Minutes:
(A) Mr
Wright CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
"1. According
to this Council's own figures for 2009/10, the average per-pupil funding in
primary schools is £3,033. Whilst many of
the 225 primary schools do not vary greatly from this average, there are some
notable exceptions.
28
schools receive funding in excess of £4,000 per pupil, 3 schools receive in
excess of £5,000, 1 school in excess of £6,000 and 1 school in excess of £7,000,
the latter two being more than twice the average.
What are the reasons
that explain these large differences?
2. The
total number of pupils in the 5 schools receiving in excess of £5,000 per pupil
is 176. Collectively those schools
receive £1,045,197 in funding.
In comparison, taking two examples from different areas of the county, Kegworth Primary - no. on roll 168, figures adjusted to
176, receives £534,022. Richard Hill C
of E - no. on roll 174, figures adjusted to 176, receives £504,176.
Is this a fair
distribution of available resources?
3. Using
comparator councils, can the Leader please provide figures illustrating:
a) the
average per-pupil funding in primary schools
b) respectively,
the smallest and largest variation from the average?"
Mr Hart replied as follows:
"1. The
formula applied to calculate school budgets takes into account a number of
factors to recognise the individual needs of schools and the pupils within
them. Although the formula is applied
consistently across all schools, there are differences where funding
allocations are made in respect of some but not all pupils. The following pupil led factors influence the
level of budget received by school:
·
The deprivation
score arising from the pupils within the school;
·
The
level of pupil prior attainment;
·
The
need for schools to meet the Key Stage 1 class size legislation;
·
The
number of pupils eligible for free school meals;
·
The
presence of schools with units serving
Schools also receive funding not directly attributable to pupils which
affects the total level of budget received, for example:
·
The
physical size of the building and its grounds;
·
Allocation
of small school protection.
The calculation of unit funding per child is based upon the total budget
divided by the number of pupils on roll, the level of surplus places within
schools can also result in funding differences per pupil.
2. Small
school protection has been a factor within the Leicestershire formula for
funding schools for a considerable amount of time and provides additional
funding for the overheads incurred by a school irrespective of the number of
pupils within it; this type of protection is prevalent in the formulae of many
Councils.
A balance needs to be drawn between supporting small schools financially
to remain able to provide for the needs of children and young people and the
additional costs that could be incurred in the absence of such schools, for
example home to school transport.
A review of the funding formula commissioned by the Schools (Funding)
Forum is currently underway with any changes to the formula being implemented
in 2011. Any changes to the formula need
to be subject to consultation with all schools with changes agreed by the
Schools (Funding) Forum before implementation.
3. (a)
The information available from the
national publication of local authority spend within the annual Section 52
Budget Statement compiled by local authorities does not separate primary,
secondary or special schools but an overall school average can be
obtained. Unfortunately, the 2009/10
information has not yet been published nationally but can be compiled when that
information becomes available.
Average per-pupil funding, across school phases, however, is available
for 2008/09. The average overall
per-pupil funding for Leicestershire was £3,365, the figures for our comparator
authorities were:
Warwickshire £3,401
Worcestershire £3,446
North Somerset £3,357
Hampshire £3,280
Staffordshire £3,486
Bedfordshire £3,580
b) The
nationally published Section 52 benchmarking data only details the average
Individual Schools Budget per pupil and information on this level is not
available."
(B) Mr
Charlesworth CC asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:
"The present system of Shire Community Plus grants works on a first come
first served basis. A better system
might be that those who missed out this year are first on the list next year,
or that smaller grants are given so that all applicants benefit. Will the Leader therefore consider
introducing a system of distributing Shire grants which is fair to all?"
Mr White replied as follows:
"This question refers to SHIRE Community Plus grants which are
provided to community groups and organisations to help with the cost of using
premises each financial year. The
existing system of administering the grant offers up to 50% of hire costs up to
a maximum of £500 to groups and this year 383 groups have been offered funding.
At the beginning of the financial year all groups and organisations that
had previously applied for the grant were contacted regarding the scheme. They were informed that there is a fixed
limit to available funding and that applications should be submitted as soon as
practicable. To date 112 later
applications or enquiries have been unsuccessful. The current system does however give groups
an equal opportunity and allows early applicants to commit to premises charges
in the knowledge that funding is available.
