Return to Agenda

ITEM CC1

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - 18 JUNE 2002

OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL - 2 APRIL 2002

MINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 2 April 2002 commencing at 11.00 am and finishing at 6.05 pm and adjourned until Tuesday 9 April 2002, commencing at 11.00 am and finishing at 6.05 pm.

Present:

Councillor C.H. SHOULER – 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.

27/02. ELECTION TO CHAIR FOR THE 2002/03 COUNCIL YEAR

(Agenda Item 1)

Councillor Shouler invited nominations for the office of Chairman of the Council.

Councillor Mitchell proposed and Councillor Seale seconded that Councillor Shouler be re-elected for a further year. There being no other nominations, Councillor Shouler was declared elected and he made the statutory Declaration of Acceptance of Office.

28/02. ELECTION TO VICE-CHAIR FOR THE 2002/03 COUNCIL YEAR

(Agenda Item 2)

The Chairman invited nominations for the office of Vice-Chair.

Councillor Margaret Godden proposed and Councillor Fawcett seconded Councillor Turner. There being no other nominations, Councillor Turner was declared elected and he made the statutory Declaration of Acceptance of Office.

29/02. MINUTES

(Agenda Item 3)

RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 5 February 2002 be approved and signed as a correct record.

In relation to Minute 22/02 (Revenue and Capital Budgets and Financial Strategy for 2002/03 – 2005/06) the Chairman, in response to comments by Councillor Ted Cooper concerning the ruling on the Labour Group amendment as recorded in the Minutes, reminded Council that his ruling had been in accordance with the Council’s own Standing Orders, which he would continue to follow in the future.

In relation to Minute 25/02 (Outside Bodies) it was reported, in response to a query from Councillor Hodgson, that the Executive had made the following appointments:-

1. any District Council based Local Strategic Partnership would ordinarily be Councillor Margaret Godden;
2. Board of the Oxfordshire Care Partnership – Councillor Don Seale;
3. Thames Valley Waste Forum – Councillors Anne Purse and Craig Simmons.
   
   
   

30/02. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

(Agenda Item 4)

Apologies for absence were received as follows:-

2 April 2002

Councillors Roger Belson, Andrew Crawford, Robert Evans, Janet Godden, Neville F. Harris, Biddy Hudson, Brian Law and Dermot Roaf.

9 April 2002

Councillors Roger Belson, Andrew Crawford, John Farrow, Brian L. Hook, Biddy Hudson, Anne Purse, G.A Reynolds and Carol Viney.

The Council was advised that Councillor Belson was making a good recovery from his illness, although progress was slow. In the circumstances, on a motion by Councillor Mitchell, seconded by Councillor Seale, it was RESOLVED: in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 to approve for a further period of six months Councillor Belson’s continued absence from meetings of the authority by virtue of ill-health.

31/02. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(Agenda Item 5)

Councillor Turner declared a financial interest in item 13 – Report of the Executive (item 20 – Public Transport Information Strategy).

Councillor Witcher declared a non-pecuniary interest in any issue relating to special needs provision for children.

32/02. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS

(Agenda Item 6)

The Chairman advised Council that Michael Buck had resigned from the Council with effect from 13 March 2002. A by-election would take place on 2 May.

The Chairman reminded members that Mary Robertson would be leaving her post as Director of Social Services at the end of April. Members paid tribute to her, thanking her for the service she had given to the Council and wishing her every success in the future.33/02.

33/02. PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS

(Agenda Item 7)

Petitions

The Chairman reported that petitions in relation to agenda item 21 (Social Services Budget Proposals) would be presented by the following:-

Janet Todd

Larry Sanders

Margaret Coombs (Oxfordshire Community Care Advice & Action Group)

Public Address

The Chairman had agreed the following requests to address the Council:-

Request from	Agenda Item
Dr A.G. Baker, 1 Rivercourt, Trinity Street, Oxford	) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 21 - Social Services Budget Proposals ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 21 - Social Services Budget Proposals ) ) ) ) ) )
Janet Sunman, 14 Birch Close, Sonning Common
Gillian Ross, 27 Grange Road, Banbury
Jennifer Bower, Henley
Wendy Preece, 11 Bosleys Orchard, Grove
Paula Chandler, 201 The Slade, Oxford
Susan Raisbeck, 17 Edington Place, Grove
Kevin Preen
Ianthe Maclagan, Children’s Rights Commissioner for Oxfordshire
Mark Fysh, UNISON
Margaret Coombs, Oxon Community Care Advice & Action Group
Janet Mace, Oxfordshire Council of Disabled People
Larry Sanders, 65 Stratford Street, Oxford

Petitions were presented and addresses made at the reconvened meeting on 9 April (see Minute 47/02 below).

