18. |
Questions asked under Standing Order 7(1)(2) and (5).
Minutes:
|
(A)
|
Mr Poland asked the following question of the Leader or
his nominee:
|
|
|
“Leicestershire County Council has recently carried out a
consultation into school term dates for Leicestershire schools to be in place
between August 2027 and the summer of 2032. Can the Lead Member advise,
if Leicestershire decides to go for an option which is different to the
school term dates of Leicester City, what happens to those schools which are
currently in Leicestershire but may find themselves within the boundary of
Leicester City as a consequence of local government
reorganisation? Would those schools be
required to change their term dates before 2032 in order to
align with the City, or would they remain out of step with City schools until
this matter is next reviewed?”
|
|
|
Mr Pugsley replied as follows:
|
|
|
“Following
the recent consultation on school term dates for Autumn 2027 to Summer 2032,
officers have met with colleagues from Leicester City Council to review the
feedback received from both consultations. Work is continuing to explore the
potential for a shared term date model, informed by consultation responses.
The uncertainty surrounding local government
reorganisation presents an additional consideration. However, an announcement
on the future structure of local government across Leicester, Leicestershire
and Rutland is expected in July 2026, ahead of any decision being made on the
future pattern of term dates.
A summary of the consultation feedback, along with a
recommended model, will be reported to Cabinet in September 2026. This will
support Cabinet in their decision making for Leicestershire schools and
families, taking into account both the ongoing
discussions with Leicester City Council and the impact of decisions on local
government reorganisation.”
|
|
|
Mr Poland asked the
following supplementary question:
|
|
|
“I thank the
Leader Member for their reply. I’ve
read the response, but I do remain concerned about the proposal to start
Leicestershire terms earlier beyond the impact of just not matching up with
the City. I would like to ask the Lead
Member to take into account before a decision is made that starting
Leicestershire schools earlier in August would actually risk starting schools
at around the same time as GCSE results are published which would then impact
those in year 11 and going up to post 16, and there would be an impact of
children starting school who may be starting as young as three years
old. August is also one of the hottest
months of the year and we saw only last week the impact severe heat can have
on schools. My own son’s school closed
early because of the heat and summers are only getting hotter so starting
earlier in August would risk
increasing the amount of closures due to heat. My appeal to the Lead Member would
therefore be that, unless there is strong cause for change, unless the
current structure actually is a problem, then I would ask that we keep the
current structure that is broadly in line with Leicester City and is broadly
in line with what we’ve had historically speaking I speak as a parent and as a councillor as
I think the current timetable works well and I wouldn’t want to see any
changes to that which could end up causing more problems.”
|
|
|
Mr Pugsley replies
as follows:
|
|
|
“I’d like to thank
Mr Poland for his comments and I will ensure that
they are considered before a decision is made. Thank you.”
|
|
(B)
|
Mrs Taylor asked the following question of the Leader
or his nominee:
|
|
|
“1. Can the administration provide the current
backlog of pothole repairs across Leicestershire, and how this has changed
over the past 12 ... view the full minutes text for item 18.
|
19. |
Position statements under Standing Order 8.  PDF 114 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Leader gave a position statement on the following
matters:
·
Growth and supporting businesses:
o
Breakfast briefings;
o
Bardon Warehousing Unit;
o
Broadnook School;
o
Beef Expo;
o
Zouch Bridge Development;
·
Local Government Reorganisation Update;
·
Melton Mowbray Distributor Road Successes;
·
MTFS and Better Leicestershire Update;
·
Celebrating Carers Week.
The Lead Member for Children and Families gave a position
statement on the following matters:
·
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities:
o
Accelerated Progress Plan;
o
Education, Health and Care Plan Timeliness;
o
Leicestershire SEND Reforms;
o
Belonging in Education;
·
Targeted Family Help and Children’s Social Care:
o
Joint Targeted Area Inspection;
o
Children in Care;
o
Families First Partnership Programme;
o
Best Start in Life.
