ITEM CC1OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 3 September 2002 commencing at 10.30 am and finishing at 3.30 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.
66/02. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING(Agenda Item 1)
RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 18 June 2002 be approved and signed as a correct record.
In relation to Minute 48/02 (Minutes of the Last Meeting), Councillor Mitchell undertook to advise Councillor Hodgson in writing as to progress with the "Cube It" scheme.
In relation to Minute 56/02 (Report of the Executive), in response to a question from Councillor Hodgson, officers were asked in future to record the names of speakers on Executive reports and the topics raised.
In relation to Minute 58/02 (Questions with Notice from Members of the Council), Councillor Hodgson drew the Council’s attention to a very helpful reply that had been received from BMW in respect of question 2 and a very recent reply from the LGA in respect of question 3. He was asked to put his concerns over the latter issue in writing to Councillor Mitchell.
In relation to Minute 61/02 (Motion from Councillor Brian Hodgson), Councillor Hodgson drew the Council’s attention to the response received from DEFRA.
In relation to Minute 62/02 (Motion from Councillor Brian Hodgson), Councillor Hodgson drew the Council’s attention to the response from the Secretary of State for Health. Councillor Simmons drew attention to the Healthy Living Initiative that had been set up in Oxfordshire.
In relation to Minute 63/03 (Motion from Councillor Brian Hodgson), Councillor Margaret Godden advised the Council that a working group to look at the Land Tax issue had been set up and had met twice. The Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council had expressed a personal interest in assisting the group in its work.
67/02. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE(Agenda Item 2)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andrew Brown, Richard Farrell, Shereen Karmali and Carol Viney. Councillor Anne Purse also sent her apologies but in the event was able to attend for the latter part of the meeting.
68/02. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST(Agenda Item 3)
Councillor Witcher declared a personal interest in item 7 of the Executive’s report (agenda item 11), both as a parent of children with special educational needs and as a Non-Executive Director of the Learning Disability NHS Trust.
Councillor Evans declared a personal interest in item 14 of the Executive’s report (agenda item 11) by virtue of his membership of the Thames Valley Probation Board.
69/02. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS(Agenda Item 4)
70/02. CONTRACT PROCEDURE RULES(Agenda Item 8)
At the meeting on 18 June the Council had agreed to adopt new Contract Procedure Rules but asked the Monitoring Officer, following further consideration by the GOOD Group, to bring to this meeting proposals for amending those Rules so as to acknowledge that when evaluating tenders consideration needed to be given, not only to quality and price, but also to other factors such as local regeneration and Agenda 21 implications.
The Council considered a report (CC8) which set out the legal position governing public contracts and concluded that, whilst there were ways and means in which environmental and social considerations could be lawfully included in the procurement process, there needed to be flexibility in how this was implemented for individual contracts.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mitchell, seconded by Councillor Margaret Godden and carried nem con) to:-
71/02. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES – MOTION WITH NOTICE FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON(Agenda Item 9)
At the meeting on 18 June, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule (21) the Council had deferred consideration of the following motion from Councillor Brian Hodgson for consideration at this meeting in the light of a report from the Monitoring Officer:-
‘The Council agrees to amend Council Procedure Rule (2) by inserting a new sub-paragraph (xi) as follows and renumbering the existing (xi) as (xii):
(xi) consider any responses received in relation to member motions dealt with at previous meetings.’
The Council now had before it a report from the Monitoring Officer which explained the effect of the motion.
Councillor Hodgson spoke in support of his motion.
In speaking against the motion, Councillor Margaret Godden acknowledged that the present method of keeping members informed of responses to Council representations was not satisfactory but she did not believe this was the best way of addressing the matter. She suggested that when replies were received they should be circulated to all members and that a list showing he dates when letters had been sent and replies received should be circulated to all Councillors prior to each Council meeting. She would ask officers to put these arrangements in place should Councillor Hodgson’s motion not be adopted.
After debate Councillor Hodgson’s motion was put to the vote and was lost by 38 votes to 21.
72/02. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS 2003/2004(Agenda Item 10)
The Council had before it for approval the proposed calendar of meetings for 2003/2004 (CC10).
Councillor Mitchell moved and Councillor Margaret Godden seconded that the calendar be approved.
Councillor Tompkins then moved and Councillor MacKenzie seconded that the Council’s September meeting be held later in the month so as to avoid school holidays. The Chairman advised that, as this would require a change to the Council’s Constitution, the amendment would be deferred for consideration at the next meeting in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 21(b). Accordingly the Council went on to debate the proposed calendar with the exception of the September 2003 Council meeting.
RESOLVED: (by 36 votes to 5) to agree the calendar of meeting dates for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 (CC10), with the exception of the date proposed for the September 2003 Council meeting, which would be determined at the next meeting.
73/02. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE(Agenda Item 11)
The Leader of the Council presented the report of the Executive, which contained two recommendations to the Council. The Leader and other Executive Members responded to questions from members in relation to the following items included in the report:-
RESOLVED: (nem con)
74/02. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL(Agenda Item 12)
In accordance with the arrangements set out in Council Procedure Rule (9)(b)-(j) questions were asked and answered as follows:-
On how many occasions has subsidy been withheld from each bus operator running tendered services as a result of a check by County Council staff since 1 January 2002? Can these instances please be listed against the actual complaints made about each operator which have been made by the public to the County Council?
ANSWER:
The County Council’s Public Transport Monitoring Officer checks subsidised bus services throughout the County, acting partly in response to public complaints and partly on a pro-active basis.