34/02. REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL’S INTERIM CONSTITUTION

(Agenda Item 9)

The Council had agreed in October 2001 to review the new political management arrangements in the spring of 2002. The Member/Officer Working Group on Organisation and Democracy (the GOOD Group) had been reconstituted to steer the review and all members and Strategic Directors had been invited to contribute. The Council was now asked to consider the outcome of the review and to agree a number of additions/amendments to the Interim Constitution.

Councillor Mitchell moved and Councillor Margaret Godden seconded the following motion:-

1. to agree recommendations (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in report CC9, subject to the deletion of the reference to the Chair/Chairwoman/Chairman of the Council in Section L, Appendix 3 (CC9 page 47 of Annex 8);
2. to agree the option of attaching all audit activities to the Best Value Committee, and to agree to amend the terms of reference of that Committee by the addition of those set out at CC9 – Annex 9;
3. not to agree to the request by the Council of Oxfordshire Teacher Organisations to be represented on the Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee, but that this Council would expect them to be invited frequently to meetings of that Committee to give evidence from their expert knowledge;
4. to agree to bring forward the start of Council meetings to 10.30 am to take effect from the meeting on 18 June.

(a) an increase in the size of the Executive to 10 members;

1. inclusion in the Protocol on Members Rights of a right for the Leader of the Opposition to speak at all scrutiny committee meetings;
2. Appendix 3 to Section L of the Constitution (Specific Powers and Functions of Particular Officers) being amended to indicate that certain enforcement action should be subject to prior consultation with the Chair/Chairwoman/Chairman of the Planning & Regulation Committee, or in his/her absence the Deputy Chair/Chairwoman/ Chairman, or in the absence of both of them, the third group spokesperson for that Committee (rather than the Chair/Chairwoman/Chairman of the Council as was agreed by the Planning & Regulation Committee), and with the Local Member(s)."

1. to agree the following new sections of the Constitution:

• Summary and Explanation (Annex 1)
• Section A – The Constitution (Annex 2)
• Section N – Finance, Contracts & Legal Matters (Annex 3)
• Section O – Review, Suspension and Interpretation of the Constitution (Annex 4)
• Section II – Members Allowances Scheme (Annex 7)

1. to agree Section BB – Financial Procedure Rules (Annex 5) on an interim basis only pending further consideration by the GOOD Group and members generally, and review by the Council in June;
2. on the recommendation of the Standards Committee to:

• adopt the National Model Members’ Code of Conduct as the Council’s Local Code, to take effect immediately after the meeting of Council on 2 April 2002; and
• agree that the Local Code of Conduct should apply also to any non-voting co-opted members of committees or sub-committees;

1. to agree the detailed changes to the current Constitution as set out in Annex 8, subject to deletion of the reference to the Chair/Chairwoman/Chairman of the Council in Section L, Appendix 3 (page 47 of Annex 8 to CC9) and subject to Section F – Appendix: Scrutiny Procedure Rules being amended to indicate that appointments to review panels should be made by the relevant scrutiny committee, ensuring political balance as far as possible;
2. to inform the Oxford City Branch of Unison that their request had been referred to the Pension Fund Committee;
3. to attach responsibility for overseeing the audit function to the Best Value Committee and to amend the terms of reference of that Committee by the addition of the following:-
4. The functions in relation to the approval of the statement of accounts etc specified in Paragraph 45 in Section I of Schedule 1 to the Functions Regulations;
5. Monitor the maintenance of best practice in relation to the financial aspects of Corporate Governance within the Council, together with the adequacy of the Council’s arrangements and those of others managing Council resources, to ensure compliance with relevant legislation, guidance, standards and codes, whether external or internal. To draw to the attention of the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee any issues which in the Committee’s view would benefit from a scrutiny review or further investigation;
6. Consider and comment on the Council’s External Auditor’s annual work plan, the annual audit letter and any reports issued by the Audit Committee or the Council’s External Auditor. Where issues affect the discharge of Executive functions make recommendations as appropriate to the Executive, and where any issues affect the discharge of Non-Executive functions, make recommendations to the appropriate Council Committee;
7. Monitor the performance and effectiveness of Audit and Risk Management processes within the Council (including receiving the annual work plan and reports from the Audit and Risk Management Service and the arrangements for the prevention and detection of fraud and corruption) and draw to the attention of the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee any issues which in the Committee’s view would benefit from a scrutiny review or further investigation;
8. to request the Executive Member for Schools, the Executive Member for Learning & Culture and the Chair, Vice-Chair and third group spokesperson of the Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee, in consultation with Oxfordshire Teachers’ representatives, to agree a protocol to ensure the adequate representation of teachers’ views at the Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee and effective communication with the Executive;
9. that, with effect from the meeting on 18 June, future Council meetings would commence at 10.30 am.

