Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2014 (CC1) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the Meeting held on 4 November 2014 were approved and signed.

Matters Arising

In relation to Minute 70/14 (report of the Cabinet) Councillor Nimmo Smith apologised to the members concerned for not providing a response on Frideswide Square and undertook to provide them with the information by the end week.

Apologies for absence was received from Councillor Jamilla Azad and Councillor Roz Smith.

The Chairman reported as follows:

Council presented the Deputy Head of the Music Service with two national awards for its innovative work promoting new compositions and commitment to jazz music education.

Staff had received the Creative Music award for embracing new music and composition across a range of activities. The service had also been awarded a Diploma of Merit from the Jazz Services’ ‘Will Michael Awards for Jazz Education, in recognition of its on-going commitment to jazz tuition.

These awards were testament to the innovative approach of music tutors and staff within the Music Service. Council noted that it was a real credit to their hard work, dedication and professionalism to be recognised nationally in this way.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Steve Curran, New Member for Leys Division to the Council.

Council congratulated Oxfordshire’s Youth Offending Service who had recently received a visit from HRH The Princess Royal in recognition of its restorative justice work and to celebrate the service’s 15th anniversary.

The YOS had recently became one of only three youth offending teams to be awarded the national Quality Mark for Restorative Service – aimed at repairing damage by bringing those harmed by crime or conflict into communication with those responsible, and finding a positive way forward.

Council congratulated the service on this huge honour for the service to be recognised in this way. The award demonstrated that the public could have great confidence in the important work it carried out.

The visit also marked 15 years since the YOS was established as a multi-agency service within Oxfordshire County Council – over which time its innovative partnership work has helped achieve a 70 per cent reduction in first-time entrants. Congratulations must go to all staff for their achievements.

The Chairman invited members to join her at lunchtime to celebrate 40 years of Council.

RESOLVED: to appoint Councillor Steve Curran to the Education Scrutiny Committee.

Mr Mike Kerford Byrnes, Finmere Parish Council spoke in support of Agenda Item18 (Motion from Kieron Mallon).. He called upon the Council to work with Finmere Parish Council in order that the surrounding area receive mitigation against the major adverse impact from the construction sites of the HS2 rail project.

BY-ELECTION HELD ON 27 NOVEMBER 2014

LEYS DIVISION

Members are asked to receive the following report from the County Returning Officer on the outcome of the by-elections for the Leys Division held on 27 November 2014:

Voting were as follows:

Steve Curran was accordingly elected County Councillor for the Leys Division.

The Council received the report from the County Returning Officer on the outcome of the by-elections for the Leys Division held on 27 November 2014:

Voting was as follows:

Steve Curran was accordingly elected County Councillor for the Leys Division.

This report follows the Annual Report of the OSCB for 2013 - 2014 which was approved by the Board on 28th July 2014. The OSCB report is the first by its new independent Chair, Maggie Blyth.

The report outlines the progress achieved in relation to the objectives of the 2013-15 OSCB Business Plan and looks ahead to future challenges.

Council is RECOMMENDED to note the annual report of the OSCB and the progress made in relation to its objectives.

The Council had before it the Annual report of the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board (OSCB). This report followed the Annual Report of the OSCB for 2013 - 2014 which had been approved by the Board on 28th July 2014. The OSCB report was the first by its new independent Chair, Maggie Blyth.

The Chairman sought Council’s approval to the Independent Chairman of the Board introducing the report to Council.

RESOLVED: (nem con) that the Independent Chairman of the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Board introduce the Annual Report to the Council.

The Independent Chairman, Maggie Blyth, in introducing the report, outlined the progress achieved in relation to the objectives set out in the report, together with the priorities and key challenges ahead for all agencies to ensure children across the County are safe from harm, abuse or neglect. She particularly highlighted the importance of strengthening and maintaining partnership and the on-going focus on adolescence and sexual exploitation.

She was confident that the partnerships across Oxfordshire would provide continually improving services for all children and young people, ensuring too that the most vulnerable children had their voices heard.

Councillor Tilley moved and Councillor Hudspeth seconded the recommendations as set out on the face of the Agenda.

In moving and seconding the report, the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Children, Education & Families paid tribute to the Independent Chairman of the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board for an excellent report.

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con.

RESOLVED: (nem con) to note the annual report of the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children Board and the progress made in relation to its objectives.

17 questions with notice were asked. Details of the questions and answers and the supplementary questions and answers (where asked) are set out in Annex 1 to the Minutes.

Report by the Chief Finance Officer (CC11).

