Minutes:
(A) Mrs Hack asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“In the climate of reducing funding, what are the full
cost implications for the County Council running a full library service at
Braunstone Town Library from the date the first community libraries transferred
in late 2015 to the proposed transfer to Fabula in
September 2017?”
Mr Blunt replied as
follows:-
“The cost of running Braunstone Library in 2015/16 was
£42,253
The cost of running Braunstone Library in 2016/17 was
£35,762
The Cabinet report originally proposed a transfer date
for Braunstone Library of March 2017. As
this has been extended to September 2017 – the forecast cost for 2017/18 is
approximately £16,781.”
(B) Mr
Galton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“As the Leader will
be aware, legislation to allow local government to keep 100 per cent of its
business rates has been shelved. The
former Local Government Finance Bill was making its way through parliament
before the General Election but was not reintroduced in the Queen’s
Speech. According to Lord Porter, Local
Government Association Chairman, Councils face an overall funding gap of £5.8
billion by 2020. What assessment has
been made of the implications for the County Council if the Local Government
Finance Bill and the review of the funding formula are not taken forward?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“I also understand
the legislation to allow local government to keep 100% of business rates will
not be taken forward in this parliament. In many respects the most important
element of Local Government finance reform is the Fair Funding review. Although
no mention has been made of this in the Queen’s Speech we understand there
could be a consultation this summer as primary legislation is not required to
change the funding formula.
In any event we
will continue with enthusiasm our Fair Funding campaign and the pressure on
Government to change the current distribution of funding as it is far from
fair.
Our MTFS income
forecasts are prudent and did not assume that the council would receive
increased income from the Local Government Finance Bill. We still anticipate
that we need to save £66m over the next four years.”
Mr Galton asked the following supplementary
question:-
“In the light of
recent events, does the Deputy Leader really think there will be an appetite
for a change in the formula and would we not stand a better chance if we became
the seventh county of Ulster?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“Yes, I am very
optimistic about this. When we had
meetings with the Secretary of State before the Election he was very positive
about our approach. We are the only
Council in the country, as far as I am aware, to put forward a positive
contribution and scheme for redistributing local government grant more
fairly. No-one else has done that, and
it is a scheme which has been examined by many people in other Councils,
including Councils who would not do well out of it, and no-one has found fault
with it. We will continue to press on
with it and I am optimistic that it will succeed. I hope that the Liberal Democrat Group will
support us in that in the months ahead.”
(C) Mr Kaufman asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“Lately I have
received a lot of complaints from families who have moved into Oadby and have been unable to get places for their children
in local schools as they are all full.
This wasn’t the case just five years ago and has only recently become a
major issue.
Is the Leader aware
of this problem and does he have a plan to address it?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“I am aware of the
situation relating to availability of primary places for children moving into Oadby in-year. The
reason for the changes from five years ago is that academies may set their own
admission policy and criteria and are therefore no longer required to follow
the local authority policy that requires schools to accept pupils moving into
the catchment area.
Of the five primary
schools in Oadby, three are academies; within the
last five years all three have moved away from the local authority admission
policy and no longer admit pupils above their admission number under any
circumstances. In these cases places are
offered at the next nearest school that has places in the relevant year
group. Due to the popularity of the
schools in Oadby, there are very few places available
and it is also proving increasingly difficult to place siblings in the same
school.
In anticipation of
this situation and in consultation with the schools involved, we have already
explored a number of measures to ease the pressure, however it is a very
difficult situation to address as the law prohibits the reservation of school
places for potential in-year applicants.
Due to the popularity of these schools any extra places provided are
quickly filled by children from outside of the Oadby
area, leaving very few remaining places for pupils moving into the area.
We are continually
monitoring the situation and are considering a number of options with schools
and academies including the provision of additional places in the greater Oadby area and raising awareness of the difficulties in
securing places in-year at an Oadby school.
There are two local
authority maintained primary schools in the area. Both are currently over their
admission number and are unable to admit any additional children other than
those moving into their catchment areas.
In terms of
secondary provision, there are no current in-year issues due to the fact that
all three schools have modelled their admission policies on the local
authority’s policy. However from autumn
2017 onwards all three Oadby secondary school will be
operating under their new admission policies and will no longer admit pupils
over the admission number in-year.”
Mr Kaufman asked the following supplementary
question:-
“In the third
paragraph of the answer, the Lead Member said that “we have already explored a
number of measures to ease the pressure” and I would like to ask if you could
share with me what areas you have explored to overcome this really serious problem?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“Over the next few
weeks there will be a series of meetings, which all Councillors have been
invited to attend, to look at the demographic profiles for each district or
borough council. The first meeting took
place today, for Melton, and I think that when we have the meeting for Oadby and Wigston, which I am
sure Mr Kaufman will want to attend, we will be able to answer his question
more comprehensively than I am able to do today.”
