Minutes:
(A) Dr Eynon asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. How
much did the failure of the TLC Help to Live at Home contract cost this Council
in staff overtime and time off in lieu?
2. What
lessons has this Authority learned from this experience regarding
its contracting and commissioning processes?"
Mr Houseman replied as follows:-
“1. The
Council will be calculating the cost to it in officer time in managing the
failure of TLC to deliver care. As the Council is currently in legal
dispute with TLC, information about such costs is considered commercially
sensitive and cannot therefore be disclosed at this time.
2. Similarly,
the Council will conduct a “lessons learned” exercise following resolution of
the current ongoing dispute with TLC.”
Dr Eynon asked the following supplementary question:-
“I understand the issues in the answer but
I’m aware learning lessons from significant events ideally take place whilst
matters are still fresh in people’s minds and I would like the Lead Member to
assure this Council that timely review exercises are in fact taking place and
that the learning from these will be available for Scrutiny and dissemination
as soon as the legal dispute referred to is resolved.”
Mr Houseman replied as follows:-
“Thank you very much for the question Dr
Eynon. I agree with the points you are
making. Of course the matter hasn’t been
resolved yet that we were referring to in the reply but we did hold a Help to
Live at Home Learning and Recognition event at Beaumanor Hall on the 20th
January 2017. I took the opportunity to
thank the staff for the work that they had done before, during and after
Christmas because of the problems with Help to Live at Home, which are in some
cases still ongoing, and there will be a report from that event as to what the
staff themselves thought. I found it
very useful, I got a far better understanding of the problems from their view
point and we would be very pleased to share that information with you in due
course.”
(B) Dr
Eynon asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"As this Council implements
it Workplace Wellbeing strategy with the aim to reducing absenteeism, how much
investment has gone into procuring external sickness-absence management
solutions for the next financial year?"
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“As reported to Employment Committee, the
Council is contracting with an external company who will from April 2017
provide an absence triage service.
The pilot is based on just over 1430 people, and
a monthly charge per person of £3.10, the contract value is approximately
£53,000.
Based on experience, the company is confident
that sickness levels in the pilot areas will reduce, and the predicted savings
for year 2 are in excess of the cost”.
Dr Eynon asked the following supplementary question:-
“I would like to ask how will the
effectiveness of this investment be evaluated beyond that mentioned. Will this include measures of staff morale,
productivity and turnover?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“I think I’ve got to look into that in a
little bit more detail. We’ve made the
contract with this company and they will find what they find and we will look
into everything that we need to in order to bring about a situation where we
start to reduce the level of absenteeism.”
(C) Mr Hunt asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:-
“Would the Leader tell Council:
1. For
each financial year since 2011/12:-
(a) What funds have been
applied to meet demands for road safety projects (e.g. to address speeding,
increase safety for pedestrians and cyclists, or reduce risk of collisions) on
the county's road network, excluding safety provisions within capital road
projects?
(b) How many dedicated road
safety projects were these funds applied to?
(c) How many road safety
project assessments were made and how many resulted in action being taken?
2. When did the Road Safety
Partnership become active in determining which projects went forward and which
did not?”
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
“1(a) The majority of physical
road safety engineering schemes are funded as capital road projects within the
Council’s capital programme. The
investment in these schemes totals in excess of £20 million over the past 5 years. In addition, the Council has been successful
in securing in excess of £5m Local Sustainable Transport Fund which also
encourages safe walking and cycling throughout Leicestershire.
Revenue funding
for road safety projects is limited to minor traffic engineering schemes (such
as changes to speed limits, signing or lining schemes), road safety education,
community speed watch and school crossing patrols.
£4,465,046 has
been spent on revenue funded road safety activity between 2011/12 and 2015/16
as detailed below:
|
2011/12 |
2012/13 |
2013/14 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
|
|
Road Safety Education, covering more than 20 projects each year including Bikeability
cyclist training, pedestrian training, pre-driver days, motorcyclist safety
and the older driver programme SAGE. |
175,000 |
148,000 |
176,000 |
158,000 |
136,000 |
|
Community Speed Watch, typically 30 schemes run each year helping communities to tackle
speeding concerns. |
47,319 |
52,894 |
53,906 |
52,000 |
38,000 |
|
School Crossing Patrol
Service, over 100 sites helping thousands of
children and parents on the school journey each day. |
351,000 |
345,000 |
370,000 |
355,000 |
311,000 |
|
Minor Traffic
Management Programme - Traffic management
budget. Average 25 schemes per year |
259,000 |
335,000 |
500,927 |
336,000 |
265,000 |
|
Total |
832,319 |
880,894 |
1,100,833 |
901,000 |
750,000 |
1(b) On
average these funds were applied on the following per year:
· Road Safety projects: 25 per annum
· Road safety Education projects: 20 per annum
· Community Speed Watch: 30 per annum
· School Crossing patrols: Over 100 sites
1(c) During the period 2011/12
to 2015/16, 176 road safety investigations were undertaken resulting in a total
of 52 projects being taken forward into capital programmes.
