Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at http://council.webcast.vualto.com/leicestershire-county-council/home/?EventId=21755

 

Royal Engagement

 

The Chairman had written on behalf of Members and Officers of the County Council offering congratulations and best wishes to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, following the announcement of their engagement.

 

Ministry of Defence Employer Recognition Scheme

 

The Chairman was pleased to announce that the County Council had received a Silver Award under the Ministry of Defence Employer Recognition Scheme, in national recognition of the Council’s commitment to the Armed Forces.  This is the second time that such an award has been made to the County Council.

 

Poppy Appeal

 

The Chairman was delighted to inform the Council that the total amount raised by this year’s poppy appeal amongst Council members and staff was £4057.13.

 

Visitors

 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting all visitors and guests of Members and anyone who was viewing the meeting via the webcast.

 

It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Mr O’Shea and carried:-

 

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 27 September 2017, copies of which have been circulated to members, be taken as read, confirmed and signed.”

 

 

Mrs Broadley declared a personal interest in the Notice of Motion to: ‘Make Fair Transitional State Pension Arrangements for 1950s Women’ (minute number 36 refers) as the arrangements affected her pension.

 

Dr Eynon declared personal interests in respect of Carillion Radio/Hermitage FM mentioned in the Leader’s position statement (minute number 33 refers) as she was a volunteer at the radio station and in respect of  Maplewell Hall School (minute 34(a) refers) as her son worked at a special school in Ashby.

 

Mr Poland declared a personal interest in relation to the report on the Youth Justice Plan (minute 34(d) refers) as an employee of Leicestershire Police.

 

(A)   Mr Boulter asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

 

“1.      How many of our Help to Live at Home providers have a CQC rating of Outstanding, how many are rated Good and how many are rated as Require Improvement?

 

2.       How many of our Help to Live at Home service users receive a service from a provider with a CQC rating of Outstanding, how many receive service from one that is Good, and how many from one that Requires Improvement?

 

3.       How does this compare to the service we used to offer Leicestershire residents before Help to Live at Home?

 

4.       Is the Council on track to make the £1 million a year savings?  How much is expected to be saved this year?”

 

Mr Blunt replied as follows:-

 

“1.      The County Council currently purchases domiciliary care services from over 50 providers, which are rated as follows:

 

          Outstanding – 0 providers

Good – 41 Providers

          Require Improvement – 6 providers

          Yet to be rated – 6 providers

 

2.       Good - 820 Service users

          Requires Improvement – 421 Service users

          Yet to be rated – 465 Service users 

 

3.       CQC publishes only the current ratings of regulated providers therefore this information is not held by the County Council.

 

4.       The County Council is on track to achieve the £1m saving this year.

 

The Homecare budget has been reduced by a further £5.6m (from £21.14m to £15.58m) to reflect the emerging trend of Service Users choosing to have a Direct Payment rather than a managed home care service.”

 

Mr Boulter asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Can I thank Mr Blunt for the reply but could he please explain why the County Council gave contracts to six providers that still require improvement?  I would have thought that one of the basic things to have done was for the County Council to choose providers that have a good CQC rating rather than knowing they need improvement.”

 

Mr Blunt replied as follows:-

 

“Seeking people to help with living at home, is quite difficult.  There are many, many challenges to do with the cost of what people get paid and a variety of things.  We do the very best we can to find the best services that we can.  CQC are the people who regulate the industry and we are always working with them and with the providers to improve their service.  I think it is unfortunately endemic in the business that we are in that not everyone is good. We would like everybody to be outstanding.  Unfortunately that is not available in Leicestershire and sadly it is not available anywhere else in the country.”

 

(B)   Mr Osborne asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

 

“The current contract with Menphys for Early Support and Inclusion ends at the end of this month.  The Budget for 2017 was £213.700.  The service is being taken in-house in order for the budget for 2018 of £170.000 to be achieved.  Would the Leader advise:

 

1.       Whether the in-house service will provide the same services to the 420 families who are currently being supported under the present contract?  If not, what services will be stopped?

