Minutes:
(A) Mr Charlesworth asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:-
“What progress has been made on the
Combined Authority bid?”
Mr Rushton replied as follows:-
“The submission remains with the Department for Communities
and Local Government.”
(B) Mr Charlesworth asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Will
Leicestershire County Council be following Derbyshire’s lead in removing the
CEO post and saving around £250,000 per year?”
Mr Rushton
replied as follows:-
“No.”
(C) Mr Charlesworth asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:-
“In the
recent edition of ‘Leicestershire Matters’ it mentions a £355 million boost for
roads and transport. How much of this
£355 million has been secured?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
As the article states “We have road and
transport projects worth £355 million on the way, some of which have already
secured funding”. This breaks
down as:
- £31m grant funding and developer
contribution paid*
- £49m developer contribution agreed*
- £105m current bid submission*
- £137m for major schemes that would be
delivered by partners (Network Rail and Highways England)
- £33m worth of schemes* will be developed
with bids submitted as and when appropriate funding schemes emerge
*County Council
schemes
(D) Mr Charlesworth asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Did
Leicestershire County Council officers make any contribution (formal or
informal) to the deliberations of the Remuneration Panel? And if so, what was that contribution?”
Mr Rushton replied as follows:-
“Yes in the form of an information and options paper. In accordance with the usual procedures a
copy was provided to each Group Leader prior to submission to the Panel.”
(E) Mr Charlesworth asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:-
“How many
FTE Librarians are currently employed by Leicestershire County Council?”
Mr Blunt replied as follows:-
“6.3 FTE
professionally qualified librarians.”
(F) Mr Charlesworth asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:-
“Does
Leicestershire County Council monitor the financial health of Care Home
providers it uses for its placements?”
Mr Blunt replied as follows:-
“Yes.”
(G) Mr Charlesworth asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:-
“At the Cabinet meeting on the 23rd June this year, an
agenda item was a paper on District Council collection of council tax.
(a) What was the response from the Districts
to the proposed review?
(b) Leicester City’s collection rate is only
97% (worse than any Leicestershire District).
As this seriously affects the collection for Leicestershire’s Police and
Fire Services, was the proposed review offered to the City as well?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:-
“(a) The County Council
proposed to pay for a review of council tax that covered the following themes:
• Policy – do the current principles
allow the optimum level of council tax to be billed?
• Collection – do the current operational
processes and arrangements allow collection of billed amounts to be maximised?
• Planning – can the accuracy of
forecasts be improved?
The Cabinet report provided
detailed evidence to support the need for such a review and the review was
supported by both the Leicestershire Police and Crime
Commissioner and the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Fire and Rescue
Service.
All District Treasurers
nevertheless rejected the idea of such a review, which is disappointing given
the extremely tight financial position being faced by the County Council, and
other preceptors, and the fact that in a few years council tax will generate
over £300m of income for the County Council. As such it is important that
council tax is collected as efficiently and effectively as possible. I am not
sure how anyone could argue against such a review.
Districts councils, however, are
in the process of sharing current practice on forecasting and have been asked
to develop performance management information so the preceptors have a better
view of their performance.
(b) Leicester City Council is a unitary
authority and makes its own decisions which we respect. Clearly the County Council is interested in
the effectiveness of district council tax forecasting and collection as they
provide the precept for the county.”
(H) Mr Parton asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:-
“Could the Leader please provide me with an update on
average speed – camera pilots?”
Mr Pain replied as follows:-
“The introduction
of Average Speed Camera Pilots is being undertaken with the cooperation of the
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Road Safety Partnership. The procurement process for the purchase of
average speed cameras is anticipated to be complete in October. The signage work at the seven pilot sites:
·
A50 Bradgate Hill, Groby
·
B676
Saxby Road, Freeby
·
Burton
Road, Measham
·
A6
Harborough Road and Glen Road, Oadby
·
B4114
Leicester Road, Sharnford
·
A4304 Lutterworth Road, Walcote
·
Beacon
Road, Woodhouse Eaves
is nearly complete. In addition arrangements
are being put in place for before and after data analysis.
With the award of
contract due in October we anticipate that the earliest implementation for
cameras will be in the New Year.
Communities/parishes
in the pilot areas will be kept updated with progress once the contract has
been signed.”
(I) Mr Welsh asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:-
“1. Many
Members will have been surprised at the urgent Cabinet report detailing the
plan to deliver the Early Support and Inclusion Services on the basis of an
in-house provision and also the letter from Menphys
sent to members of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny
Committee. Could the Leader explain why
the report did not appear on the original agenda, let alone the Forward Plan
given the report states that this issue has been ongoing for over several
months and why the sudden and unexpected Cabinet decision?
2. The
Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee members did not have an
opportunity to comment on this issue.
Does the Leader not think that it would have been better for this matter
to be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee before it was discussed
by the Cabinet?
3. In
light of the lack of any internal track record of delivering of such services
in-house, is this approach not reckless in the extreme?
4. As
the amount of the contract is relatively low and the savings small, would it
not be more sensible to sit down with Menphys, who
are held in such high esteem by the public of Leicestershire and find a way
forward that utilises the well-developed skills of Menphys
for wellbeing of families of disabled children in Leicestershire?”
Mr Ould replied as follows:-
“1,2,3 The contractual arrangements with Menphys or a similar provider would not normally be a
matter for Cabinet decision. Given the
attitude of Menphys lobbying against County Council
officers and their consistent references to the Lead Member, it was judged
appropriate to report the Council’s position to Cabinet so it could be
officially on the record. I understand
the Menphys letter to the Scrutiny Committee was sent
by Menphys and not placed on the agenda by officers
as it was received late on Friday, 8th September, with the Scrutiny
meeting taking place on Monday, 11th September. There was no reason within the Constitution
for this matter to appear on the Forward Plan.
I disagree completely in respect of the assertion made by Mr Welsh in
question 3.
4. As
the report to the Cabinet explained, the Council’s contract and procurement
rules do not allow further extension of the contract, which Menphys
had requested on their terms. The
Council is under no obligation to retender the provision.”