(D) Mr Welsh asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“Following the
Ofsted report on our Children and Family services earlier in the year, can the
Leader please tell me when members will receive a detailed action plan to
address the issues raised, with details including milestones and funding
requirements?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“We have developed
a plan on a page and detailed action plan following the Ofsted inspection. An initial version has been presented to the
Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee. A final version will be presented to the
Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee in September covering all
areas requested by Mr Welsh.”
(E) Mr Galton asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“In March, the
Cabinet responded to a consultation issued by the Department for Education on
the implementation of the National Funding Formula for Schools with concerns
over how Leicestershire schools would be affected. An estimated 151 schools in
Leicestershire were expected to lose out as a result. Has the Leader received any kind of response
yet in terms of what the Government intends to do next? Are there any signs that they have taken
these concerns on board?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“Leicestershire is
one of a number of authorities that have responded to the consultation. There
has to date been no response from the DfE on the outcome
of the consultation and on the proposed implementation of the National Funding
Formula, neither has there been any indication on the timescale for any
response.”
(F) Mrs Broadley
asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. At
a recent MTFS briefing it was highlighted that there are a number of unfunded
posts relating to the 2014 Care Act. What is the cost of these posts and what
action does the Leader intend to take?
2. Does
the Leader accept that the Dilnot proposals, that
were put into law in the 2014 Care Act but never implemented, will now be
abandoned?
3. In
the Queen’s Speech it was announced that there would be another Government
consultation on social care. Does the Leader agree that this is just another
delay and excuse for inaction?”
Mr Blunt replied as follows:-
“1. The
Care Act 2014 was implemented on a phased basis with the wellbeing elements of
the Act being implemented in April 2015 and the financial elements planned for implementation
in April 2016. In the lead up to implementation the Government released
additional monies to local government through the Better Care Fund and other
specific grants to assist in the implementation and to meet the additional
demands imposed by the Act. In anticipation of the implementation of the
legislative reforms a number of staff were employed
prior to April 2016 to undertake assessment and support planning. Following the
decision to delay the implementation of the second phase of the Act, the
Government withdrew some of the additional funding which left the Council in a
position of having a number of unfunded posts.
As of April 2016 the Adults and Communities Department had identified a
total of 48FTE posts which did not have permanent funding attached to them at a
cost of £2.37m. In October 2016 the Department commenced a restructuring of the
workforce. The result of this service restructure is that as of the start of
this financial year the Department had identified savings of £1.63m against
departmental staffing budgets and had dealt with the majority of the posts
which were unfunded. The remaining posts which do not have permanent funding
are required to ensure that there is capacity to review all service users and
to implement the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy over the next three
years and will be subject to a growth bid by the Department for consideration
by the Council for the next financial year.
2. The
financial reforms were to be implemented as phase 2 of the Care Act in 2016, however the Government took the decision to delay the
implementation for further consideration until 2020. The Queen’s Speech indicated that there is to
be a further national consultation on the funding of social care which may
determine either that the approach suggested by Sir Andrew Dilnot
should be taken forward or that a different approach should be adopted.
3. The
future funding of adult social care is an important issue and one which
requires careful thought and consideration. The outcome of any change to
current funding arrangements will have a significant consequence on the people
in receipt of care services, their families, local authorities, the NHS and the
wider community. By announcing a consultation the Government are ensuring that social
care funding remains a priority for consideration by Parliament.”
Mrs Broadley asked
the following supplementary question:-
“The Lead Member
has answered my question 1 but the second paragraph reads: ‘The result of this
service restructure is that as of the start of this financial year the
Department had identified savings of £1.63m against departmental staffing
budgets and had dealt with the majority of the posts which were unfunded’. Can I have clarification of what ‘dealt’
means?”
Mr Blunt replied as follows:-
“I think you will
realise from the reply that it is quite a technical issue and I would like to
do a written response to Mrs Broadley.”
(G) Mr Parton asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“Recently there has
been a spate of vehicle thefts in a specific part of Loughborough South. One
resident, despite being most security conscious, had his car taken from the
driveway.
Upon calling the
County Council for a replacement Residents’ Preferential Parking Scheme Permit,
he was advised that he must pay £50 for a new issue to be sent out. This is a
higher amount for a resident who simply has changed their vehicle.
Given
that vehicle thefts are distressing enough, please would the Leader either
urgently address this issue and reduce the replacement fee, or waive the fee
altogether?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
“Permit holders
will be aware that the Council’s policy states the cost for replacing a
lost/stolen permit is £50.00. However, the Council will normally exercise
discretion and re-issue a permit for a £10.00 administration fee if this is the
first time it has happened. The £10.00 fee is the same as that charged for a
vehicle change.
The only exception
to this is that, where a generic permit has been issued, the £50.00 would
continue to apply. Generic permits can
be used in any vehicle and are issued in circumstances where a resident may use
different vehicles, for example work purposes.
I would advise the
resident to contact the Council’s Notice Processing Unit with their crime
reference number to discuss the specific details of this case.”