 

2.       Is the provision of early support and coordination for children with complex needs to be in-house?

 

3.       Will the staff currently employed by Menphys be TUPE transferred to the County Council and, if so, will it be necessary to have a restructuring of the service, and what would be the costs if that were to happen?

 

4.       What assurances can be given to families who are using the early  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

It was moved by Mr Rushton, seconded by Mr Galton and carried:-

 

“That the changes to Standing Orders (the Meeting Procedure Rules), as set out in Appendix 1 to the report of the Constitution Committee, be approved.”

 

 

The Leader gave a position statement on the following matters:-

 

·       County Council’s Network Annual Conference 2017;

·       Industrial Strategy;

·       Children’s Heart Unit;

·       Preventing Suicide;

·       Visit to Leicester by his Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury;

·       BBC Radio Leicester and the new Leicester Mercury Editor;

·       Carillion Radio/Hermitage FM.

 

A copy of the position statement is filed with these minutes.

 

 

It was moved by Mr Ould and seconded by Mrs Posnett:-

 

“That the Council:-

 

(a)      Notes the receipt of a petition containing 11,592 signatures opposing the proposed closure of the residential facility at Maplewell Hall School;

 

(b)      Notes the decision of the Cabinet to proceed with the publication of a Statutory Notice in early January 2018 supported by a statutory proposal as the next step to progress the removal (closure) of the residential provision;

 

(c)      Notes that there will be a four week ‘representation period’, during which further comment on the proposals can be made;

 

(d)      Notes that the Cabinet will receive a further report on 9 March 2018, after the representation period, to enable a final decision to be taken on the implementation or otherwise of the closure of the residential facilities.”

 

An amendment was moved by Mr Kaufman and seconded by Mr Galton:-

 

‘That the motion be amended to read as follows:-

 

“That the Cabinet be requested to reconsider its decision to proceed with the proposal to remove (close) the residential facilities at Maplewell Hall School.”’

 

The amendment was put and not carried, 17 members voting for the amendment, 33 against the amendment and 2 abstentions.

 

On the amendment being put and before the vote was taken, five members rose asking that a named vote be recorded.

 

The vote was recorded as follows:-

 

For the amendment

 

Mr Bill, Mr Boulter, Mr Bray, Mrs Broadley, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Crooks, Dr Eynon, Mr Galton, Mrs Hack, Dr Hill, Mr Hunt, Mr Kaufman, Mr Miah, Mr Mullaney, Mrs Newton, Mr Sheahan, Mr Wyatt

 

Against the amendment

 

Mr Bedford, Mr Bentley, Mr Blunt, Mr Breckon, Dr Bremner, Mr Coxon, Dr Feltham, Mrs Fryer, Mr Gillard, Mr Harrison, Mr Jennings, Mr Liquorish, Mr Morgan, Mr O’Shea, Mr Orson, Mr Ould, Mrs Page, Mr Pain, Mr Parton, Mr Pearson, Mr Pendleton, Mr Poland, Mrs Posnett, Mrs Radford, Mr Rhodes, Mrs Richards, Mr Richardson, Mrs Richardson, Mr Rushton, Mrs Seaton, Mr Shepherd, Mr Slater, Mrs Wright

 

Abstentions

 

Mr Osborne, Mrs Taylor

 

The motion was put and carried, 33 members voting for the motion, 17 against.

 

 

It was moved by Mr Rushton, seconded by Mr Rhodes and carried:-

 

“That the Strategic Plan for 2018 to 2022, set out in Appendix A to this report, be approved.”

 

 

It was moved by Mr Rhodes, seconded by Mr Rushton and carried:-

 

“That the Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium 2017 be approved.”

 

 

It was moved by Mr Ould, seconded by Mr Pendleton and carried:-

 

“(a)     That the revised Leicestershire Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2016 – 2019 as set out in the Appendix to this report be approved;

 

(b)      That the Director of Children and Family Services be authorised to make minor amendments to the Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2016-2019 as are considered necessary to ensure it remains current and conforms to the requirements of the Youth Justice Board.”

 

 

It was moved by Mrs Posnett, seconded by Mr Ould and carried:-

 

“That the Director of Public Health Annual Report 2017 be noted with support.”