35/02. EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2002-2007

(Agenda Item 10)

Having been considered by the Executive on 22 January, the draft Education Development Plan (EDP) 2002-2007 had been sent to the Secretary of State for Education & Skills by the 31 January 2002 deadline, but on the basis that the Plan would need to be ratified subsequently by the full Council, in order to comply with government regulations.

The Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee had considered the EDP on 12 March and had passed their comments to the Executive on 21 March. At that meeting the Executive had welcomed the Scrutiny Committee’s comments and had authorised the Executive Members for Schools and Learning & Culture to agree textual changes to the EDP prior to its consideration by Council and, subject to these changes, had recommended the Council to approve the EDP.

The amendments subsequently agreed by the Executive Members were tabled and a copy is attached to the signed Minutes.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Crabbe, seconded by Councillor Fawcett and carried nem con) subject to incorporation of the amendments agreed by the Executive Members for Schools and Learning & Culture, to approve the Education Development Plan 2002-2007.

36/02. QUALITY PROTECTS MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

(Agenda Item 11)

The draft Quality Protects Management Action Plan (MAP) had been considered by the Executive on 22 January 2002. Some minor amendments had been made to the Plan before submission to the Department of Health, by the deadline of 31 January 2002, but on the basis that the MAP would need to be ratified subsequently by full Council under the procedures laid down in the Constitution.

Following consideration of the MAP by the Social & Health Care Scrutiny Committee on 26 February 2002, the Executive had considered the MAP again on 19 March in the light of the comments from the Scrutiny Committee and had recommended it to the Council.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Seale, seconded by Councillor Mitchell and carried by 47 votes to 0) to approve the Quality Protects Management Action Plan.

37/02. BUDGET MONITORING : VIREMENT ARRANGEMENTS

(Agenda Item 12)

The Council considered recommendations from the Executive as to the extent of virement within the approved budget which could be undertaken by the Executive.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mitchell, seconded by Councillor Margaret Godden and carried by 34 votes to 20) to:

1. approve the formula set out in paragraph 4 of the report for the purpose of specifying the extent of virement which could be undertaken by the Executive and that which had to be referred to Council for approval; and
2. agree the virements necessary to effect the allocation of funding in respect of expenditure pressures on the Environmental Services budget as specified in paragraph 8.
   
   
   

38/02. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE

(Agenda Item 13)

(Councillor Hook declared an insubstantial, non-pecuniary interest in item 19 of the Executive’s Report – Headington and Marston Area Transport Strategy. Having earlier declared a financial interest in item 20 – Public Transport Information Strategy – Councillor Turner withdrew from the meeting during discussion of that item.)

The Leader of the Council presented the report of the Executive. He and the relevant Executive Members responded to members’ questions on the items included in the report.

39/02. REPORT OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

(Agenda Item 14)

The Council considered the report of the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee, which contained the Committee’s recommendations arising from reviews of local area structures, support for members and standing consultative arrangements.

1. Review of Local Area Structures

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Tompkins, seconded by Councillor MacKenzie and carried nem con)

1. to develop area fora of an advisory and consultative nature, linking in with district council area structures as appropriate;
2. that arrangements for running a pilot should be developed in one Oxfordshire district council area in partnership with the district council, and in accordance with the proposed timetable;
3. to agree in principle the proposal for the monitoring and evaluation of the pilot;
4. that, when the arrangements had been drawn up for conducting the pilot, the Executive be asked to identify and allocate appropriate resources;
5. that the review panel and the Departmental Consultative Group should continue beyond the timescale set out for this review, and that they should work together to support the development, implementation and monitoring of the pilot;
6. that, based on the conclusions of the pilot evaluation, the Committee should consider proposals for the development of area fora across the County, investigate whether delegated powers should be given and report back to the Council; and
7. to agree in principle the guidelines for the involvement of councillors and officers in district council area structures operated outside the pilot area and according to the timescale proposed.
   