The current system is considered to be the fairest way of distributing a
fixed budget and balancing help to a large number of groups with the provision
of a significant and useful funding contribution to individual groups. Reducing the level of grant would be less
helpful for funded groups with additional administration costs overall for
groups and for the County Council.
I am grateful for suggestions to improve the grant scheme but at the
present time I believe that the arrangements in operation are the fairest and
most effective means of distributing the grant."
Mr Charlesworth
asked the following supplementary question:
"In view of the answer, could I ask the Lead Member whether
consideration could be given to the maximum grant being restricted to £200,
thereby ensuring all applicants get a grant?"
Mr White replied as follows:
"I hear what is said and I acknowledge that it is difficult to make
this process totally fair to everybody, but I am not sure reducing it to that
level would be fair to many groups. I
will look at this again and discuss this with the Director. However, I think that unless we are going to
have some kind of sifting committee that will assess the merit of each grant
before awarding it, which itself will cost money and take time, it may not be
possible to get to a system that is absolutely fair to everybody. I will look at it again, I promise."
(C) Mr Charlesworth
CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
"1. Has there been an inventory kept of all
the artworks donated to this County Council since the end of the Second World
War including those donated to schools?
2. Are
artworks donated to individual schools the property of that school or are they
the property of the County Council?"
Mr White replied as follows:
"1. The
works of art in the Artworks collection have been acquired by the County
Council since the 1950s for educational purposes and are loaned out on a termly or annual basis to schools, colleges, and community
venues. There is a complete inventory of
this collection and a catalogue available.
There is also a collection of museum works of art which is displayed in
the County Council’s museums, loaned to other museum services and used for
research purposes. This is also fully
accessioned and catalogued.
2. In
addition to the
(D) Mr Bailey CC asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:
"Can the Leader please tell me:
1. Whether the Council's current social
care eligibility threshold is still 'Moderate'?
2. If plans are being considered to change
the Council's eligibility threshold?
3. Whether there is any likelihood of the
Council's eligibility threshold level being changed in the foreseeable
future?"
Mr Sprason replied as follows:
"1. Yes.
2. There are no plans at present to change the Council’s eligibility threshold.
3. Given the extent of the financial challenge on the Adult Social Care Service from demand and cost pressures and the need to make savings, it is inevitable that all options will have to be reviewed. Consideration of eligibility criteria will be informed by the outcome of national consultations currently being carried out by the Department of Health on eligibility criteria for adult social care and the future design and funding of the care and support system."
(E) Mr Galton CC
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
"1. Could
the Leader please give details of the exact final cost of the eco-towns process
to the County Council and therefore the tax payers of Leicestershire?
2. Has
any payment been made by the Co-op towards the transport assessment and if not
what action is being taken?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"1. The
full cost to the County Council of responding to the eco-town process,
including the substantial Member and officer time involved, is not known. The revenue costs have totalled nearly
£300,000 including the costs of the transport assessment (£211,000). If Member and officer time is taken into
account we might speculate that the total cost is well over £0.5m.
2. Officers
are still seeking to reach agreement with the Co-operative Group regarding the
costs of the transport assessment. No
payments have yet been made."
(F) Dr Hill CC asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:
"Will
this Council answer the call for evidence by the East Midlands Select Committee
on regional and local funding?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"We are aware of the call but have no record of being approached
directly. We will submit evidence,
although our very poor level of Government funding is now widely
recognised. I have to say I am not
hopeful of any positive outcome."
(G) Mr Boulter CC
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
"Does
the Leader agree with me that the Biffa announcement
of a 300,000 tonne EfW incinerator:
1. If
built would act as a direct competitor to anything developed by Leicestershire
County Council?
2. Poses
a question regarding the original planning permission for the site?
3. Would require the
importation of waste by lorry to feed it?"
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:
"1. Biffa was one of three companies shortlisted in June to continue with the procurement process with the County Council to develop new waste treatment facilities within Leicestershire. The award of the final contract is likely to be towards the end of 2010 and the successful company would be required to manage up to 180,000 tonnes of residual waste by 2040.