A copy of the position statements is filed with these
minutes.
|
20. |
Report of the Scrutiny Commission.
|
20a |
Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report. PDF 83 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
It was moved by Mrs Taylor, seconeded by Mr Mullaney and
carried unanimously:
“That the information contained in the Overview and Scrutiny
Annual Report 2025-26, appended to the report, be noted.”
|
21. |
Notices of motion:
|
21a |
Prioritising Frontline Policing and Value for Money.
1.
This Council notes that the Police and Crime
Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland has proposed an 18‑month,
£2 million scheme to fund private security marshals to patrol town centres
across Leicestershire and Rutland.
2.
This Council further notes that:
·
These marshals, while visible, do not possess
police powers, including the power of arrest, formal investigation, or
enforcement.
·
The £2 million funding comes directly from the
existing policing budget, funded by local taxpayers.
·
There is significant concern from policing
professionals, including the Leicestershire Police Federation, that this
approach risks diverting funding away from frontline policing.
·
Residents and businesses consistently raise
concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, and the need for a stronger
visible police presence, not a substitute service.
3.
This Council believes that:
(a) Taxpayers’
money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver
tangible outcomes.
(b) Public
confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered, and accountable
police officers, not private contractors with limited authority.
(c) Investment
in fully trained police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)
provides better value for money, stronger legal enforcement, and long-term
benefits to communities.
4.
This Council is concerned that:
(a) The
proposed scheme risks creating a two-tier system of public safety, where
private security fills gaps that should be addressed by properly resourced
policing.
(b) The
effectiveness of such marshals is limited to deterrence, without the ability to
follow through with enforcement action.
(c) At
a time of financial pressure, this represents a questionable use of limited
public funds.
5.
This Council therefore resolves to:
(a) Oppose
the proposed £2 million private security marshal scheme as an inefficient use
of policing resources.
(b) Call
on the Police and Crime Commissioner to halt the procurement process and review
the proposal.
(c) Urge
that the £2 million be reallocated to recruit, train, and retain additional
frontline police officers and PCSOs, increasing visible patrols and enforcement
capability.
(d) Instruct
the Chief Executive to write to the PCC to formally convey this Council’s
position and seek a response.
Minutes:
It
was moved by Mrs Taylor and seconded by Mr O’Shea that:
“1. This
Council notes that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester,
Leicestershire, and Rutland has proposed an 18‑month, £2 million scheme to
fund private security marshals to patrol town centres across Leicestershire and
Rutland.
2. This Council further notes that:
·
These marshals, while visible, do not possess
police powers, including the power of arrest, formal investigation, or
enforcement.
·
The £2 million funding comes directly from the
existing policing budget, funded by local taxpayers.
·
There is significant concern from policing
professionals, including the Leicestershire Police Federation, that this
approach risks diverting funding away from frontline policing.
·
Residents and businesses consistently raise
concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, and the need for a stronger
visible police presence, not a substitute service.
3. This
Council believes that:
(a) Taxpayers’
money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver
tangible outcomes.
(b) Public
confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered, and accountable
police officers, not private contractors with limited authority.
(c) Investment
in fully trained police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)
provides better value for money, stronger legal enforcement, and long-term
benefits to communities.
4. This
Council is concerned that:
(a) The
proposed scheme risks creating a two-tier system of public safety, where
private security fills gaps that should be addressed by properly resourced
policing.
(b) The
effectiveness of such marshals is limited to deterrence, without the ability to
follow through with enforcement action.
(c) At
a time of financial pressure, this represents a questionable use of limited
public funds.
5. This
Council therefore resolves to:
(a) Oppose
the proposed £2 million private security marshal scheme as an inefficient use
of policing resources.
(b) Call
on the Police and Crime Commissioner to halt the procurement process and review
the proposal.
(c) Urge
that the £2 million be reallocated to recruit, train, and retain additional
frontline police officers and PCSOs, increasing visible patrols and enforcement
capability.
(d) Instruct
the Chief Executive to write to the PCC to formally convey this Council’s
position and seek a response.”
An amendment was moved by Mr Crook
and seconded by Mr Hamilton-Gray that:
“1. This Council notes that:
(a) The
Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland has
proposed a scheme to fund Security Industry Authority licensed contractors to
patrol town centres across Leicestershire and Rutland, with indicative funding
of up to £2 million from the Crime Prevention Fund reserve.
