Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2012 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

The Chairman advised the Committee that he had agreed to consider as an urgent item the draft Police and Crime Plan and the outcome of the Police and Crime Panel meeting on 30 January.

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

No such declarations were made.

There were no declarations of the party whip.

A petition signed by 1397 residents is to be presented by Mr. S.L. Bray CC in the following terms:

“We the undersigned call upon the Conservative County Council to reverse its decision to withdraw funding towards Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). We believe these provide a visible presence and act as a vital deterrent to crime and anti-social behaviour across Leicestershire.”

A petition signed by 1397 residents was presented to the Commission by Mr S L Bray CC, requesting the County Council to reverse its decision to withdraw funding from Police Community Support Officers.

A briefing note of the Chief Executive summarising the situation relating to the petition was considered by the Commission.  A copy of this report, marked ‘B’, is filed with these minutes.

With the consent of the Chairman, Mr Bray addressed the Commission and stated that the petition showed the value local people placed on Police Community Support Officers, despite initial scepticism towards the policy.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the petition be referred to the Cabinet for consideration in the context of the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2013/14 to 2016/17.

The Leader and the Deputy Leader have been invited for this item.

The Chief Executive and Director of Corporate Resources will be present for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources setting out the context and background to the preparation of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the period 2013/14 to 2016/17.  A copy of the report, which was circulated to all members of the County Council via the Members’ Information Service, is filed with these minutes.

The Commission also considered a supplementary report setting out the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Bodies on the MTFS relating to their respective service areas.  A copy of the supplementary report marked ‘C1’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting the Leader of the Council, Mr N J Rushton CC, and the Deputy Leader of the Council, Mr J B Rhodes CC, who were attending for this item.

MTFS Context and Overall Position

The Director of Corporate Resources advised the Commission as follows:-

(i)    The draft MTFS, which had been approved by the Cabinet on 16 January, had been the subject of consultation.  The consultation closed on 27 January and the outcome would be reported to the Cabinet on 6 February.  An Information Item would be sent to all members of the Council summarising consultation responses.  The late notification of the settlement had meant that the consultation process was somewhat truncated.

(ii)  The County Council was facing significant financial pressures and it was likely that these pressures would continue for the next seven to ten years.

The Director of Corporate Resources then outlined the key changes to the MTFS since the report had been submitted on 16 January, as follows:-

(i)        The Council Tax Collection Fund surplus had decreased by £0.12m reflecting information from District Councils.

(ii)       The Council Tax base had been confirmed following receipt of figures from District Councils.  This was higher than anticipated; however, there were significant risks arising from the localisation of Council Tax Benefit and it was being suggested that additional resource be allocated to a contingency.

(iii)      An additional £350,000 had been included to meet the cost of supporting the Educational Excellence Board.

(iv)      An additional £1.2m had been allocated for investment in Loughborough University Science and Enterprise Park.

(v)       The Public Health Settlement had been received late in the day and the report to the Cabinet on 6 February would set out proposals for how this ringfenced grant was to be used.

(vi)      With regard to reserves and balances, the Commission was advised that the earmarked reserves and balances stood at £99m.  The MTFS proposed using reserves and balances totalling £56m over the next four years.

(vii)    There were unidentified savings of £30m in the final years of the MTFS and decisions would need to be taken in the coming year as to how these were to be achieved.

The Chairman then invited the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council to make comments. 

The Leader of the Council endorsed the comments made by the Director of Corporate Resources and, in particular, highlighted the need to set aside a contingency of £1.2m to offset the significant risk to Council revenues from the localisation of Council Tax Benefit.  The County Council would be facing considerable financial pressures and the Leader acknowledged the need for the County Council to play its role in the country’s deficit reduction programme.  However, he expressed concern that the Government’s funding allocations disadvantaged the County Council and highlighted in particular the adverse impact on the County Council’s finances from reductions made in the Early Intervention Grant and the arrangements for funding academies.  He also expressed concern regarding the tone of comments being made by Ministers about local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 328.

The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 27 February at 2.00pm.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on Wednesday 27 February at 2.00pm.

The Scrutiny Commission considered this matter, the Chairman having decided that it was of an urgent nature as it was important for the Scrutiny Commission as crime and disorder scrutiny committee for the County Council to be made aware of the content of the draft Police and Crime and Plan and the views of the Police and Crime Panel.  This would offer the Commission the opportunity to make comments on the Plan if it wished during the consultation process which ends on 10 March.

At the request of the Chairman, the following officers and members attended the meeting to assist the Commission in its deliberations on this matter:-

Mr J B Rhodes CC, Deputy Leader of the Council

John Sinnott, Chief Executive

Phil Hawkins, Head of Youth Justice and Safer Communities

David Morgan, Clerk to the Police and Crime Panel.

The Commission considered the following documents, copies of which are filed with these minutes:-

The draft Police and Crime Plan;

Letter from the Chief Executive considered by the Police and Crime Panel;

Supplementary report to the Panel on Commissioning;

Comments on the draft Plan submitted by Mr S J Galton CC in his personal capacity;

Comments on the draft Plan submitted by Chief Officers in regard to references to partnership working;

Comments and views of the Police and Crime Panel which had been communicated to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) following the Panel meeting.

The Chief Executive, in his introduction to the Commission, outlined his concerns regarding partnership working to date and the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC) apparent intention to determine himself the Strategic Partnership Board’s (SPB) role and structure.  He advised members that the SPB, which was set up in the last 12 months, was a merger of the previous Community Safety Programme Board and the Local Criminal Justice Board.  It had been chaired by the Chief Constable and comprised leading members and officers of local authorities and relevant agencies and provided a strategic oversight and steer to partnership working.

The SPB had agreed that the PCC, when elected, should be offered the opportunity to chair the SPB.  A meeting had been held in December which had been badly organised, with the minutes not recognising agreements reached in regard to partner discussions about the future of the SPB, transitional arrangements for commissioning community safety services and the cancellation of a ‘stakeholder event’ previously arranged for the 15 January.  An event, organised by the OPCC, had been held on 15 January, with a structure very close to that of the ‘stakeholder event’, after which the PCC appeared to believe that binding decisions had been taken about the role and structure of the SPB and transitional arrangements for commissioning and funding.

The Chief Executive advised that he believed that the establishment, structure and operation of the SPB, on a basis agreed between partners, was critical to ensure that the existing good partnership working arrangements were maintained and enhanced.  He hoped that the OPCC would now take steps to ensure this happened, as had been agreed by the SPB in December but not actioned.

It had been announced by the PCC at the end of the event on 15 January, when some partners had left, that he would allocate the equivalent of 50% of the funding received (by the County Council) in 2012/13 for the first six months of 2013/14 (i.e. until 30 September 2013) as a transition arrangement, although subject to conditions, and that during this period the PCC would evaluate and decide to recommission or decommission services as he chose.  Whilst acknowledging the right  ...  view the full minutes text for item 330.