Agenda and minutes

Mr Peter Winkless

The Chairman reported the death of former County Councillor Peter Winkless who died on 24^th July 2015.

Mr Winkless had served on the County Council from 1985 to 2005 and had represented the Enderby electoral division.

Mr Winkless had served on numerous committees during his 20 years as a County Councillor, including the Social Services Committee, Education Committee and the Environment Committee.  He had been spokesman of the latter from 1997 to 1999.  He had also been the spokesman of the Special Education and Welfare Subcommittee for 10 years from 1987 to 1997.

Following the move to the Cabinet/Scrutiny system, Mr Winkless had been appointed as the Cabinet Lead Member for Environment.  He had stepped down from this role to become Chairman of the County Council in 2004/05.

Mr Ronald Clements

The Chairman reported the death of former County Councillor Mr Ronald Clements who had passed away on 19^th July 2015.  Mr Clements had been a member of the County Council from 1993 to 2001 and had represented the Manor electoral division in Oadby.

He had served on the Education and Social Services Committee.  He had also served on a number of Social Services Subcommittees, most notably the Social Services Planning Subcommittee for which he had been spokesman from 1993 to 1995 and the Community Care and Adult Services Subcommittee, for which he had been spokesman from 1995 to 1997.

The Chairman invited the Council to stand in silent tribute to the memory of Mr Peter Winkless and Mr Ronal Clements.

HM The Queen

The Chairman advised the Council that on behalf of the Members and Officers of Leicestershire County Council and the people of Leicestershire, he had sent Loyal Greetings to Her Majesty on the occasion of her becoming the longest serving British Monarch on 9^th September 2015, which had been acknowledged.

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 Liquorish and carried:-

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 8^th July 2015, copies of which have been circulated to members, be taken as read, confirmed and signed subject to the inclusion of Mr Kershaw in the list of members present.”

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to make declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

Dr Eynon declared a personal interest in the requested statement by the Lead Member for Health, as she was a salaried GP.

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

“Will the Leader be making good the claims in a County Council press release dated 3rd September 2015 that the Authority is “clamping down on dangerous parkers”, and there has been a “drive to tackle unsafe parking”, by allocating additional resources to deal with persistent problem areas, for example, on Chapel Street, Measham, next to the cash machine and on Ashby Road, Moira, near the Post Office?”

Mr Osborne replied as follows:-

“As Mr Sheahan is aware from correspondence with the Director of Environment and Transport the press release referred to was aimed at publicising the work that the County Council does to enforce on street parking restrictions to prevent dangerous parking with a view to influencing driver behaviour.

The Council continues to work with our District partners to ensure that patrol routes are dealing with dangerous and unsafe parking.  The enforcement team are aware of the issues that have been reported on Ashby Road, Moira and will continue to patrol this location.  As the press release made clear, the costs of undertaking this enforcement are closely matched to the fine income received with the Council making a small loss of £792 in 2013/2014.  Additional resources are not available for additional patrols at this time.”

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

“The current MTFS includes £87 million of cuts over the next 4 years. Following the Government’s emergency budget, the Cabinet has indicated that it will now need to make significantly more cuts to balance the books.

Can the Leader assure me that any financial review will include the position of the Chief Executive, Senior Management and Cabinet Members?”

Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-

“It is well known that the Council is in an extremely challenging financial position. Savings of over £100m have already been achieved and current plans include a savings requirement of £87m with significantly more to follow. It goes without saying that all elements of the budget will be considered for savings, but Mr Wyatt is missing the point if he thinks further reductions in management costs and the costs of democracy which, of course include scrutiny, will solve the problem. 

The profound impact which the required level of savings will have on local services is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that by the time austerity budgets have come to an end the County Council is likely to have saved the sum of all the Leicestershire District Councils’ net budgets three times over.”

(C)   Mr Wyatt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

“1.    Is the Leader aware that the Government has launched a consultation on whether to allow Police and Crime Commissioners to take over the running of fire and rescue authorities?

2.     Can the Leader share his opinion on whether he feels such an arrangement would be suitable for Leicestershire?”

Mr Rushton replied as follows:-

“1.    Yes.

2.     I do not believe that putting the governance of the Fire and Rescue Service under a Police and Crime Commissioner would improve democratic accountability.  There is, however, considerable scope for making efficiencies in back office and support services by joint working between the emergency services.”

(D)   Mr Welsh asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

“The road lining including the stop lines and yellow keep clear boxes at the traffic light controlled junction of Leicester Road, Little Glen Road and Newbridge Road, Glen Parva have almost worn away completely.  A number of traffic collisions have occurred.  Despite assurances from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

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

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

The motion was put and carried, 37 members voting for the motion and 12 against.

(A)      General Position Statements

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

Combined Authority;

Syrian Refugees;

Pension Fund;

Leader of the Labour Party;

Brian Roberts;

Sue Goudie.

The Lead Member for Community Safety presented a position statement on the following matters:-

Prevent;

Youth Offending Service;

Domestic Abuse;

Partnership arrangements.

(B)     Requested Position Statements:-

The Lead Member for Health presented a position statement in response to a request put forward by Mr Sharp (Lead Questioner), Mr Sheahan and Dr Eynon.  The request was in the following terms:-

“The Government’s planned £200m reduction in the Public Health specific grant paid to local authorities has the potential to affect this Authority’s ability to improve the public’s health and wellbeing as well as its capacity to reduce demand for hospital, health and social care services.