(b) Residents
and businesses consistently raise concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour,
and the need for a stronger visible police presence in their communities.
(c) The
Police and Crime Panel has considered this matter and has resolved to
scrutinise the proposal by requesting that, ahead of any decision being made,
it be presented with evidence of research undertaken, what that research
indicates, and the Temporary Chief Constable’s proposals in full in a
disclosable format.
(d) No
final decision has yet been made by the PCC regarding this scheme.
(e) Leicestershire
County Council has no direct jurisdiction over decisions made by the Police and
Crime Commissioner, who is independently scrutinised by the Police and Crime
Panel and held accountable by the electorate.
(f) The
Crime Prevention Fund is a distinct reserve within the policing budget, and any
utilisation of such funds would be subject to policing budget rules and
relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
2. This Council believes that:
(a) Taxpayers
money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver
tangible outcomes for communities.
(b) Public
confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered and accountable
policing.
(c) Any
... view the full minutes text for item 21a
|
21b |
Community Impact of Asylum Accommodation.
- This Council notes that:
(a) Residents
across Leicestershire have raised concerns regarding the concentration of
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and accommodation associated with national
asylum dispersal arrangements.
(b) Residents
have expressed concerns regarding pressures on local services, parking, waste
management, neighbourhood amenity, community cohesion and the pace of change
within established communities.
(c) Local
residents and community organisations continue to seek greater transparency
regarding the scale and operation of asylum accommodation arrangements within
their communities.
(d) Effective
democratic governance is strengthened when members are able to bring forward
matters arising from their representational responsibilities, ensuring that
local experience continues to inform the deliberations of the authority.
(e) Leicestershire
County Council is responsible for a range of services which may be affected by
significant population changes, including education, public health, transport,
social care and community wellbeing.
- This Council believes
that:
(a) Existing
residents should be appropriately informed and consulted where significant
changes are taking place within their communities.
(b) Public
confidence is strengthened when decisions affecting local communities are
accompanied by transparency, accountability and meaningful engagement.
(c) Local
authorities should be provided with sufficient information to understand and
plan for any impact on local services arising from national asylum
accommodation policies.
(d) Communities
function best when residents feel informed, listened to and represented.
- This Council resolves to:
(a) Write
to the Home Secretary seeking greater transparency regarding asylum
accommodation arrangements affecting Leicestershire and requesting that local
authorities be given meaningful engagement and advance notification where
placements may have a significant impact on local communities.
(b) Request
that the Chief Executive writes to the Home Office seeking information
regarding asylum accommodation provision within Leicestershire, including any
available information on the use of HMOs associated with Government
accommodation contracts and the potential impact on County Council services.
(c) Request
that the relevant Director prepares a report for consideration by the
appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committee outlining any known or anticipated
impacts of asylum accommodation arrangements and concentrations of HMOs on
County Council services, where such information is available.
(d) Request
that the Home Office and its contractors engage openly with local authorities
and communities where accommodation arrangements are proposed or expanded,
recognising the importance of maintaining community confidence.
(e) Reaffirm
this Council’s commitment to transparency, democratic accountability, community
cohesion and ensuring that the concerns of local residents are properly
considered when national policies have significant local consequences.
Minutes:
It was moved by Mr England and seconded by Mr Bray that:
“1. This Council notes that:
(a) Residents across Leicestershire have raised
concerns regarding the concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and
accommodation associated with national asylum dispersal arrangements.
(b) Residents have expressed concerns regarding
pressures on local services, parking, waste management, neighbourhood amenity,
community cohesion and the pace of change within established communities.
(c) Local residents and community organisations continue to
seek greater transparency regarding the scale and operation of asylum
accommodation arrangements within their communities.
(d) Effective democratic governance is
strengthened when members are able to bring forward
matters arising from their representational responsibilities, ensuring that
local experience continues to inform the deliberations of the authority.