   
2. Review of Support for Members

Councillor Tompkins moved and Councillor MacKenzie seconded the Committee’s recommendations.

Councillor Tudor Hughes then moved and Councillor Hook seconded the following amendment:-

"Amend recommendation (a) by the insertion of "with the exception of Section 18(b) in Annex 2" between "Annex 2" and "having regard to".

Insert a new recommendation (b) to read as follows:-

(b) "request the Independent Remuneration Panel to consider what would be appropriate secretarial assistance for members, taking account of varying workloads according to responsibility positions held".

Renumber recommendations (b) and (c) as (c) and (d) accordingly."

On being put to the vote this amendment was lost by 26 votes to 20.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was carried nem con.

RESOLVED: to:

1. accept the findings of the panel for the support of members set out at paragraph 18 of Annex 2 having regard to the resource implications identified at paragraphs 19 and 20;
2. in relation to the Community Initiatives Fund (paragraph 18(f)), carry out an audit of existing funds available to support such initiatives; and
3. review in 18 months’ time the support provided to members.
3. Review of Standing Consultative Arrangements

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Tompkins, seconded by Councillor Ted Cooper and carried nem con) to note the position.

40/02. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

(Agenda Item 15)

In accordance with the arrangements set out in Council Procedure Rule (9)(b)-(j) questions were asked and answered as follows:-

1. QUESTION BY COUNCILLOR BRIAN LAW TO COUNCILLOR MARGARET GODDEN, DEPUTY LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

The Chairman put the following question on behalf of Councillor Law, who was not present at the meeting:-

How many sheets of paper were used in the Duplicating Unit in the months of January and February 2002 and how many sheets were used in the corresponding months of 2001?

ANSWER:

The Duplicating Unit have been unable to provide the figures asked for as they keep their records for only six months. However, I am aware that Councillor Law has figures which he believes show a massive increase in paper usage following the introduction of the new Constitution.

I shall continue these enquiries and try to establish whether or not there has been such an increase, and provide a further written answer.

2. QUESTION BY COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON TO COUNCILLOR KEITH MITCHELL, LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

In the paper by Bill Stewart, Head of Contract and Purchasing, to the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee on 7 March 2002 on a collective Council Purchasing Agency, he stated that "it is expected that the electronic ordering and integrated account systems will produce efficiency savings (nationally) of more than £2.5 billion". In the light of this estimate, and in view of the fact that Oxfordshire County Council has already declared an interest in this project, how much money does Councillor Mitchell expect this Authority to save, how soon, and over what time period?

ANSWER:

I have rather more pressing matters to engage my attention than to enter into wild speculations about what level of savings might be generated for the County Council if the IdeA is successful in floating a collective Council Purchasing Agency and if the County Council participates in such a scheme. When the IdeA has advised us of the precise arrangements for such a scheme, it will be appropriate for the Council to decide whether or not to join it. If we do join it and if savings are seen to be forthcoming, that will be an appropriate time to identify their potential size. If we progress that far and when savings are "in the bank" then and only then will it be appropriate to consider how to re-invest those savings.

Past councils have been for too adept at "banking" savings not yet turned into real money. This Executive will adopt a cautious approach to potential savings until they are assured and, in that way, hopes to avoid the "spend and slash" policies of the past.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

On reflection will not Councillor Mitchell realise that his reply is cavalier, off-hand and complacent insofar as if it were to do with a relatively small sum of money I would understand his saying we have got to wait until we have got more concrete information, but if we are talking about £2.5 billion saving nationally and Oxfordshire is 1% of the country that is a potential of £25 million and even allowing for district councils taking a 15% or so share of that, that is £20 million and even allowing for the fact that Oxfordshire is already part of a collective group, so we would save less than the average county, we are still possibly talking about a saving of anything up to about £10 million? Would not Councillor Mitchell agree it still worth working very hard for this collective Purchasing Agreement and for him to have some idea of what the benefits might be for Oxfordshire rate-payers, especially in the light of the dreadful Social Services budget that we are debating next Tuesday?