|
Year |
Road safety assessments |
Schemes that have resulted from those investigations |
|
2011/12 |
47 |
14 |
|
2012/13 |
34 |
12 |
|
2013/14 |
35 |
13 |
|
2014/15 |
37 |
8 |
|
2015/16 |
23 |
5 |
|
Total |
176 |
52 |
2. The Leicester,
Leicestershire and Rutland Road Safety Partnership is not active in determining
which projects are taken forward by the County Council. The Partnership operates and maintains Safety
Cameras throughout Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland area and reinvests any
surpluses from the associated driver education workshops in road safety
activity across the LLR partnership area.”
(D) Mr Galton asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“The Leader will no doubt be aware of the
recent appalling case of a horse being dumped on the roadside near Skeffington and
left to die in freezing conditions. Sadly this is not the first time a horse
has been dumped either dead or alive in my Division and other members may be
aware of similar callous acts in their areas.
Could the Leader please clarify:
1. The County Council’s
responsibilities with regard to dead or abandoned horses found on:
· the public highway?
· private land?
2. Could the Leader also
advise on the duties and responsibilities of other agencies such as district
councils, Defra etc. in relation to dealing with such incidents?”
Mr Osborne replied as
follows:-
“1. The County Council has
powers under the Control of Horses Act 2015 to seize and
remove horses on the public highway. We
would usually try to identify the owner and encourage them to remove the animal
in the first instance as using our formal powers is likely to lead to the
seizure and disposal of the animal and the recovery of all costs from the
individual.
In terms of dead
horses or other animals on the highway, the County Council’s responsibility is
to ensure that the location is made safe whilst the removal of the animal is
arranged by the relevant District Council under their statutory duties.
On private land
the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 regulate the
disposal of animal by-products. A person
who fails to dispose of a dead horse without undue delay and by an approved
method commits an offence.
The County
Council’s Trading Standards Service is the appropriate enforcement
authority. However, an investigation
often fails to identify the perpetrator and the landowner, in some cases the
local authority, will inevitably incur the cost of an appropriate disposal.
2. The Horse Passport
Regulations 2009 require a foal to be microchipped before it is six months old. This is done through a passport issuing
organisation (PIO). There are around 80
PIOs, but no central register, making it extremely difficult for an enforcement
agency to identify current registered owner details. The accuracy of the system relies on details
being kept up to date as a horse changes ownership. The County Council does not bear a statutory
responsibility to carry out spot checks to ensure horses are microchipped. It is often the case that a dead horse found
in these circumstances will have no identifying microchip. Whilst these regulations fall within the
trading standards remit, new EU regulations aimed at revising horse
identification controls were introduced recently, rendering the existing regulations
unenforceable. Parliament has yet to
introduce domestic legislation to implement the new EU regulations.
The County
Council’s Trading Standards Service Animal Health Team investigate and when
appropriate, institute proceedings for breaches of animal welfare legislation,
but this enforcement role is primarily concerned with farmed animals within the
food chain. However, when officers are
made aware of non-farm welfare issues, matters will be referred to
Leicestershire Police, RSPCA, and World Horse Welfare as appropriate.”
(E) Mr Sheahan asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“Is the Leader
aware of the frustration and annoyance felt by local residents in my division
and in many other divisions at the inadequate enforcement of weight
restrictions on local roads, due to a lack of police resources?
Is he also aware
of the LGA call for councils to be given the ability to enforce weight
restrictions where there are hotspots of abuse in communities by issuing fines,
and will he commit the County Council to back this call and urge the Government
to enact the necessary secondary legislation to bring the relevant powers
contained in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (part 6) into force in England?”
Mr Osborne replied as
follows:-
“I am aware of
the concerns regarding enforcement of weight restrictions in many other
divisions across the County. I share the
frustration that as a Council whilst we may be able to make many restrictions
to benefit our residents we are unable to enforce them.
I am aware and
fully support the LGA’s call for the Government to enact fully the powers
contained in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (part 6) so that Councils have the
necessary powers to take enforcement action where necessary.
