ITEM CC1OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILMINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 1 November 2005 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 5.55 pm Present: Councillor MRS CATHERINE FULLJAMES – in the chair Councillors:
The Council considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda and reports, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.
77/05. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
(Agenda Item 1) RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 13 September 2005 be approved and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendments:
Minute 75/05 (Motion from Councillor Kieron Mallon)
"The
substantive motion was put to the vote and was carried 78/05. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
(Agenda Item 2) Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cartledge, Dhall, Mrs Higham, Lamont, Service and Wyatt.
79/05. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
(Agenda Item 3) The following interests were declared:
80/05. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Agenda Item 4) The Chairman:
(a)
reported
the death on 15 September 2005 of former County Councillor Roy Tudor
Hughes; Councillors Mitchell, Purse, Harris and Simmons paid tribute to Mr Tudor-Hughes. Councillor Stone paid tribute to Miss Thomson. The Council observed a minute’s silence in their memory.
81/05. APPOINTMENTS
(Agenda Item 5) RESOLVED: to appoint:
82/05. PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
(Agenda Item 6) (a) Mr M Hugh-Jones - Agenda Item 17 - Motion from Councillor Craig Simmons In 1960, I bought a cottage in Dorchester-on-Thames and decided to take an interest in local affairs. I was elected in 1973 as an Independent councillor to Wallingford District Council, later South Oxfordshire District Council. I was re-elected in 1976 and 1979 with increased majorities. I realise there is no point voting in general elections because the results depend on a few thousand undecided voters in a few dozen marginal seats and the number of MPs elected for each party bears no relation to the number of votes cast for each party. This also applies to local elections in England. In May this year, the Conservative Group received about 35% of the votes and other parties 65% but 43 Conservatives were elected and 31 from other parties. This is unrepresentative. Democracy, as I learnt at Oxford, is either direct or representative but this Council is neither. I no longer expect genuine democracy in England in my life-time. This year I made a will leaving £100 to the Electoral Reform Society which seeks the introduction of a fair voting system in England as in Scotland. (b) Mr MacKeith - Agenda Item 12 - Motion from Councillor Liz Brighouse and Agenda Item 19 - Motion from Councillor Larry Sanders I am speaking on behalf of the Oxfordshire Private Finance Initiative Alert Group and for the Executive of the Oxford and District Trades Union Council and as a former member of the Oxfordshire Community Health Council. Newspapers in 1948 made it clear that the setting up of the National Health Service was the logical outcome of years of failures, and of the inadequacy and fragmentary nature of private provision of health care. Unfortunately, privatisation is the mantra of this government. A private eye treatment centre has been forced upon us. We now have private finance initiatives, the LIFT projects, fragmentation of services, bogus patient choice and patient led services mantras and a requirement that 15% of patient treatment in the NHS must be provided by the private sector. We consider that all these impact adversely on public health and should be the concern of the health scrutiny function of this Council. I was at the Strategic Health Authority meeting when the decision to privatise commissioning of primary health care in Oxfordshire was taken. The Chief Executive said that it was not about privatising the NHS. He said that the only telephone call showing interest in bidding for the work since the announcement had been from within the NHS. In fact private companies are already in discussion with the Authority. With hardly any debate, the Board Members then voted for the privatisation of the services. A petition from the public had not been allowed to be presented to the Board until after the vote had been taken. We have been told that advertisements inviting tenders will be placed in the European Union Journal in November, a list of bids will be published in February, the successful tenderer will take over at the beginning of April next year and there is to be no public consultation on this. The rationale for the proposal is that the single PCT will be a very large organisation needing unusual management expertise but in fact it will be the same size as the former Oxfordshire Health Authority. It has been hard recently to appoint senior managers in the NHS in Oxfordshire: this is not a reason to privatise the commissioning of services. Handing over responsibility for the allocation of a large proportion of the Health budget for Oxfordshire to what is likely to be a foreign-based for-profit organisation cannot be allowed to proceed. It is certainly not possible to ensure that commissioning decisions will be based on the long-term health needs of the population, rather than on the need for short-term profits. The change will also involve cuts in services: since companies involved in health care currently make 10% profit, with a budget of over £500 million, this will mean that £57 million of tax payers’ money will be handed to the shareholders and so must we expect further cuts of this order. You may