If Biffa was unsuccessful the company has stated publicly that it would still go ahead with its proposal but in these circumstances would have no access to the County Council’s residual domestic waste and would not therefore be in competition with any new facilities procured by the County Council. Biffa would need to source suitable commercial and industrial waste equating to approximately 33% of the total waste arising in Leicestershire (over twice as much as household waste).
2. The planning process is separate from the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) procurement and companies are free to apply for planning permission for any type of proposal at any time. The County Council, as the Planning Authority, will deal with any planning application for new waste management facilities.
The planning permission most recently granted to Biffa
Waste for a Materials Recovery Facility, in-vessel composting and landfilling, is in place and capable of being
implemented. If a different planning permission
is granted then the developer will have a choice as to which planning
permission to implement.
3. There
has never been any other mode of access other than by road to the Newhurst site and therefore any waste importation would be
by road. The planning permission most
recently granted restricts vehicle movements per day. Any new planning application will require a
traffic impact assessment."
(H) Mrs Posnett CC
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
"Could the Leader please provide this Council with an update, broken down by district, of the number of people and businesses who have been helped by Citizens Advice Bureaux with issues such as home repossession, debt advice, domestic violence etc as part of their Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with the County Council since the start of the recession in Leicestershire?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"The County Council has for many years provided funding to the County’s
Citizens Advice Bureaux (CABx) to help those residents
who are suffering from debt problems.
The County Council put in place SLAs with the CABx, to provide help for a specified number of cases in
each district council area. From
Mrs Posnett asked the following supplementary
question:
"Can the Leader ensure that when the information is available it can be released to members through the Members' Information Service please?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"I am happy to do that."
(I) Mr Pain CC asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:
"At the 2009 County elections, the Conservatives were re-elected with a pledge to freeze Council Taxes in Leicestershire for at least 3 years. Can the Leader reaffirm to this Council that this is still the intention of the Administration over this and next year's Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and will he continue to resist calls from the Opposition parties to look again at raising Council Tax levels in order to balance the need for £70m savings now that the Prime Minister has agreed the need to cut the level of public expenditure?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"The Conservative Manifesto made it clear that Council Tax would be
frozen for 2 years but this is dependent on a Conservative Government providing
extra support to reduce a budgeted increase of 2½ % to 0 % in 2011/12 and
2012/13. Our revised MTFS
is based on a 2½ % increase in 2010/11 and a 0% increase in 2013/14. I will certainly resist calls from the
Opposition to increase Council Taxes to avoid taking difficult decisions on
savings, as we have a clear mandate for our policy. Indeed I cannot imagine many authorities will
pass up the offer of a new Conservative Government reducing a 2½ % increase to
0 %. Effectively, the choice would be 0
% or an increase substantially above 2½ % which I think is completely
unacceptable in the current and likely future circumstances."
Mr Pain asked the following
supplementary question:
"I believe it is true to say that we are living in a time where
people all over Leicestershire and every business are adjusting their forecasts
and having to find savings within existing budgets in line with the current
economic conditions. So, therefore,
please could I ask the Leader to confirm to this Council that we are not a
special case and that, in line with every other business and family outside
these chambers, we will find the necessary savings through reductions of our
own expenditure?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"Clearly we are going to have to and we are trying to avoid as much
as we can the savage cuts which the Liberal Democrats are attempting to hoist
on us."
(J) Mrs Richards CC asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:
"Can
the Leader please outline the support this Council and officers have given
(capital, revenue and specific grant) to 'GreenTowers'
the Hinckley Club for Young People and indicate whether he is confident this facility,
when completed, will have satisfactory arrangements in place (fixtures,
fittings, equipment, ICT etc) to enable this facility
to maximise its full potential for the local community?"
Mr Hart replied as follows:
"The voluntary youth sector organisation, Clubs for Young People,
together with Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, prepared and submitted the
MyPlace bid for the ‘GreenTowers’
project.