The report sets out the Treasury Management activity undertaken in the first half of the financial year 2014/15 in compliance with the CIPFA Code of Practice. The report includes Debt and Investment activity, Prudential Indicator monitoring, changes in Strategy, and forecast interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

The Cabinet considered the report at its meeting on 25 November 2014 and recommended Council to note the Council’s Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2014/15 and to approve the revision to the Treasury Management Strategy & Annual Investment Strategy 2014/15.

Council is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)          note the Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2014/15; 

(b)         approve the increase in the limit for balances invested with external managers and pooled funds (excluding Money Market Funds) from 20% to 30% of the total portfolio; and

(c)          continue to delegate the authority to withdraw or advance additional funds to/from external fund managers to the TMST.

The Council had before them a report (CC11) which set out the Treasury Management Activity undertaken in the first half of the financial year 2014/15, including Debt and Investment activity, Prudential Indicator monitoring, changes in Strategy and forecast interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

The Cabinet considered the report at its meeting on 25 November 2014 and recommended Council to note the Council’s Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2014/15 and to approve the revision to the Treasury Management Strategy & Annual Investment Strategy 2014/15.

Councillor Stratford moved and Councillor Hudspeth seconded the recommendations as set out in the report and on the face of the Agenda.

Following debate the motion was put to the vote and it was:

RESOLVED: (nem con) to:

(a)          note the Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2014/15; 

(b)          approve the increase in the limit for balances invested with external managers and pooled funds (excluding Money Market Funds) from 20% to 30% of the total portfolio; and

(c)          continue to delegate the authority to withdraw or advance additional funds to/from external fund managers to the TMST.

Report by the County Solicitor and Monitoring Officer (CC12).

In April 2013, the Council adopted new governance arrangements which came into effect following the May 2013 elections.  The Council asked its Monitoring Officer to review the effectiveness of these decision-making arrangements a year after their coming into operation. In tandem with this, the Monitoring Officer has also undertaken a full review of the Constitution of the Council.

This report sets out the Monitoring Officer’s recommendations with regard to the Council’s governance arrangements and the potential amendments to the Constitution. It outlines the process followed in arriving at these recommendations, summarises the main issues from the review and then sets out the recommendations, in blocks, for Council to determine.

Council is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)          agree that no structural changes be made to the Council’s current decision-making arrangements as implemented following the May 2013 elections;

(b)          approve the changes to the Council’s Constitution outlined in Part A of Annex 1, as follows:

(1)      To amend the Articles of the Constitution

(2)      To amend the Council Procedure Rules

(3)      To amend the Cabinet Procedure Rules

(4)      To amend the Scrutiny Procedure Rules

(5)      To amend the Members’ Planning Code of Practice

(6)      To delete the Petition Scheme

(c)          confirm agreement with the Monitoring Officer’s intention, under his delegated powers, to make the administrative (tidy-up) changes to the Constitution outlined in Part B of Annex 1;

(d)          ask the Monitoring Officer to make any other administrative changes to the Constitution, under delegated powers, consequent on the Council’s decisions arising from this report;

(e)          ask the Monitoring Officer to provide an index to the Constitution once all changes arising from this report have been made.

In April 2013, the Council adopted new governance arrangements which had come into effect following the May 2013 elections.  The Council had asked its Monitoring Officer to review the effectiveness of these decision-making arrangements a year after their coming into operation. In tandem with this, the Monitoring Officer had also undertaken a full review of the Constitution of the Council.

The Council had before them a report (CC12) which set out the Monitoring Officer’s recommendations with regard to the Council’s governance arrangements and the potential amendments to the Constitution. The report also outlined the process followed in arriving at these recommendations, summarised the main issues from the review and then set out the recommendations for Council to determine.

Council Hudspeth moved and Councillor Rose seconded the recommendations as set out in the report and on the face of the Agenda.

Councillor Brighouse then moved and Councillor Patrick seconded the following amendment (shown in bold italics):

(a)          agree that no structural changes be made to the Council’s current decision-making arrangements as implemented following the May 2013 elections;

(b)          approve the changes to the Council’s Constitution outlined in Part A of Annex 1, as follows:

(a)      To amend the Articles of the Constitution

(b)      To amend the Council Procedure Rules

(c)      To amend the Cabinet Procedure Rules

(d)      To amend the Scrutiny Procedure Rules to require Scrutiny Committees to be chaired by the Opposition.

(e)      To amend the Members’ Planning Code of Practice

(f)       To delete the Petition Scheme

(c)          confirm agreement with the Monitoring Officer’s intention, under his delegated powers, to make the administrative (tidy-up) changes to the Constitution outlined in Part B of Annex 1;

(d)          ask the Monitoring Officer to make any other administrative changes to the Constitution, under delegated powers, consequent on the Council’s decisions arising from this report;

(e)          ask the Monitoring Officer to provide an index to the Constitution once all changes arising from this report have been made.