ANSWER:

Yes, it is appropriate to work for a purchasing agreement and see it if can yield savings to this Council. How far that is away, I don’t know. Whether anything would be achieved in year two of the budget or indeed year three I’m not entirely clear. There is one thing I am very clear about and that is that this Council has anticipated funny money that didn’t exist in the past and had budgeted on the basis of that funny money far too often and has got into difficulties that this administration, this year, is trying to get us out of. I am wholly unwilling to speculate about figures that will be entirely speculative because the next step after that will be that Councillor Hodgson will want to spend money today on the basis of mickey mouse money he hopes will come in about three years time. Until we see it, until it is in the bank, it will be quite wrong to anticipate it and base spending plans on it. That is why I am not willing to speculate until we have a fairly clear and concrete idea of whether those savings can be achieved and what the scale is.

3. QUESTION BY COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON TO COUNCILLOR MARGARET GODDEN, DEPUTY LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

Will the Executive repeat this Council’s request to the Government that British Sign Language (BSL) should be recognised as an official UK language? This Council has previously agreed to press this long overdue policy, most recently in December 1999. Will the Executive also consider adopting BSL as a local Oxfordshire community language?

ANSWER:

The Executive would be glad to support any further action Council wishes to take to promote the recognition of British Sign Language as an official UK language. I do not think this is something where the Executive itself should take a lead.

I am not aware that the Council has a defined list of Oxfordshire community languages. Certainly the Translation and Interpretation Service has to remain flexible so as to deal with fluctuating needs, such as the recent arrival of numbers of asylum seekers from hitherto under-represented parts of Europe. My understanding is that BSL signers are provided by the Council on the same basis as interpreters for spoken languages. If Councillor Hodgson thinks that the present situation is not satisfactory it would be helpful if he would be more specific as to the problem he is seeking to address.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

Councillor Margaret Godden says the Executive would be glad to support any further action Council wished to take to promote the recognition of BSL, but she doesn’t think it is something the Executive could take a lead on. My question was positive because it’s already the policy of the Council to pursue this, and I was really inviting the Executive to take that on board. If she is not prepared to do that then clearly I shall have to put another motion to Council which would waste time. Frankly I don’t see why the Executive cannot take it on board. On my second point, is Councillor Margaret Godden aware that Hounslow Council, on the initiative of the Liberal Democrats, has done something similar to this, recognising BSL as a local community language? It is not so much that there is a problem, but to give it more status and more importance, and the fact that 50,000 deaf people throughout the country use BSL and that the RNID are now, with government money, training more sign language interpreters which is desperately needed. I would have thought it would be a good opportunity for us to take this on board and I would invite Councillor Margaret Godden to react accordingly.

ANSWER:

On the first half of the question and answer, I don’t want to suggest that the Executive would be in any way unwilling to purse recognition of the British Sign Language. I only say that we do not see it as being in our remit to comb through every policy that the Council had ever adopted and see if we can write a letter to a suitable Government department to ask them why they haven’t done something about it. That would be a very major piece of work. If there is anything in the mind of the Council as being something that it would be suitable at this particular time for use to pursue, I would be very glad for them to tell us and I am sure we will be happy to pursue it, but this is really being plucked out of the air. In answer to the question – do we intend to do this, well no at the moment we don’t. Tell us you want us to, and we certainly will.

As for the Oxfordshire Community Language, I don’t know the position in Hounslow and I don’t know what the implication of what they have done is, but as far as I know, we do not have such a thing as Oxfordshire Community Languages. If there is a list somewhere of Oxfordshire Community Languages I would be very happy to add BSL to it, but I don’t think such a list exists and as I say the languages we have to recognise as being used in Oxfordshire significantly at any one time do vary and they vary quite significantly in the last few years because of the nationalities of people coming into Oxford as refugees. I am very happy to discuss this further with Councillor Hodgson outside this meeting to see if there is anything we can usefully do. I am not hugely concerned about enhancing the status of a language. I am very concerned that we give as good a service as we can to people with a hearing disability.

4. QUESTION BY COUNCILLOR LIZ BRIGHOUSE TO COUNCILLOR DON SEALE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY CARE AND HEALTH

How many places are available to Social Services within their budget for purchased beds for their clients or potential referrals, either by long-term contract or otherwise, in (a) residential and (b) nursing homes in each of the District Council areas of Oxfordshire and how many places outside the County, and how many of the total number of places, are currently available?