have doubts about a single countywide PCT and hence a part of Councillor Brighouse’s motion: my group has doubts. Not all members may agree with the general criticism of Government Policy in Councillor Sanders’s motion: my group does. The over-riding issue is that a clear message needs to be sent that the elected representatives in Oxfordshire are united in opposing the privatisation of service commissioning. (c) Mr McKendrick - Agenda Item 12 - Motion from Councillor Liz Brighouse and Agenda Item 19 - Motion from Councillor Larry Sanders I am a Staff Nurse at the Warneford Hospital. I have been working in the NHS for 20 years and, like most health workers, do not do it for the money. We do it to try to deliver a social service, a public service to people in need and this is the basis of the ethos of the NHS as Mr MacKeith has already said. The NHS was formed because the private system did not work and did not deliver in a time of dire need during World War II. It might not be wartime now in this country but the country is facing major health problems. I am speaking today, not just for myself, but also as an elected representative of Health Workers within my own trust and within Oxfordshire Hospitals and as the communications officer for Oxfordshire Unison Health Branch. I am speaking to the common ground in both motions, which is to oppose the contracting-out of the management of Oxfordshire’s PCTs, and to seek their adoption. On the shop floor the employees are seeing more and more fragmentation and loss of direction of service. I hear more and more that the budget needs to be managed and patient services to be restructured around the budget without actually meeting the needs of the public. I have seen this happen with quite devastating consequences on my own ward. I also hear from staff members about the uncertainty patients are facing, for example, in my own trust they do not know where they are going to be living, and about people facing cancelled operations. We believe that the continuation of privatisation will leave the local services absolutely rudderless. I urge you to join the MPs of all parties who have raised strong questions in Parliament about where we are going. I urge you to reject the privatisation.
83/05. REPORT OF THE CABINET
(Agenda Item 8) The Council had before it the report of the Cabinet (CC8). The report contained one issue on which the advice of Council was sought. Councillor Belson moved and Councillor Mitchell seconded:
Councillor Belson, in moving his motion, advised Council that, on 6 September, the Cabinet had agreed two options for consultation on the housing distribution, having taken into account development already planned and that could be built on previously developed land. Option 1 focussed new green field development equally at Bicester and Didcot (about 4,000 new homes at each town) and Option 2 concentrated more of the green field development in the south of the county. This would mean up to 4000 homes at Didcot, about 2000 at Wantage and Grove, and about 2000 at Bicester. The consultation had also given the opportunity for people to suggest an alternative strategy. The consultation had been widely publicised and consultation booklets had been distributed throughout the County by direct mailing to local councils and consultees, through libraries and exhibitions, and also the Council’s Citizens’ Panel. The consultation period had ended on 28 October. He advised Council that it was too soon to be able to give a full report on the outcome. However, he reported the following preliminary results, based on a necessarily rapid manual count:
The remainder comprised expressions of support for various other (or combinations of) options and a large number of detailed comments, which would be analysed for report to the Cabinet in December. He also reported the following summary of comments received from the five Oxfordshire district councils. Vale of White Horse – Support Option 1 subject to the following: should increase the figure for Oxford due to potential for redeveloping existing sites and safeguarded land, will not support further growth on top of what is already planned at Didcot and Wantage/Grove until there are transport improvements, growth at Didcot and Wantage/Grove only after infrastructure is secured. South Oxfordshire – Support Option 1 and remain firmly opposed to Green Belt development south of the City. Growth must be preceded by Government investment in Infrastructure. Also wish to see the boundary of the sub-region amended to include RAF Benson and the Western Corridor should be redrawn to take out any part of South Oxfordshire. Cherwell – Do not support either option as the overarching preferred strategy of focusing on Bicester as a location for economic and housing growth is not deliverable or sustainable. Support ‘organic growth’ at Bicester of 200 dwellings per year 2016-2026 but should not be the basis for a strategic approach. Express a preference for a strategy that focuses growth on Oxford and Didcot plus sustainable urban extensions to the south of the city in areas of economic potential. Oxford City – Do not support Option 1 or 2. The alternative option that should be promoted is urban extension to Oxford, considered the most sustainable option. A comprehensive review of the Green Belt is needed with the aim of creating a new and enduring boundary that meets all the needs of the City. West Oxfordshire – Do not express support for Option 1 or 2. Some growth should be directed towards more sustainable locations through a planned extension of Oxford. Reduce the rest of county provision post 2016 and increase Central Oxfordshire. The Chairman ruled that the Council would debate and vote separately on parts (a) and (b) of the motion. Councillor Brighouse moved the following amendment to Part (a)(1) and (2) of the motion shown in italic and by strikethrough: "(a)(1) that