7 Members by standing in their places required a named vote in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.4.1. Voting was as follows:

Councillors voting for the motion (27)

Councillors Purse, J Sanders, Lygo, Dhesi, Curran, Brighouse, Christie, Hards, Price, Beal, Phillips, Patrick, Fawcett, Godden, G. Sanders, Pressel, Tanner, Cherry, Johnston, Hannaby, Howson, Rooke, Harris, Fooks, Webber, Williams, Coates                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Councillors voting against the motion (34)

Councillors Carter, Tilley, Heathcoat, Stratford, Rose, Hudspeth, Waine, Constance, Hoare, Bartholomew, Bulmer, Mrs Fulljames, Lilly, Lindsay-Gale, Nimmo Smith, Hibbert-Biles, Fatemian, Owen, Langridge, Mathew, Greene, Hallchurch, Gearing, Wilmshurst, Lovatt, Harrod, Handley, Chapman, Billington, Reynolds, Mallon, Sibley, Atkins, Gray

It was accordingly:

Lost by 34 votes to 27.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and it was carried by 55 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: (by 55 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions) to:

(a)            agree that no structural changes be made to the Council’s current decision-making arrangements as implemented following the May 2013 elections;

(b)            approve the changes to the Council’s Constitution outlined in Part A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82/14

The report presents the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (CC13) following a recent full review of the Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme. 

The last full review of the allowances agreed by Members was in January 2011. The Autumn 2013 review was more narrow, the Panel having been asked to consider the impact of the Governance changes.  This was agreed by Council in April 2014.  The Council has now asked the Independent Remuneration Panel to carry out a full review.

(1)       The Council is RECOMMENDED to consider the following recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel and in so doing agree a Scheme of Allowances:

(a)          the Basic Allowance payable to all councillors increase from £8,376 to £10,000;

(b)          in addition to the Basic Allowance, a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) be paid as follows:-

(1)          Leader of the Council – increase to £29,000

(2)          Deputy Leader of the Council – increase to £20,000

(3)          Cabinet Members – increase to £16,000

(4)          Chairmen of Scrutiny Committees – increase to £6,000

(5)          Deputy Chairmen of Scrutiny Committees – no allowance

(6)          Chairmen of Planning & Regulation Committee – increase to £6000

(7)          Deputy Chairman of Planning & Regulation Committee – no allowance

(8)          Chairman of Audit & Governance Committee – increase to £6,000

(9)          Deputy Chairman of Audit & Governance Committee – no allowance

(10)       Chairman of Pension Fund Committee – increase to £6,000

(11)       Deputy Chairman of Pension Fund Committee – no allowance

(12)       Chairman of Remuneration Committee – no allowance

(13)       Deputy Chairman of Remuneration Committee – no allowance

(14)       Chairman of the Council – increase to £8,500

(15)       Vice-Chairman of the Council – increase to £2125

(16)       Leader of the Opposition – reduce to £8,000

(17)       Other Shadow Cabinet Members – restore allowance - £2,500

(18)       Locality Meeting Chairman – remain at £500

(19)       Police and Crime Panel member - remain at £1,515

(20)       Police and Crime Panel Chairman - remain at £3,030

(21)       Police and Crime Panel Vice-Chairman - £3,500

(c)          the Council does not establish a general co-optees allowance;

(d)          a co-optees’ allowance continues to be payable to an independent co-opted member of the Audit & Governance Committee when the co-opted member serves as Chairman of the Audit Working Group;

(e)          the Council’s Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances and the Co-optees’ Allowance to the Chairman of the Audit Working Group be amended annually by reference to the annual Local Government Pay Award for staff and that this should take effect from the date on which the award for staff similarly takes effect;

(f)           that Child and Dependant’s Carer’s Allowances be paid on the basis that:-

Members with care responsibilities in respect of dependent children under 16: or dependent adults certified by a doctor or social worker as needing attendance, will be reimbursed, on production of valid receipts, for actual payments to a carer while the member is on Council duties, up to a maximum of £6per hour for each dependent child or £17 per hour for  ...  view the full agenda text for item 83/14

The Council had before them a report (CC13) which presented the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel following a recent full review of the Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme. 

The last full review of the allowances agreed by Members had been in January 2011. The Autumn 2013 review was more narrow, the Panel having been asked to consider the impact of the Governance changes.  This was agreed by Council in April 2014.  The Council had now asked the Independent Remuneration Panel to carry out a full review.