ANSWER:

Oxfordshire Social Services plan to purchase 1,585 places in 2002/03 made up of 980 residential places and 605 nursing. This is by means of a range of spot and block contracts. Of the 980 residential places, 711 are purchased though the Oxfordshire Care Partnership who supply 651 places and Anchor Servite who supply 60. We are maintaining a one out one in policy. Therefore the 1,585 places is the same as for the year 2001/02. It will take some time to break down these figures by district council in Oxfordshire and in a similar manner we need to do further research to give the number of places outside the County. This will be supplied to you in due course, and I will undertake, when I have got that information, to send you another letter and issue that to all Councillors as well.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

There is another part of the question that hasn’t been answered, and that is the number of beds that may be available at any given time.

I would like Councillor Seale to agree with me that it is entirely inappropriate for people who live in Oxford City and who require nursing home care to be advised that there are no beds within the City which Social Services can purchase and that they are being required to travel many miles from the City to nursing homes that aren’t on public transport routes, thus separating them very often from their own elderly carers. Could I ask Councillor Seale if he would agree with me that that is entirely inappropriate?

ANSWER:

No I don’t agree.

5. QUESTION BY COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON TO COUNCILLOR JOHN FARROW, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY

What progress has there been in the campaign to reduce or even eliminate the incidence of vehicle fires following road traffic accidents? In December 1999, the Public Protection Committee of this Council agreed to approach the government in relation to the fitting of fire suppression systems, such as Pyrogen, to all new vehicles.

ANSWER:

Whilst the number of car fires grows at an alarming rate, the percentage of fires caused by crash collisions appears to be decreasing. The main reasons for this would appear to be improvements in car safety features, modifications in the MOT test to include examining the integrity of fuel lines and the increased use of diesel motors. During the 1990s, many of the collision-related fires were in cars with fuel injection systems. Research has resulted in greater protection for these fuel lines and the inspections referred to on MOTs.

When you first raised this issue, there were 77,674 car fires of which 1,219 (1.56%) were caused by collisions. In 2000 there were 81,912 car fires of which only 1,098 were caused by collisions (1.34%). Though these numbers are small in comparative terms, some 77% of car fires are a result of deliberate ignition.

The reduction of deliberate car fires remains the priority for fire services nationally and within this County in particular.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

While I would like to thank Councillor Farrow for his reply, and I am very pleased to see that there are certain improvements in relation to fires caused by crash collisions, I am afraid the rather more specific question I asked to do with the possibility of fitting fire suppression systems such as Pyrogen to all new vehicles hasn’t really been addressed. Perhaps an answer could be sent to me in writing, when there has been more consultation about this issue, because I know that the Chief Fire Officer and our previous Chief Fire Officer who is now in Cambridgeshire had been pursing this and I am not sure that the answer has come across in Councillor Farrow’s reply.

ANSWER:

Yes, I am quite prepared to provide a written reply.

6. QUESTION BY COUNCILLOR MARGARET FERRIMAN TO COUNCILLOR NEIL FAWCETT, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR LEARNING & CULTURE

Is the Executive Member for Learning & Culture aware of the "b_line student travel and discount card" scheme which has been in use by Derbyshire County Council since early 2001, and of the advantages which the use of this scheme has brought, in terms of benefits to the day-to-day lives of the young people of that county, as well as in terms of the environmental improvements (more use of pubic transport), greater use of public libraries and greater interest in County Council services through the b_line website?

ANSWER:

I would first like to apologise for not being able to circulate anything in writing. We did quite a lot of digging to get some information about the b_line scheme that Councillor Ferriman refers to, and I haven’t had time to get it all written up, so I am working from notes that I will write up and circulate.

The b_line student and travel discount card in Derbyshire is virtually a discount card scheme which includes a range of Council services for the 14-18 year olds. It also includes travel discounts that have been negotiated with bus and rail companies. In principle, from what I have seen of it, it looks like a very good scheme, supporting greater usage particularly of public transport and things like public libraries from that age group, which I think is something we would all support. However, as you would expect there are costs to running the system. The starting costs as we understand it were about £150,000. There is an on-going annual cost for administration of about £80,000 a year. Some of the services involved may have some other cost implications, although they are not thought to be huge, and some of the things do not have a cost, such as some of the discounts in shops. What we don’t have figures for is how much it actually costs to do the public transport part of the scheme, which we would expect to be substantial. As we understand it, Derbyshire pays the companies involved an amount of money according to the level of usage, but we are waiting for further information on that.