Could the Lead Member update members by way of a position statement on the following:-

• What are the latest assumptions on the financial impact on this authority?
• What programmes are at risk of cuts?
• What options exist to meet the cuts?
• What risk could this funding reduction pose to the work of the Better Care Fund?”

Arising from the statement a number of questions were put to the Lead Member and responses given.

A copy of each of the position statements is attached to these minutes.

Mr Rhodes, with the consent of the seconder of the motion, sought and obtained the agreement of the Council to move the following altered motion:-

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

“That this Council notes the position on the MTFS as now outlined and calls on the Leader to make representations to local MPs and the Government highlighting in particular the impact of low funding and the introduction of the living wage on services provided, particularly those to the elderly and vulnerable”.

The motion was put and carried, 42 members voting for the motion and 8 against.

It was moved by Mr Osborne, seconded by Mr Welsh, and carried:-

“That Gerard Hirst be appointed as Roman Catholic representative on the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee (or other appropriate scrutiny committee dealing with Education) for the period ending with the County Council elections in 2017).”

1.     That this Council:-

a.     Notes the cross-party support for the former Coalition Government’s policy to cap care costs following the Dilnot Commission, and that the Conservative Party was elected to Government with a clear and unambiguous promise in their manifesto to cap care costs from 2016 onwards.

b.     Notes with concern the government’s announcement to shelve plans for a cap on care costs, which will result in estimated £100m of public money wasted on preparation and continued uncertainty for the future of those who will be needing these care services.

c.     Supports the LGA’s call that any money saved from delaying the care cap reforms should be put into the mainstream adult social care and support system so as to put it on a more sustainable footing.

d.     Sees little sense in the Government’s policy of increasing the allowance threshold for inheritance tax while continuing to run a care system where many elderly people are forced to sell their home to pay for their care.

2.     This Council therefore calls on the Government to prioritise funding for both the adult social care system and the care cap reforms, before raising the allowance thresholds for inheritance tax and higher rate taxpayers.

It was moved by Mr Galton, and seconded by Mr Charlesworth:-

“1.    That this Council:-

(a)    Notes the cross-party support for the former Coalition Government’s policy to cap care costs following the Dilnot Commission, and that the Conservative Party was elected to Government with a clear and unambiguous promise in their manifesto to cap care costs from 2016 onwards.

(b)    Notes with concern the government’s announcement to shelve plans for a cap on care costs, which will result in estimated £100m of public money wasted on preparation and continued uncertainty for the future of those who will be needing these care services.

(c)    Supports the LGA’s call that any money saved from delaying the care cap reforms should be put into the mainstream adult social care and support system so as to put it on a more sustainable footing.

(d)    Sees little sense in the Government’s policy of increasing the allowance threshold for inheritance tax while continuing to run a care system where many elderly people are forced to sell their home to pay for their care.

2.     This Council therefore calls on the Government to prioritise funding for both the adult social care system and the care cap reforms, before raising the allowance thresholds for inheritance tax and higher rate taxpayers.”

An amendment was moved by Mr Houseman, and seconded by Mr Rhodes:-

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

‘1.    That this Council:-

        (a)    notes the cross party support for the government’s policy to cap care costs following the Dilnot Commission;

        (b)    notes the government’s announcement to delay the cap on care costs in order to ensure appropriate time for preparation and implementation as requested by the Local Government Association;

        (c)    supports the LGA call that any money saved from delaying the care cap reforms should be put into the mainstream adult  social care and support system so as to put it on a more sustainable footing.

2.     That this Council therefore calls on the Government to prioritise funding for both the adult social care system and the NHS to ensure a sustainable delivery of health and social care services.’ ”

The amendment was put and carried, 28 members voting for the amendment and 20 against, with 1 abstention.

The substantive motion was put and carried.

1.     That this Council welcomes the Government’s Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme and commits to play its full part in accommodating those claiming asylum into Leicestershire.

2.     That the County Council will welcome refugees into our communities and provide sanctuary to families fleeing war and violence, recognising that its capacity to assist will inevitably be governed by available resources

3.     This Council calls upon the Leader to immediately establish a cross party panel to work with officers to identify how the Council can assist, ensure early and robust plans are put in place and that effective co-ordination with District Councils and other partners is established.

It was moved by Mr Sharp, and seconded by Mr Galton:-

“1.      That this Council welcomes the Government’s Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme and commits to play its full part in accommodating those claiming asylum into Leicestershire.

2.       That the County Council will welcome refugees into our communities and provide sanctuary to families fleeing war and violence, recognising that its capacity to assist will inevitably be governed by available resources

3.       This Council calls upon the Leader to immediately establish a cross party panel to work with officers to identify how the Council can assist, ensure early and robust plans are put in place and that effective co-ordination with District Councils and other partners is established.”

An amendment was moved by Mr Lewis, and seconded by Mr Pearson:-

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

‘1.    That this Council notes:-

        (a)    that the Prime Minister has specifically stated that the existing Government Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation (VPR) Scheme needs significantly expanding to meet his commitment to resettle up to 20,000 over the life of this Parliament;

        (b)    that the Cabinet at its meeting on 11th September indicated it would respond to any requirements and demands placed upon the Council to assist refugees as helpfully and positively as it can whilst recognising that its capacity will inevitably be governed by available resources.

2.     Accordingly this Council resolves that it would be sensible to await details from the Government of the new Scheme and the outcome of its discussions with the LGA regarding the funding to be provided to support Councils participating in the new Scheme before making a formal response to Government.” ’

The amendment was put and carried, 29 members voting for the amendment and 20 against.

The substantive motion was put and carried.