proposals to be submitted to SEERA on the future distribution
of housing should (a)(2) that,
The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that it was a direct negative of the motion moved by Councillor Belson. Councillor Simmons moved the following amendment to Part (a)(1) and (2) of the motion shown in italic and by strikethrough: "(a)(1) that proposals to be submitted to SEERA on the future distribution of housing should not involve encroachment upon the Oxford Green Belt on the southern edge of Oxford; (a)(2) that
those options identified in the consultation responses which would
involve such encroachment The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that it had the effect of introducing a substantially different proposal into the motion. After debate, the motion was put to the vote. Seven members by standing in their places required a named vote in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15(a). On Part (a) (1) and (2), the voting was as follows:
On Part (b), the voting on the Council’s relative preferences for the respective housing distribution options was as follows:
RESOLVED: on item 10 (Draft South East Plan - Housing Distribution) (on a motion by Councillor Belson and seconded by Councillor Mitchell): (a) that the Council, noting that SEERA has ruled out strategic green belt reviews in the context of the South East Plan, advises the Cabinet: (1) that proposals to be submitted to SEERA on the future distribution of housing should not involve encroachment upon the Oxford Green Belt; (2) that those options identified in the consultation responses which would involve such encroachment (such as those based on major development on the southern edge of Oxford or at Shipton Quarry) should not be adopted; (b) that the Council, on the basis of the information currently available, advises the Cabinet of the Council’s relative preferences for the respective housing distribution options, as shown above.
(Agenda Item 9)
(Agenda Item 10) Councillor Johnston moved and Councillor Fooks seconded the motion in his name at item 10 in the agenda in the following amended form shown in italic: "All the evidence points to levels of traffic in the County continuing to increase. This poses an increased risk to pedestrians in general and people with buggies and wheelchairs using pavements which are narrow (less than 1m width). The Council therefore asks the Cabinet to request the Director of Environment and Economy to ask highway inspectors, with input from local members and parish councils, to draw up a list of substandard pavements, to include all those that are seriously cracked, pot-holed or uneven, as a first step, then to allocate a budget to address the problem." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was lost by 39 votes to 25. 86/05 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ALAN ARMITAGE (Agenda Item 11) Councillor Armitage moved and Councillor Roaf seconded the motion in his name at item 11 in the agenda as follows: "This Council welcomes the postponement of the revaluation of properties for Council Tax purposes, and hopes that central government will use the time made available to identify a system of local government financing which better reflects people's ability to pay. The Leader of the Council is asked to write to Sir Michael Lyons's inquiry to put this view on behalf of the Council." Councillor Joslin moved an amendment to the motion as shown in italic as follows: "This Council welcomes the postponement of the revaluation of properties for Council Tax purposes, and hopes that central government will use the time made available to identify a system of local government financing which better reflects people's ability to pay, such as the inclusion of an element of Land Value Tax. The Leader of the Council is asked to write to Sir Michael Lyons's inquiry to put this view on behalf of the Council." The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that Council had debated the issue of Land Value Tax within the last six months on 21 June 2005. At that meeting, the Council had resolved: "In the light of the change in control following the elections on 5 May 2005,
(a) to revoke its decision concerning support for Land Value Tax made at the Council meeting on 5 April 2005;
(b)
to carry out no
further work in researching or promoting the concept of Land Value
Tax; and Councillor Shouler moved and Councillor Mitchell seconded an amendment to the motion shown in italic and by strikethrough as follows: "This
Council welcomes the postponement of the revaluation of properties
for Council Tax purposes, and hopes that central government will use
the time made available to identify a system of local government financing
which The Leader of the Council is asked to write to Sir Michael Lyons's inquiry to put this view on behalf of the Council." After debate, this amendment to the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 38 votes to 14. The substantive motion was put to the vote and was carried by 46 votes to 0. RESOLVED: "This Council welcomes the postponement of the revaluation of properties for Council Tax purposes, and hopes that central government will use the time made available to identify a system of local government financing which has a wider tax base than current Council Tax. The Leader of the Council is asked to write to Sir Michael Lyons's inquiry to put this view on behalf of the Council."