MyPlace bids require sign off by the Chief Executive
of the top-tier authority (i.e. Leicestershire County Council) and this was
provided in July 2008, with feedback to the Chief Executive of Hinckley and
Bosworth Borough Council. That proposal
required the bidding organisations to engage better with the County Council’s
Youth Service and the Connexions Service, and acknowledged that the revenue
aspects of the Business Plan looked very challenging. No financial contribution from the County
Council has been requested by the bidders.
Almost £5m has been
secured from the national lottery and this should guarantee a superb
facility. The bidders are to be
congratulated on their ambitious plan.
The County Council’s Youth Service has met with the club management
committee to discuss how the youth service might be involved (it had been hoped
that youth workers could be based at the facility but it has been confirmed
this week that this will not be possible because of limited office space).
The approach to
Integrated Youth Support Services recognises that many agencies provide
excellent facilities and services to young people and this is a good example of
that approach. The County Council will
do whatever it can to maximise the potential of this wonderful new resource,
however, it should be noted that the County Council is not leading the project
and is not accountable for it."
(K) Mrs
Radford CC asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
"Will
the Leader please comment upon how the 43% reduction in New Growth Point (NGP) Funding allocation for the 6Cs
area (
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"New Growth Point funding is playing a key role in supporting the provision of new homes to meet local needs and to ensure that they are supported by the infrastructure and services needed to ensure new developments are sustainable. I was therefore extremely disappointed by the Government’s shortsighted decision to cut funding to the 6Cs NGP partnership. The impact of this on Leicester and Leicestershire has been a damaging reduction in funding of £2.1m. As a direct result of this, the Leicester and Leicestershire Leadership Board, of which I am joint chairman, has had to reverse earlier decisions to allocate funding to projects.
I am pleased to report that several key schemes for the County and the sub-region, including Birstall Park and Ride, Loughborough Eastern Gateway, Earl Shilton Town Centre and several regeneration schemes in the City have had their NGP funding confirmed through this process but it has been necessary to shelve the allocation of funds to several regeneration schemes in the City and public realm investment of £100k in Loughborough. Officers are currently seeking to identify alternative funds to enable these key investments to proceed.
I am concerned that the Government appears determined to continue imposing high levels of new housing provision on local communities but is cutting funding for the essential infrastructure needed to make those communities attractive and sustainable."
Mrs Radford asked the following supplementary question:
"Will the Leader please use his influence and contacts with the Labour Government to put the case to reinstate these monies that local authorities have planned and budgeted for receiving?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"Whilst I do not over-rate
my influence with Her Majesty's Government, I think the message has got to be
that if they are not going to fund the infrastructure growth then they will not
get the growth in the
(L) Mr Galton CC
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
"1. In
the September issue of ‘Leicestershire Matters’ an article on ‘Hard times and
hard choices’ appeared inviting the residents of Leicestershire to comment on
whether ‘aiming for a 0% council tax increase is right in the
circumstances’. Why are we inviting
people’s views when the Leader has made a clear statement that he is committed
to a 0% council tax rise?
2. As
this is not the only option to achieving the required savings why are we not
engaging in a genuine debate about all options, instead of focusing on a single
emotive issue of council tax at this stage?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"1. As
the answer to Mr Pain’s question makes clear we have a mandate for the
Administration's policy on Council Tax but it is dependent on a new
Conservative Government providing extra support. In my view the attractiveness of the offer of
support to reduce a 2½ % increase to 0% in 2011/12 and 2012/13 is such that it
would be folly to refuse it. The only
real debate on Council Tax is around 2010/11 and 2013/14.
2. I
am always interested in the views of the people of Leicestershire. If there was
very strong evidence of a groundswell of public opinion to have higher Council
Tax increases in these years I would have to consider the position very
carefully."
Mr Galton
asked the following supplementary question:
"I am quite clear of the Leader's mandate and commitment to this
policy but is he aware of the growing body of opinion which suggests that this
is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve in the current
economic situation and, in such circumstances, is this likely to become a
resigning matter?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
"What we are trying here is to make sure that the residents do not
have any increase in their Council Tax.
I think the logic of what is being argued from the Liberal Democrat
benches is that Council Taxes will be increased above the rate of inflation and
if that is the case then they should come clean."