote, the motion was lost. 

Those voting in favour were:

Ms P Agar, Mr C J Bloore, Mr P Denham, Ms P A Hill. Dr C Hotham, Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mrs M A Rayner, Ms C M Stalker, Mr R M Udall (10)

Those voting against were:

Mr B Clayton, Mr A A J Adams, Mr R C Adams, Mr A T Amos,  Mr T Baker-Price,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2047.

There was insufficient time to consider this motion within the allotted 90 minute time limit for the consideration of Notices of Motion.

To receive this report and to receive answers to any questions on it (Blue pages).

The Leader of the Council presented his report which concerned a number of overarching issues:

·         Open for Business

·         Environment

·         Children and Families

·         Health and Wellbeing

·         Our Financial Challenge

·         Council of the Future

·         Our Communities.

The Leader answered questions about his report which included the following topics:

·         Adult Social Care funding

·         The earnings gap with Warwickshire County Council

·         The setting of the tipping charge per tonne of trade waste

·         Waste recycling rates

·         Burning of plastics

·         Review of the bus network

·         Recruitment of social workers

·         Monitoring of independent living

·         Financial pressures and the possibility of introducing unitary status for Worcestershire

·         The Adult Social Care Precept

·         The percentage of the budget spent on Children and Adult Social Care

·         Investment in Assistive Technology

·         One Worcestershire

·         Alternative ways of raising revenue

·         Discussion of the reimagining of the Council at full Council

·         The commissioning Model.

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 Tuesday, 30 October 2018 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.)

Ten questions had been received by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and had been circulated in advance of the meeting. Question 5 was withdrawn at the meeting. A written answer was promised for Question 8. The answers to all the questions asked are attached in the Appendix.

To consider the reports of Committees and to receive answers to any questions asked on those reports as follows (White pages):

a)    Audit and Governance Committee;

b)    Pensions Committee;

c)    Planning and Regulatory Committee;

d)    Standards and Ethics Committee; and

e)    Waste Credit Governance Committee

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

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

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

The Council received the report of the Standards and Ethics Committee containing a summary of the decisions taken.

The Council received the report of the Waste Credit Governance Committee containing a summary of the decisions taken.