(Agenda Item 12) The Chairman ruled that agenda items 12 and 19 should be debated together but voted on separately. Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor V Smith seconded the motion in her name at item 12 in the agenda in the following amended form as shown in italic and by strikethrough: "This
Council opposes the proposal of the Thames Valley Health Authority
to contract out the management of Health Services in Oxfordshire,
It therefore resolves, in the first instance, to write to the Department of Health and Oxfordshire MPs to put this position." Councillor Godden moved and Councillor Roaf seconded the following amendment to the motion as shown in italic:
(a) write
to the Department of Health and Oxfordshire MPs to put this position;
"This Council opposes the proposal of the Thames Valley Health Authority to contract out the management of Health Services in Oxfordshire, at this time. The Council accepts the need to establish a single effective Countywide Primary Care Trust and thus stop the fragmentation and inefficiencies which have occurred with five such bodies. It therefore resolves, in the first instance, to write to the Department of Health and Oxfordshire MPs to put this position."
(Agenda Item 13) Councillor Reynolds moved and Councillor Stratford seconded the motion in his name at item 13 in the agenda as follows: "This Council agrees to restrict the number of words contained in motions to Council, including any explanatory paragraphs, to a maximum of 250." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and carried by 40 votes to 26. RESOLVED: accordingly.
(Agenda Item 14) Councillor Wise moved and Councillor Purse seconded the motion in his name at item 14 in the agenda as follows: "The single Equality Act puts disability legislation on a par with race and sex discrimination. This legislation calls for improved access for people with disabilities to public buildings. The issue is to promote mobility and access in the community. At the last election, Scope reported that nationally potentially 68% of polling stations were not fully accessible. This must be tackled because political participation is key to successful policies and action. The voices of disabled people must not be ignored by society. This Council requests the Chief Executive to report to the Democracy & Organisation Committee on how many polling stations in Oxfordshire at the last County Election were inaccessible, and asks her to work with District Councils to ensure that action is taken to find alternatives to any which are identified as having not been fully accessible for people with disabilities." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and carried by 57 votes to 0. RESOLVED: accordingly. 90/05 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ZOË PATRICK (Agenda Item 15) Councillor Patrick moved and Councillor Moley seconded the motion in her name at item 15 in the agenda in the following amended form as shown in italic and by strikethrough:
The
Council therefore asks the Cabinet to (a) (b) to
provide improvements to the services from Grove and Wantage
to the Milton Park and Harwell employment sites After debate, the motion as amended was put to the vote and carried nem con. RESOLVED: accordingly. 91/05 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CRAIG SIMMONS (Agenda Item 16) Councillor Simmons moved and Councillor L Sanders seconded the motion in his name at item 16 in the agenda as follows: "This Council notes that the revised Energy Management Policy adopted by the Executive in April 2005 recognises the importance of renewable energy (microgeneration) both in relation to the management of its own properties and in setting an example to other organisations of good energy management practice. This Council also notes that it is a signatory to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change which - amongst other things - recognises the role of local government in delivering a national programme of action to limit climate changes through measures such as the promotion of energy efficient technologies and renewable power generation. This Council: (a) recognises that microgeneration (that is the generation of energy by householders installing renewable energy systems in their own homes) is a valuable new approach to engaging people as consumers and citizens in the important issues of climate change and reducing carbon dioxide emissions; (b) therefore, welcomes the introduction of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill and the Management of Energy In Buildings Bill into Parliament by a cross party group of MPs on 22 June, noting that together these Bills will:
