Agenda item

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

 

“Could the Leader please tell me if the County Council are exploring or advocating any changes to waste collection arrangements?  If so could you outline what these changes are?”

 

Mr Pain replied as follows:-

 

“Waste collection is the responsibility of District Councils and each authority makes its own decisions in relation to the waste collection services it provides. 

 

The Leicestershire Waste Partnership, which consists of the 7 District Councils as well as the County Council, is working with consultants to explore the options for providing a county-wide food waste collection service to achieve both improved performance and realise budgetary savings.  A number of high level options have been modelled by the consultants but there is no commitment by any of the partner authorities to implement the modelled options at this time.  It will remain a concern if the district councils are not able to realise savings opportunities which are clearly available from waste collection.”  

 

Mr Bray asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Thank you for the response to question one.  In the second paragraph, is one of the options being considered a move to three weekly collection?”

 

Mr Pain replied as follows:-

 

“I couldn’t possibly answer as we are not responsible for collection of waste at the County Council.”

 

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

 

“The Hinckley Times (25^th June) reported that the County Council is proposing to sell off £28 million of its land and property assets as part of the Corporate Asset Management Plan.  Could the Leader confirm if any of these assets are in Hinckley and Bosworth, and if so could he provide me with a list of what they are?”

 

Mr Pain replied as follows:-

 

“It would be a pity if Mr Bray relied on the local newspaper for his understanding of the County Council’s intentions when he had the opportunity to read the wealth of information contained within the 50 plus pages of the Plan and accompanying documents which went through Scrutiny and Cabinet last month.  Any disposals will be progressed through the Council’s approval processes.  Sites can be commercially sensitive but members will be advised if a proposal is likely to affect their division.”

 

Mr Bray asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Can the Lead Member point out to me which page actually lists the assets and if it isn’t in the document, could he supply me with one?”

 

Mr Pain replied as follows:-

 

“As stated in the response, the Corporate Asset Management Plan consists of over 50 pages of information and the proposals are split under the relevant departments of the authority.  I am sure there will be certain assets that pertain to the Hinckley and Bosworth area, and so under the sensitive issues procedure we will notify the relevant members accordingly as and when decisions are taken to dispose of relevant assets.”

 

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

 

“In the past I have raised concerns about the need for a pedestrian crossing in Mount Road near to Hurst Road, this will be needed more than ever with the imminent opening of a new leisure centre in the town centre.  Would the Leader please ask officers to once again consider this request?”

 

Mr Osborne replied as follows:-

 

“Members will be aware that the Hinckley area was identified as a focus for investment with a view to stimulating economic growth, minimising congestion and reducing carbon emissions. A four phase programme of work in the Hinckley area (the Hinckley Area Project) aims to improve the transport network in and around Hinckley to support these objectives.

 

The first three phases of the project, which includes the construction of cycle, walking, bus and safety measures, are now well underway. Phase 4 of the project will focus on Hinckley Town Centre and involve a review of the major junctions and strategic signing network in the town and joining up with the cycle and walking network currently being constructed. Once proposals have been developed they will be subject to a future funding bid to the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership.

 

Mount Road and Hurst Road are within the area of focus for this fourth phase of the project and the request for a crossing in this location will be considered as part of this work.”

 

(D)   Dr Eynon asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

 

"The patient is the only person who attends all appointments across health and social care systems, yet Leicestershire's health and social care IT systems still lack patient-centred inter-operability to promote self-care.

 

What opportunities exist for this Council to adopt a patient/client portal that is not organisation or supplier-specific and how could this be pursued?"

 

Mr Houseman replied as follows:-

 

“The Council is working closely with the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland health and social care community to ensure greater sharing of data between care professionals and with patients through the Better Care Together Programme.

 

The procurement of new IT systems in health and social care adhere to national interoperability standards that allow systems to be connected. Work is ongoing to allow the NHS number to be the primary identifier across all health and social care organisations to allow records and information to be more easily shared.

 

A number of other initiatives are also taking place, including –

 

• Patients in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland have access to a summary of their care records, and further work is taking place nationally and locally to allow patients access to their full GP health records. This will be available at most GP practices by April 2016.
• University Hospitals of Leicester is working on a patient portal to provide access to information on relevant services. They will work with other partners to ensure that feeds from other services can be included.
• A health and wellbeing hub is being developed to provide information and advice on local services, especially in relation to prevention and support. This will be available to professionals in the autumn and then the public early in 2016.
• Work is also underway to develop a ‘whole system’ view of health and social care data to support evidence based decision making.
• A successful application has been made to the NHS Test Beds Programme for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland to be a test bed site for using data to improve patient care.”

 

Dr Eynon asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Could I thank the Lead Member for the very informative set of answers.  I was wondering if the Lead Member is aware of a patient/client portal known as “Patients Know Best” which is one of seventeen NHS Innovation Accelerator schemes aimed at breaking down barriers to information sharing.  Does the Lead Member agree with me that any solution for health and social care integration that leaves the patient, who should be at the heart of the system, unable to see or share their own information is unacceptable?”

 

Mr Houseman replied as follows:-

 

“Thank you Dr Eynon.  I must say that I found the question and so-called supplementary convoluted and confusing.  I am not sure whether it was a supplementary question, a statement or just something you wanted to talk about whilst we were all here at the County Council today.  I do share your concerns, will seek further advice and will talk to you about these outside the meeting if you wish.”

 

(E)   Mr Charlesworth asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-

 

“1.    Did Mr Orson disclose any of the contents of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s letter dated the 24^th June to anyone prior to the meeting of the Police and Crime Panel on the 25^th?

 

2.     When did the Leader become aware of/or see the Police and Crime Commissioner’s letter of the 24^th?

 

3.     Did the Chief Executive of Leicestershire County Council see or become aware of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s letter of the 24^th prior to the meeting of the Police and Crime Panel on the 25^th?

 

4.     Did the Leader contact the Police and Crime Commissioner on the 24^th June and ask him to “take a different course of action?”

 

Mr Rushton replied as follows:-

 

“I am sorry that the Police and Crime Commissioner decided to challenge publicly Mr Orson’s integrity and I am also sorry that Mr Charlesworth is asking such questions now since they serve no purpose.  We need to move on and I see the Commissioner has said on his website this morning that he hopes to be back at work next week.  That, of course, is a totally different position from what he reported to the Panel that he was “compelled to take a period of extended absence due to incapacitating ill-health”.  What the Panel did not know when they met was that the Commissioner had tweeted an hour before the meeting that he hoped to be back in a couple of weeks, but a circular letter last week from the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner confirmed that the Commissioner was on extended sick leave.  Clearly there appears to have been some confusion, but not of the Panel’s or the County Council’s making.

 

All I, Mr Orson and the County Council as Secretariat to the Police and Crime Panel have tried to do is to help Sir Clive Loader.  It had been known for some time that he had a serious back problem.  Whilst we wish him well and hope he is not returning to work too soon, that should not detract from the wholly unacceptable situation whereby an unelected official can simply take over the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner when he is incapacitated.  Mr Orson and the Panel were absolutely right to take up the matter with the Government.  I am pleased that the Home Secretary has said to Mr Orson in her response that the Panel should be commended for giving the matter serious consideration.”

 

Mr Charlesworth asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Would the Leader confirm or deny that Mr Orson leaked the letter?”

 

Mr Rushton replied as follows:-

 

“Of course Mr Orson did not leak the letter.  I don’t think there was anything to leak.  As far as I know there was a lot more in the public domain than was at first perceived.”