I also fully
endorse the LGA in its drive to ensure lorry drivers use commercial Sat
Navs. Commercial Sat Navs include weight
restrictions, low bridge heights, width restrictions and roads unsuitable for
HGV traffic and will route the HGV traffic on the most appropriate road. This would help alleviate the level of
infringement of restrictions on the road network currently being experienced
not only in Leicestershire but across the country.”
(F) Mr Sheahan asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“From April 2017, employers with a payroll in
excess of £3million will be affected by the national Apprenticeship Levy which
will amount to 0.5% of the total payroll.
(a) Is the Leader aware that
for Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools, where the County Council is the
employer, the payroll costs are aggregated and therefore these schools will be
affected, whereas Voluntary Aided Schools, Stand Alone Academies and smaller
Multi Academy Trusts (MATs) would be exempt as their payroll is likely to be
below the £3m threshold and that this will result in them being treated
differently compared to other schools?
(b) Could the Leader please
advise me as to what measures the County Council could take to ensure that our
Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools are not unfairly disadvantaged?”
Mr Rhodes replied as
follows:-
“I am aware of the forthcoming Apprenticeship
Levy. Officers have been working on what
it means for the Council and for schools, and looking at opportunities to
increase the number of Apprenticeships across a range of vocations and
professional areas.
(a) In summary, the position
related to schools and academies, who have received a briefing note on the
arrangements, is as follows:
Community schools (including voluntary controlled
schools) - local authorities will typically be
responsible for paying the levy in community schools they maintain, where the
local authority employs the staff. We
expect the cost of the levy to be passed on to schools. Where the local authority is the employer, schools
will have access to funding for apprenticeship training.
Foundation and voluntary aided schools - typically employ their own staff so they will be responsible for
paying the levy.
Standalone academies - The Trusts of standalone academies will typically be responsible for
paying the levy where they are the employer.
Academies that are part of multi-academy trusts - generally employ the
staff in their academies, and will be responsible for paying the levy.
In relation to small employers, including small academies and multi
academy trusts, the government will pay 90% of the cost of apprenticeship
training and assessment for employers that have a pay bill of less than £3m and
who have used all the funds in their digital account. The employer will be required to pay the
remaining 10%.
(b) To
ensure that that Community and Voluntary Aided schools are not disadvantaged
following the implementation of the Levy and their financial contribution to
it, they will be able to access funding from the levy where they identify
feasible apprenticeship opportunities.
The County Council is currently a provider of apprenticeships to some
of our Community and Voluntary Aided schools with the cost incurred, coming
from the school’s budget. Following the
levy, the funding will come from the County Council’s Levy account.
Officers will be running briefings for maintained schools in March to
identify where apprenticeships can add value to them and to discuss the
increased vocational range of apprenticeships which will be available to
them. These include new apprenticeships
for both teaching assistants and teachers.
The Government wants local authorities and schools to work together,
using the levy to meet skills gaps and plan future workforce needs, this is an
approach that the Council is committed to, following the implementation of the
levy.”
(G) Mr Charlesworth asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“I have been informed a Blaby District
service user who states that carers were brought in from as far as Southampton
and Warwick to deal with the problems experienced at the launch of the Help to
Live at Home (HTLAH) Scheme. Can the Leader:-
1. Provide a full list of those providers who
were commissioned by Help to Live at Home to meet the needs of service users
and who experienced difficulties in delivering to the service they were
contracted for?
2. Confirm whether it’s true that carers have
had to be drafted in from all over the UK to care for service users in
Leicestershire as a result of this?
3. Reveal how much Leicestershire County Council
had to pay in travel and accommodation costs for these carers?”
Mr Houseman replied as
follows:-
“1. The appointed providers were identified on
the map showing the lots covered by each provider, which was issued along with
the HTLAH stakeholder bulletins circulated to all members during November 2016. The stakeholder bulletins and answers
provided to the question raised at the last County Council meeting refer to the
operational difficulties experienced during the mobilisation period. A further copy can be provided to Mr
Charlesworth if required.
We are aware operational difficulties
affected a number of locations during the mobilisation period, including the
Blaby area. These were due to problems
with recruitment in specific locations, and the impact of the contingency plan
we needed to enact for the lots that were vacated by the provider, TLC. This meant all available staff resources
across Leicestershire were stretched to capacity during the first few weeks of
the service.
2. It is a matter for each provider as to
how they resource the services they have been contracted to provide. We are aware that in the early stages of the
contract, due to the reasons noted above, some providers brought staff in from
other parts of their business to support the mobilisation of the new contract
in Leicestershire.
3. The Council has not been asked to pay for
these costs, nor would it be appropriate for providers to make this
request. Again it is a matter for the
providers themselves should they need to cover such costs in delivering the
service.”