(c) urges local MPs to be present in Parliament to back these Bills when they are debated in the House of Commons in November; (d) urges local MPs to sign House of Commons Early Day Motion No 391 in support of these Bills; (e) resolves to inform the local media and the Micropower Council of the passing of this resolution." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 24 votes to 23. RESOLVED: accordingly. 92/05 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CRAIG SIMMONS (Agenda Item 17) Councillor Simmons moved and Councillor Sherwood seconded the motion in his name at item 17 in the agenda as follows: "This Council values democracy and the democratic process. It recognises that elected Councillors in Oxfordshire are given their legitimacy through the ballot box. The way in which votes are cast give the winning candidate(s) and party(s) the mandate to govern. This Council believes both in universal suffrage and the right of people in Oxfordshire to choose how they cede power to those that govern them. This Council therefore welcomes the campaign by Active Citizens Transform (ACT) and Charter 88 to introduce this Autumn two Parliamentary Bills; the National Elections (Citizen’s Choice) Bill and the Local Electoral Choice Bill. Together these Bills:
These are not Bills that propose any particular electoral system – they do however recognise the right of citizens in an elected democracy to choose their preferred method. Both Bills contain measures to protect against too frequent changes of voting system. This Council therefore agrees to write to: (a) the County’s Members of Parliament asking them to back these new Bills; (b) the City and Districts in Oxfordshire informing them of the County’s support for these Bills and asking them to consider giving their backing." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and lost by 48 votes to 15. 93/05 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR JANET GODDEN (Agenda Item 18) Councillor Godden moved and Councillor Roaf seconded the motion in her name at item 18 in the agenda in the following amended form as shown in italic: "Council notes the Audit Commission’s comments that while the Supporting People programme has improved services for vulnerable people it has been undermined by a lack of co-ordination within central government, and that funding uncertainty is the programme’s biggest barrier to progress. Council is grateful for the wide support given by its partners, including the 6 County MPs, to its protests against reductions, both made and threatened, to Oxfordshire’s Supporting People grant. Council notes that if the 5% cut (approx £1m) in the County’s Supporting People grant announced for 2006/07 is implemented, on top of the 7% cut imposed in the current year, the support packages of many people dependent on this funding would be significantly reduced. The Council's next meeting in January will be too late to consider this issue. Council therefore:
(a) agrees
that while deploring the situation in which the Supporting People
partnership has been placed by the Government, the partnership
has no option but to take what action it can to keep in place
the agreed support packages of those who are dependent on Supporting
People funding; Councillor Seale moved and Councillor Shouler seconded an amendment to the third paragraph of the motion as shown in italic and by strikethrough as follows: "Council therefore: (a) agrees
that, while deploring the situation in which the Supporting People
partnership has been placed by the Government, urges the
partnership
(b) requests
the Portfolio Holder for Health & Community Services to (c) requests
the Cabinet, through the continued support of its partners and
the County's MPs, to take every step to ensure that any changes
to the national Supporting People formula, or any successor arrangements,
are fairly applied After debate, the amendment was put to the vote and was carried by 46 votes to 15. The substantive motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con. RESOLVED: "Council notes the Audit Commission’s comments that while the Supporting People programme has improved services for vulnerable people it has been undermined by a lack of co-ordination within central government, and that funding uncertainty is the programme’s biggest barrier to progress. Council is grateful for the wide support given by its partners, including the 6 County MPs, to its protests against reductions, both made and threatened, to Oxfordshire’s Supporting People grant. Council notes that if the 5% cut (approx £1m) in the County’s Supporting People grant announced for 2006/07 is implemented, on top of the 7% cut imposed in the current year, the support packages of many people dependent on this funding would be significantly reduced. The Council's next meeting in January will be too late to consider this issue. Council therefore: (a) agrees that, while deploring the situation in which the Supporting People partnership