(e) Leicestershire County Council is responsible
for a range of services which may be affected by significant population
changes, including education, public health, transport, social care and
community wellbeing.
2.
This
Council believes that:
(a) Existing residents should be appropriately
informed and consulted where significant changes are taking place within their
communities.
(b) Public confidence is strengthened when
decisions affecting local communities are accompanied by transparency,
accountability and meaningful engagement.
(c) Local authorities should be provided with
sufficient information to understand and plan for any impact on local services
arising from national asylum accommodation policies.
(d) Communities function best when residents
feel informed, listened to and represented.
3.
This
Council resolves to:
(a) Write to the Home Secretary seeking greater
transparency regarding asylum accommodation arrangements affecting
Leicestershire and requesting that local authorities be given meaningful
engagement and advance notification where placements may have a significant
impact on local communities.
(b) Request that the Chief Executive writes to
the Home Office seeking information regarding asylum accommodation provision
within Leicestershire, including any available information on the use of HMOs
associated with Government accommodation contracts and the potential impact on
County Council services.
(c) Request that the relevant Director prepares
a report for consideration by the appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committee
outlining any known or anticipated impacts of asylum accommodation arrangements
and concentrations of HMOs on County Council services, where such information
is available.
(d) Request that the Home Office and its
contractors engage openly with local authorities and communities where
accommodation arrangements are proposed or expanded, recognising the importance
of maintaining community confidence.
(e) Reaffirm this Council’s commitment to
transparency, democratic accountability, community cohesion and ensuring that
the concerns of local residents are properly
considered when national policies have significant local consequences.”
On the motion 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 motion
Mr Abbott, Mr Bailey, Dr Bloxham, Mr Boam, Mr Bradshaw, Mr
Bray, Mrs Broadley, Miss Butler, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Cooke, Mr Crook, Mrs
Danks, Mr England, Mr Fowler, Mr Galton, Mr Grimley, Mr Hamilton-Gray, Mr D
Harrison, Mr P Harrison, Dr Hill, Mr Holt, Mr Innes, Mr King, Mrs Knight, Mr
Lovegrove, Mr McDonald, Mr Melen, Mr Morris, Mr Mulaney, Dr North, Mr O’Shea,
Mr Orson, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mr Piper, Mr Poland, Mr Pugsley, Mr Richichi, Mr Robinson,
Mr Rudkin, Mr Smith, Mr Squires, Mrs Taylor, Mr Tilbury, Mr Walker.
Against the motion
Mrs Bottomley, Mr Miah.
The motion was put and carried, with 45 members voting for
the motion and 2 members voting against.
|
21c |
Maintaining Professional Standards, Workforce Sustainability, and Fair Employment Practices in Leicestershire's Specialist SEND Services.
1.
This Council notes:
(a) The
vital role that specialist Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)
services play in supporting vulnerable children across the county.
(b) That
the Council should seek to maintain high professional standards in specialist
SEND services.
(c) That,
when reviewing service delivery models, the Council should have regard to
service quality, safeguarding, workforce stability, recruitment and retention,
and value for money.
(d) That
significant workforce changes in critical specialist services should be
considered in a way that maintains confidence among service users and
residents.
(e) That
concerns have been raised regarding possible changes to staffing structures and
role requirements within specialist SEND services.
(f)
That poorly managed restructuring can adversely
affect workforce morale, retention and service continuity.
2.
This Council resolves to request a report to the
Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee on:
(a) The
proposed future model of early years SEND advisory support.
(b) How
service quality, continuity, and workforce sustainability will be maintained,
including the role of professional qualifications where relevant.
(c) What
consideration has been given to maintaining appropriate professional
qualifications in role requirements.
(d) How
the views of staff and recognised trade unions have been considered, including
alternative models proposed by staff to secure year-round delivery.
(e) Assurance
that any workforce changes will be undertaken in accordance with applicable
employment law and the Council’s policies and procedures.
Minutes:
It was moved by Mr Miah and seconded by Mr Mullaney that:
“1. This Council notes:
(a)
The vital role that specialist Special Educational
Needs and Disabilities (SEND) services play in supporting vulnerable children
across the county.