In terms of whether we would welcome it in Oxfordshire, I think it is basically a good idea, and if we can look at some kind of affordable scheme to encourage young people to take up use of things like public libraries more in Oxfordshire at a cost that we can afford and if we can negotiate something with transport companies that would be affordable and would work in the same way, then I am sure it is something we would be very positive about looking at. Obviously it may be that the cost would mean that we can’t. I did also notice that the Band D Council Tax in Derbyshire if my maths is right is £78.78 higher than in Oxfordshire and that might explain partly how they manage to pay for such a scheme.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION

The report I have in my hand says the scheme is available to people between 11-18 not 14-18. Is the Executive Member aware of that?

ANSWER:

There are different versions of the card. Some of the general cards are available for 11-18 and the transport part of it, which is as I understand it the most costly part, is for 14-18 year olds.

7. QUESTION BY COUNCILLOR JEAN FOOKS TO COUNCILLOR ROY TUDOR HUGHES, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT

When will the 20 mph limits agreed for the Walton Manor traffic-calmed area of Oxford be implemented?

ANSWER:

The Walton Manor traffic calming scheme is one of the quite numerous ones which have been transferred from the City to the County Council following the City Council giving up the Highway Agency Agreement. I have explained over the weekend to Councillor Fooks, that I received notice of this on Thursday evening at 7.30 and due to the intervention of the Easter Holiday I have not been able to get any information from the officers concerned. She has accepted that in due course, and quickly I hope, she will receive a written response.

41/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR CRAIG SIMMONS

(Agenda Item 16)

In the light of suggestions from the Liberal Democrat Group, Councillor Simmons moved and Councillor Margaret Godden seconded the motion standing in his name at item 16 in the agenda in the following amended form:

"This Council supports the closure of Broad Street, Oxford on European Car Free Day (Sunday 22 September 2002) as requested by the Oxford Pedestrians Association, provided the opportunity can be taken to organise a fun day, making it a celebration of a traffic-free Broad Street rather than an anti-car event."

As this motion related to an Executive function, the Council was invited to debate it and to then refer it, together with the Council’s advice, to the Executive.

After some debate, Councillor Hodgson moved and it was duly seconded that the question be now put. The Chairman, being satisfied that the motion had been sufficiently debated, then put this procedural motion to the vote and it was carried by 29 votes to 10.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was lost by 34 votes to 7.

The motion then stood referred to the Executive for determination. Although the Council had rejected the motion as moved, it was clear from the debate that there was some support for a suggestion that the Executive explore the possibility of Broad Street being closed for May Day 2003.

42/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON

1. Every school has an asthma policy to ensure that pupils who suffer from asthma are encouraged always to have their inhalers available, avoidable triggers are removed and teachers know what to do when a pupil has an attack;
2. Asthma sufferers to be given a voice in planning, transport, health and education.

1. public funding for a major programme of research into the causes of asthma, including links with pollution;
2. Ministers to set clear targets for the introduction of low- or no-emission vehicles;
3. more funding for the development of non-carbon vehicles that do not pollute and the infrastructure that people will need to use them;
4. reduction of the level of traffic on our roads by providing viable public transport;
5. extending and improving schemes such as the "Cube It" scheme to remove unroadworthy and heavily polluting vehicles from our roads."

43/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON

1. a halt to GATS negotiations until an independent assessment has been carried out of the likely impact on local government services;
2. urgent clarification as to whether public services have any exemptions from the Agreement;
3. local authorities to be consulted regarding ‘requests’ made by other WTO members to date for the inclusion of UK services in the GATS Agreement."

44/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON

(Agenda Item 19)

Councillor Hodgson moved and Councillor Joslin seconded the following motion standing in his name at item 19 in the agenda:-

"This Council strongly supports the Local Government Association’s policy of urging the Government to help fund all major Councils’ Innovation work. We urge all our local MP’s to help to persuade the Government to implement this policy from April 2003."