has been placed by the Government, urges the partnership to take what action it can to keep in place as many of the support packages for those who are dependent on Supporting People funding as is possible within the confines of the revised budgets for 2005/06 and 2006/07. (b) requests the Portfolio Holder for Health & Community Services to ensure that the leaders of the City and district councils within Oxfordshire are personally aware of the implications of the budget cuts imposed by the Government in 2006/07 on the Supporting People programmes; (c) requests the Cabinet, through the continued support of its partners and the County's MPs, to take every step to ensure that any changes to the national Supporting People formula, or any successor arrangements, are fairly applied and take account of rural as well as urban deprivation; (d) notes that the MP for Oxford East Andrew Smith has discovered an underspend in the Supporting People budget and has requested and lobbied ministers that this should be given to Oxfordshire."
(Agenda Item 19) Councillor L Sanders moved and Councillor Glass Woodin seconded the motion in his name at item 19 in the agenda as follows: "This Council notes the results of a YouGov poll earlier this year which stated that an overwhelming 89% of the public agree that "public services should be run by the Government or local authorities rather than by public companies". This Council asks the Secretary of State for Health to reject the option suggested by the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority that would permit the appointment of a private sector corporation to provide the management services for the proposed Oxfordshire PCT. If people with particular skills are required they can be hired. A private company in charge of the commissioning of health services for the people of Oxfordshire is a further large step in removing control from the public and placing it in the hands of a profit driven organisation. This
Council wholeheartedly condemns this new phase in the Labour Government’s
step-by-step movement towards the privatisation of the NHS which is
creating huge profit centres for investors at the expense of the health
needs of the people of this County and of its taxpayers. County’s MPs County’s PCTs Secretary of State for Health expressing our opposition to the appointment of a private sector organisation to provide the management services for the proposed Oxfordshire PCT and asking them to do the same." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and lost by 38 votes to 20. 95/05 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR JOHN FARROW (Agenda Item 20) Councillor Farrow moved and Councillor Rose seconded the motion in his name at item 20 in the agenda as follows: "Council notes with deep regret the Government's decision to create a single regional fire control room for the whole of the South East at Fareham, Hampshire, which will result in the closure of our own excellent fire control room at Kidlington. Given that there is currently only an outline business case provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Council requests the closest monitoring of the consequences of the change when it occurs both in terms of emergency response rates and costs to Oxfordshire taxpayers, with reports made to the Cabinet." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and carried nem con. RESOLVED: accordingly. 96/05 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR KIERON MALLON (Agenda Item 21) Councillor Mallon moved and Councillor N Turner seconded the motion in his name at item 21 in the agenda in the following amended form as show in italic: "Council notes that, despite Ruth Kelly visiting Banbury School earlier this year and expressing serious concerns about the poor quality of much of its estate, the School's bid in the recent Targeted Capital Fund round was rejected by Government and Miss Kelly apparently said that the decision was "beyond her control". Council instructs the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills asking how she believes we are to raise standards in our schools when she herself acknowledges the poor quality of much of the Banbury School estate but is apparently powerless to provide any form of support and when Oxfordshire's place in the Building Schools for the Future programme is 2016?" Council asks the Leader in his letter to point out that this is not an isolated example of Oxfordshire being unfairly treated: other schools have failed in bids to the Targeted Capital Fund and the delay before the Council's schools will receive any support from the Building Schools for the Future greatly exceeds the time scales suggested when the scheme was first advertised." After
debate, the motion was put to the vote and carried by 49 votes to
4. Return to TOP
|