(b)
That the Council should seek to maintain high
professional standards in specialist SEND services.
(c)
That, when reviewing service delivery models,
the Council should have regard to service quality, safeguarding, workforce
stability, recruitment and retention, and value for money.
(d)
That significant workforce changes in critical
specialist services should be considered in a way that maintains confidence
among service users and residents.
(e)
That concerns have been raised regarding
possible changes to staffing structures and role requirements within specialist
SEND services.
(f)
That poorly managed restructuring can adversely
affect workforce morale, retention and service continuity.
2. This
Council resolves to request a report to the Children and Families Overview and
Scrutiny Committee on:
(a) The
proposed future model of early years SEND advisory support.
(b) How
service quality, continuity, and workforce sustainability will be maintained,
including the role of professional qualifications where relevant.
(c) What
consideration has been given to maintaining appropriate professional
qualifications in role requirements.
(d) How
the views of staff and recognised trade unions have been considered, including
alternative models proposed by staff to secure year-round delivery.
(e) Assurance
that any workforce changes will be undertaken in accordance with applicable
employment law and the Council’s policies and procedures.”
The motion was put and carried with 42 members voting for
the motion and no members voting against.
|
21d |
Bus Services in Wigston.
1.
This Council notes that:
(a) The recent
significant changes to the bus services in Wigston.
(b) The poor
level of any consultation undertaken by the operator concerning these changes.
(c) The impact on
some service users who now must catch 2 buses with the inevitable longer
journey times and additional costs.
(d) The
disconnect this has caused to the local community with 2 large estates
effectively cut off from each other, with the resultant family and friends
having to make alternative arrangements.
(e) It has made
journeys to the local GP, the LRI and train station more difficult and for some
impossible (especially the elderly) due to the removal of some routes.
(f) That the
47/48 and 49 services have been replaced with a changed 47/48 and a 44/44a/44b
and 44s service. These more complex services have caused confusion, with users
unable to make much sense of the difficult timetables and unsure which stops
are for which services. This is verified by the drivers taking the incorrect
route on many occasions.
(g) The
Leicestershire Bus Service Improvement Plan 2025 had as one of its objectives
‘to encourage bus use to local facilities’, the recent changes could undermine
this.
(h) The limited
ability of the Council to influence the decisions of commercial operators.
2. Therefore,
this Council resolves to:
(a) Continue to
engage with Arriva to request a review of the recent changes taking
into account the concerns and views of Wigston residents.
(b) Write to the
Traffic Commissioner and ask if they were aware of the lack of consultation
before they approved these changes.
Minutes:
With the consent of the Council, Mr
Charlesworth moved the following altered motion, seonded by Mr Hamilton-Gray:
“1. This
Council notes that:
(a) The
recent significant changes to the bus services in Wigston.
(b) The
poor level of any consultation undertaken by the operator concerning these
changes.
(c) The
impact on some service users who now must catch 2 buses with the inevitable
longer journey times and additional costs.
(d) The
disconnect this has caused to the local community with 2 large estates
effectively cut off from each other, with the resultant family and friends
having to make alternative arrangements.
(e) It
has made journeys to the local GP, the LRI and train station more difficult and
for some impossible (especially the elderly) due to the removal of some routes.
(f) That
the 47/48 and 49 services have been replaced with a changed 47/48 and a
44/44a/44b and 44s service. These more complex services have caused confusion,
with users unable to make much sense of the difficult timetables and unsure
which stops are for which services. This is verified by the drivers taking the
incorrect route on many occasions.
(g) The
Leicestershire Bus Service Improvement Plan 2025 had as one of its objectives
‘to encourage bus use to local facilities’, the recent changes could undermine
this.
(h) The
limited ability of the Council to influence the decisions of commercial
operators.
2. Therefore,
this Council resolves to:
(a) Continue
to engage with Arriva to request a review of the recent changes taking into
account the concerns and views of Wigston residents.
(b) Work
via the Enhanced Bus Partnership to seek to develop an approach to community
engagement ahead of bus service changes.”
The motion was put and carried, with 40 members voting for
the motion and no members voting against.
|
|