 

 

“This Council calls upon the Government to make fair transitional state pension arrangements for all women born in the 1950s affected by the changes to the SPA and, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA) with lack of appropriate notification.

 

Hundreds of thousands of women had significant pension changes imposed on them; first by the Pensions Act of 1995 and then again 2011; with little to no personal notification of the changes. Some women less than two years notice of a six-year increase to their state pension age. Some women have had no notice at all.

 

Many women born in the 1950s are living in hardship. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences. Many of these women are already out of the labour market, caring for elderly relatives, providing childcare for grandchildren, or suffer discrimination in the workplace so struggle to find employment.

 

Women born in this decade are suffering financially. These women have worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and national insurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure when reaching 60. It is not the pension age itself that is in dispute - it is widely accepted that women and men should retire at the same time.

 

The issue is that the rise in the women's state pension age has been too rapid and has happened without sufficient notice being given to the women affected, leaving women with no time to make alternative arrangements.

 

This Council calls upon the Government to reconsider transitional arrangements and compensation for women born in the 1950s affected by the changes to the SPA.”

 

It was moved by Mrs Broadley and seconded by Mr Mullaney:-

 

“That this Council calls upon the Government to make fair transitional state pension arrangements for all women born in the 1950s affected by the changes to the SPA and, who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age (SPA) with lack of appropriate notification.

 

Hundreds of thousands of women had significant pension changes imposed on them; first by the Pensions Act of 1995 and then again 2011; with little to no personal notification of the changes. Some women less than two years notice of a six-year increase to their state pension age. Some women have had no notice at all.

 

Many women born in the 1950s are living in hardship. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences. Many of these women are already out of the labour market, caring for elderly relatives, providing childcare for grandchildren, or suffer discrimination in the workplace so struggle to find employment.

 

Women born in this decade are suffering financially. These women have worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and national insurance with the expectation that they would be financially secure when reaching 60. It is not the pension age itself that is in dispute - it is widely accepted that women and men should retire at the same time.

 

The issue is that the rise in the women's state pension age has been too rapid and has happened without sufficient notice being given to the women affected, leaving women with no time to make alternative arrangements.

 

This Council calls upon the Government to reconsider transitional arrangements and compensation for women born in the 1950s affected by the changes to the SPA.”

 

An amendment was moved by Mr Rhodes and seconded by Mr Shepherd:-

 

‘That the motion be amended to read as follows:-

 

“That this Council notes that:-

 

(i)       There is general acceptance that all men and women should retire at the same age;

 

(ii)      The changes in the 2011 Pensions Act, which were brought in by the Coalition Government, were debated at length and a decision made by Parliament, as part of which a concession was made to limit the impact on those most affected, benefitting almost a quarter of a million women and costing £1.1 billion in total;

 

(iii)      Reversing the Pensions Act 2011 would cost over £30 billion;

 

(iv)     Further concessions on this issue would require people of working age, specifically younger people, to bear an even greater share of the cost of the pensions system.” ’

 

The amendment was put and carried, with 31 members voting for the amendment and 17 against.

 

On the amendment being put and before the vote was taken, five members rose asking that a named vote be recorded.

 

The vote was recorded as follows:-

 

For the amendment

 

Mr Bedford, Mr Bentley, Mr Blunt, Mr Breckon, Dr Bremner, Mr Coxon, Dr Feltham, Mr Gillard, Mr Harrison, Mr Jennings, Mr Liquorish, Mr Morgan, Mr Orson, Mr Ould, Mrs Page, Mr Pain, Mr Parton, Mr Pearson, Mr Pendleton, Mr Poland, Mrs Posnett, Mr Rhodes, Mrs Richards, Mr Richardson, Mrs Richardson, Mr Rushton, Mr Shepherd, Mr Slater, Mrs Taylor, Mrs Wright

 

Against the amendment

 

Mr Bill, Mr Boulter, Mr Bray, Mrs Broadley, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Crooks, Dr Eynon, Mrs Fryer, Mr Galton, Ms Hack, Dr Hill, Mr Hunt, Mr Kaufman, Mr Miah, Mr Mullaney, Mrs Newton, Mr Sheahan,

 

The substantive motion was put and carried.