Councillor Hudspeth moved and Councillor Rose seconded the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor Christie seconded the following amendment shown in bold italics and strikethrough:

(1)       The Council is RECOMMENDED to consider the following recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel and in so doing agree a Scheme of Allowances: Council notes the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel and asks the Audit and Governance Committee to consider the demographic imbalance of the Council and ways this might be changed.

1.            the Basic Allowance payable to all councillors increase from £8,376 to £10,000;

2.            in addition to the Basic Allowance, a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) be paid as follows:-

1.            Leader of the Council – increase to £29,000

2.            Deputy Leader of the Council – increase to £20,000

3.            Cabinet Members – increase to £16,000

4.            Chairmen of Scrutiny Committees – increase to £6,000

5.            Deputy Chairmen of Scrutiny Committees – no allowance

6.            Chairmen of Planning & Regulation Committee – increase to £6000

7.            Deputy Chairman of Planning & Regulation Committee – no allowance

8.            Chairman of Audit & Governance Committee – increase to £6,000

9.            Deputy Chairman of Audit & Governance Committee – no allowance

10.         Chairman of Pension Fund Committee – increase to £6,000

11.         Deputy Chairman of Pension Fund Committee – no allowance

12.         Chairman of Remuneration Committee – no allowance

13.         Deputy Chairman of Remuneration Committee – no allowance

14.         Chairman of the Council – increase to £8,500

15.         Vice-Chairman of the Council – increase to £2125

16.         Leader of the Opposition – reduce to £8,000

17.         Other Shadow Cabinet Members – restore allowance - £2,500

18.         Locality Meeting Chairman – remain at £500

19.         Police and Crime Panel member - remain at £1,515

20.         Police and Crime Panel Chairman - remain at £3,030

21.         Police and Crime Panel Vice-Chairman - £3,500

3.            the Council does not establish a general co-optees allowance;

4.            a co-optees’ allowance continues to be payable to an independent co-opted member of the Audit & Governance Committee when the co-opted member serves as Chairman of the Audit Working Group;

5.            the Council’s Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances and the Co-optees’ Allowance to the Chairman of the Audit Working Group be amended annually by reference to the annual Local Government Pay Award for staff and that this should take effect from the date on which the award for staff similarly takes effect;

6.            that Child and Dependant’s Carer’s Allowances be paid  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83/14

Report of the Cabinet Meeting held on 25 November 2014 (CC14).

The Council received the report of the Cabinet.

In relation to paragraph 6 (Provision of Education Services to Oxfordshire Schools) (Question from Councillor Tanner) Councillor Tilley undertook to circulate information relating to the cost of negotiations with Hampshire County Council on sharing services, and the  loss of savings incurred  when Oxfordshire pulled out.

“This Council calls upon the Leader of the Council to negotiate with the parties to the S106 agreement for the Madley Park site in Witney to make available the £3,587,289 (returned October 2013) that was for a transport scheme in Witney. This money could be used to deliver the much needed Shores Green 4 way junction. Currently the money is sitting with the developers/original landowner.

Council notes that there was a balance of £1.3 million that was spent on much needed transport infrastructure across the County. Council asks that the Leader and Cabinet to identify funds totalling £1.3 million once negotiations for the developer funding has been successfully completed and the £3.6m is returned to the County Council.”

Councillor Langridge moved and Councillor Hoare seconded the following motion:

“This Council calls upon the Leader of the Council to negotiate with the parties to the S106 agreement for the Madley Park site in Witney to make available the £3,587,289 (returned October 2013) that was for a transport scheme in Witney. This money could be used to deliver the much needed Shores Green 4 way junction. Currently the money is sitting with the developers/original landowner.

Council notes that there was a balance of £1.3 million that was spent on much needed transport infrastructure across the County. Council asks that the Leader and Cabinet to identify funds totalling £1.3 million once negotiations for the developer funding has been successfully completed and the £3.6m is returned to the County Council.”

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 58 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: accordingly.

“Oxfordshire County Council will join with the Vale of White Horse District Council to make and support the business case for a new high speed train service between Bristol and Bedford.  Such a service would call at Swindon, Didcot, Oxford and beyond and would significantly strengthen the business case for re-opening a station at Wantage/Grove at which it could additionally call."

Councillor Johnston moved and Councillor Howson seconded the following motion:

“Oxfordshire County Council will join with the Vale of White Horse District Council to make and support the business case for a new high speed train service between Bristol and Bedford.  Such a service would call at Swindon, Didcot, Oxford and beyond and would significantly strengthen the business case for re-opening a station at Wantage/Grove at which it could additionally call."