Councillor Margaret Godden then moved and Councillor Fawcett seconded the amendment of the motion to read as follows:-

"This Council regrets that the low level of local government funding and the constraints on how we spend what money we have makes it difficult for councils to invest in innovation schemes. Consequently the Council reluctantly supports the Local Government Association’s policy of urging the Government to help fund all major Councils’ Innovation work. We urge all our local MP’s to help to persuade the Government to implement this policy from April 2003."

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried by 26 votes to 17.

The substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and was carried by 26 votes to 18.

RESOLVED: accordingly.

45/02. APPOINTMENTS

(Agenda Item 20)

RESOLVED:

1. to re-elect Councillor Mitchell as the Leader of the Council;
2. to re-elect Councillor Margaret Godden as the Deputy Leader of the Council;
3. to re-appoint current members of the Executive, subject to the appointment of Councillor Robertson as Executive Member for Transport in place of Councillor Tudor Hughes who had resigned from the Executive because of ill-health;
4. to re-appoint all current scrutiny and other committees, to confirm the present political balance on those committees and to re-appoint the current membership, subject to the following changes:-

Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Rose in place of Councillor Robertson

Parent Governor Representative for Primary: Dr Athene Reiss to the current vacancy

Best Value Committee

Representatives of the business community:

Mr J. Appleton to the current vacancy
Dr G. Jones in place of Mr C. Quinton

Pension Fund Committee

Councillor Witcher for Councillor McAndews

District Council Representatives:

Councillor Jean Fooks (Oxford City Council)
Councillor Mary Neale (West Oxfordshire District Council)

Community Safety Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Simmons to the vacancy created by the resignation of Michael Buck.

46/02. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

It was moved by Councillor Mitchell, seconded by Councillor Hodgson and

RESOLVED: (nem con) that the meeting be adjourned until 11.00 am on Tuesday 9 April 2002.

The meeting reconvened at 11.00 am on 9 April 2002. At 11.30 am the meeting was adjourned briefly to allow the Council to observe 2 minutes’ silence in memory of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, whose funeral was taking place at that time.

47/02. SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET PROPOSAL 2002/03

1. to agree the budget proposals for Social Services contained in the report, and authorise the virements necessary to put these into effect; and
2. to note that the proposals entailed a significant re-allocation of resources, partly to bring budgets into line with activity and partly to reduce activity levels to an affordable level; and that as a consequence flexibility would be needed during the course of the year and further virements were likely to be necessary as a result.

1. that Oxfordshire redirect money from budgets that have been increased and stop the disastrous Social Services cuts;
2. that the government increase their grant to Oxfordshire, which currently receives one of the lowest grants per person in the country.

1. produce further information for members including a table of variations in expenditure on services as agreed during the budget-making process last year, as compared with their current position;
2. prepare a revised set of budget proposals, using the "bottom up/top down" method as recommended by the FINE report;
3. investigate the possibility of increasing revenue income in 2002/03, for example from the Supporting People Programme, from voluntary payments by clients towards services threatened by cuts, closure, and from increased contribution share from partner organisations such as Barnardo’s and others which have Service Level Agreements with the Council;
4. have further discussions with the Health Authorities and primary care trusts on funding for a joint strategy to alleviate bed blocking."

• efficiency savings eg from improved collective purchasing arrangements;
• increased government funding for Social Services;
• increased availability of capital resources resulting from the abolition of the Receipts Taken Into Account mechanism;

1.	Respite Care Centres	£500,000
2.	Home Support for Older Persons	£250,000
3.	Home Support for Learning Disabilities	£250,000
4.	Home Support for Children and Families – Relief to Carers	£100,000
5.	No Closure of Children’s Homes	£800,000
TOTAL		£1,900,000

a deferral of expenditure on members’ accommodation changes at County Hall	£400,000
an increase in the amount borrowed from school balances	£500,000
a reduction in the level of the Council’s balances	£500,000
a reduction in the allowances for general price inflation from 2.4% to 1.9%	£150,000
a deferral of the proposal for a Contact Centre	£100,000
a deferral in the repayment to capital reserves of	£250,000
TOTAL	£1,900,000

1. to agree the budget proposals for Social Services contained in the report CC21 and authorise the virements necessary to put these into effect; and
2. to note that the proposals entailed a significant re-allocation of resources, partly to bring budgets into line with activity and partly to reduce activity levels to an affordable level; and that as a consequence flexibility would be needed during the course of the year and further virements were likely to be necessary as a result.

in the Chair

Date of signing 2002

Return to TOP