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried Unanimously.

RESOLVED: accordingly.

“Proposals under the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) to govern trade relations between the EU and USA are currently being negotiated in secret. A new trade deal with the US could be of substantial benefit in improving the position of British exporters, and the ability to negotiate international trade deals is a benefit of membership of the EU.

However, it is essential that neither this trade agreement, nor the one with Canada currently being negotiated, threatens existing standards of environmental, social and labour market regulation. It is also imperative that public services provided in the UK by local democratically elected government and in Oxfordshire for its residents by this County Council are able to continue to be provided without challenge. It would be unwarranted for TTIP to include any extension of secretive Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) procedures.

Council therefore asks the leader of the Council to write to Oxfordshire’s MPs and MEPs, and to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, asking them to reject any trade deal, including TTIP, if it leads to downward pressure upon environmental, social or labour market regulation, or the enforced opening up to private providers of public services.”  

Councillor Tanner moved and Councillor Fawcett seconded the following motion:

“Proposals under the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) to govern trade relations between the EU and USA are currently being negotiated in secret. A new trade deal with the US could be of substantial benefit in improving the position of British exporters, and the ability to negotiate international trade deals is a benefit of membership of the EU.

However, it is essential that neither this trade agreement, nor the one with Canada currently being negotiated, threatens existing standards of environmental, social and labour market regulation. It is also imperative that public services provided in the UK by local democratically elected government and in Oxfordshire for its residents by this County Council are able to continue to be provided without challenge. It would be unwarranted for TTIP to include any extension of secretive Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) procedures.

Council therefore asks the leader of the Council to write to Oxfordshire’s MPs and MEPs, and to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, asking them to reject any trade deal, including TTIP, if it leads to downward pressure upon environmental, social or labour market regulation, or the enforced opening up to private providers of public services.”

Following debate the motion was put to the vote and was Lost by 30 votes to 24, with 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  accordingly.

“This Council is alarmed by the knock on affect that the proposed HS2 rail project will cause, creating huge disruption well beyond the four Cherwell parishes through which it will eventually pass.

Data published by HS2 shows that it will cause a huge increase of HGV traffic flows through junctions 9,10, 11 and 12 of the M40.  This will bring traffic chaos to the road infrastructure around these junctions and to the economy of North Oxfordshire.   HS2 have stated that there will be potentially thousands of lorries a day will converge on Hennef Way Banbury alone.

We call on this Council, as the Highway Authority to work in conjunction with Cherwell District Council to press for measures to mitigate the negative impact HS2 will have on the economy and infrastructure of North Oxfordshire during construction.”

Councillor Mallon moved and Councillor Mrs Fulljames seconded the following motion:

“This Council is alarmed by the knock on affect that the proposed HS2 rail project will cause, creating huge disruption well beyond the four Cherwell parishes through which it will eventually pass.

Data published by HS2 shows that it will cause a huge increase of HGV traffic flows through junctions 9,10, 11 and 12 of the M40.  This will bring traffic chaos to the road infrastructure around these junctions and to the economy of North Oxfordshire.   HS2 have stated that there will be potentially thousands of lorries a day will converge on Hennef Way Banbury alone.

We call on this Council, as the Highway Authority to work in conjunction with Cherwell District Council to press for measures to mitigate the negative impact HS2 will have on the economy and infrastructure of North Oxfordshire during construction.

Following debate the motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: accordingly.

 “It is now clear what may be  being proposed in that ALL local authority contracting will be open to submissions to tender by US corporations without restrictions and that contract compliance conditions set by local Councils may be open to legal challenge in an separate international tribunal divorced from the UK legal system.

Should such a system come into being the County Council's ability to decide to provide services that are delivered ‘in house’ may be subject to legal challenge and its ability to create safeguarding clauses in contracting could lead to legal action by US corporations eager to maximise profits. Direct contracts focused on Adult Social Care, Education Support Services or Highways Maintenance could be open to challenge as could commissioned contracts by the local NHS within which the County now has a scrutiny role. 

The cost of such inevitable litigation to the County Council could be immense and the restrictions envisaged by TTIP will further erode the County Council ability to determine its own direction and commissioning approach.

The Council resolves to follow the lead of other councils and numerous other European countries in rejecting the EU Commission’s TTIP scheme and calls upon the Prime Minister to use his veto to reject the proposed treaty. The Chief Executive to write to all Oxfordshire MPs to illustrate the Councils stance.”

The time being after 3.30 pm, motions 19, 20 and 21 were considered dropped.