His objective is to encourage reliable operation rather than penalise operators financially. Subsidy is therefore not withheld for a "first offence", but the operator is asked to rectify the fault and a series of further checks is carried out. Financial penalties are incurred only if a fault has not been promptly rectified, or it is subsequently allowed to recur. (This, together with the rest of the Council’s bus service procurement policy and practice, is the subject of a current Scrutiny Review).
The operators listed below have incurred financial penalties on this basis this year:
Chiltern
Queens 5 occasions
The following sixteen operators have not incurred any financial penalties on this basis this year:
APL Travel; Arriva the Shires; Baker’s; Charlton Services; Cheney; Grayline; Margaret’s Minibus; Mott’s Travel; 001 Taxis; Oxford Bus Company; Red Rose; Stagecoach Midland Red; Stagecoach Swindon & District; Tappin’s Coaches; Villager; Worth’s
The numbers of public complaints that have led to subsidy being withheld this year are:
Chiltern
Queens 2 occasions
Details of each occasion on which subsidy was withheld have been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre, as have copies of the complaints received.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION:
I am somewhat surprised by the answer which has been given because from my own knowledge the complaints for example against Stagecoach when they ran the number 10 service were many. In the answer have we only been given details of complaints where financial penalties were exacted, not the public complaints that were made to the Public Transport Section? I am also surprised to see that on six occasions Thames Travel have been found wanting, because in my estimation, and I use their buses almost daily, they are most punctual. They are fairly modern and always give a satisfactory service. I do know that certain vehicles did want for proper destination indicators because several more routes were added to their network because other operators failed and it does take time to get the routes amended. But I think that some of the penalties were exacted because the destination indicators were not working, whereas Whites for example use buses without destination indicators consistently and have never fitted them.
I will just give one example to this Council of why I asked the question. The proprietor of Thames Travel operated the ex Chiltern Queens service from Nuffield to Reading on Saturday the week before last. One passenger used the service and it cost this County £90 to convey that one passenger. That sort of thing should have been found out by the Monitoring Officer and was not. The reason for the low use was the fact that on very many occasions the operator never operated the service at all and therefore you should hardly be surprised that nobody used the service. I am therefore concerned that we do know all the public complaints received, not merely those which have received a financial penalty, and that we are able to form some sort of judgement as to what level of service we are getting for a very large amount of public money which is being spent.
ANSWER:
Yes, the complaints referred to in my answer are those that have resulted in a financial penalty. We have to be extremely careful about complaints. There was an example relatively recently where we had a large number of complaints about one bus operator and when we investigated it we found that it came from the relations of drivers of the other bus company. We have to be careful that reports we produce are factual and relevant. We investigate every complaint that we get; either we investigate it or the bus company investigates it. As far as concerns Chiltern Queens, I think members should be aware, if they are not already aware, that we were faced with an extremely difficult situation, an emergency situation where Chiltern Queens were withdrawing services virtually immediately and actually were withdrawing services by the day and we were in danger of not having any bus services there at all. We went out to tender and as was pointed out Thames Travel have taken over these services but part of that agreement is that we want to review the service and the amount of passengers that are carried to ensure we are getting value for money. It has to be said that the contract for the services that were previously run by Chiltern Queens is considerably more expensive now and there is a view and belief as Councillor Bradshaw stated that perhaps money could be better spent in different ways. That is part and parcel of the agreement that was agreed by the Executive so that there will be a review of these services by February 2003.
Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service is aiming to become the first Fire Service to achieve the RNID’s "Louder than Words" Charter. Is Councillor Farrow prepared to suggest that Oxfordshire’s Fire and Rescue Service should aim to reach the standards set out in the Charter as soon as possible?
ANSWER:
The RNID Louder Than Words Charter is closely aligned to the sort of good practices that Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service and other County Council departments strive to achieve for users of our services. There are a number of elements that OFRS already provide. These include the fitting of Induction Loops at our two main sites, deaf awareness training for staff (21 people trained to date), and a commitment to fit specialised Automatic Smoke Detectors in the homes of deaf people. To date we have been able to meet individual requests for the supply and fitting of these detectors. We have realised that there is a greater potential need across the County and therefore we submitted a joint bid with Social Services to the DTI for a grant to cover provision of approximately 100 detectors (a grant of £40,000). Unfortunately the bid was unsuccessful. However, further work has been progressing and another bid will be made in the near future.
On the specific area of the RNID Charter, there is an on-going cost associated with this. The brigade will be re-applying for the Chartermark award this week, and is also working towards re-accreditation of Investors in People. Whilst it is possible to receive an initial joint audit with the RNID at no cost, the application for the Charter itself may be constrained by the brigade’s budgetary position. The Chief Fire Officer has therefore undertaken to carry out initial liaison with the RNID in order to assess the additional workload and expenditure which would be needed to apply.
The report on the Council’s Capital Strategy to the Executive on 23 July 2002 stated, "the recent secondment of a senior civil servant to Oxfordshire to look at procurement has provided the basis from which to develop a procurement strategy for the Council" (para. 42). How soon will that strategy be published, and how much money is it aiming and/or likely to save the Council?
ANSWER:
This Executive is developing a procurement strategy, building on work started by a senior civil servant seconded to the County Council by the Cabinet Office earlier this year. CCMT considered a report on 28 August with a key recommendation to appoint a new Head of Procurement to drive the process forward. There is some funding for this but a bid for the balance will be required. A procurement strategy will be developed by the new appointee. Meanwhile a procurement manual, setting out best practice, etc is currently being written and will be published later this year. The Executive will not be making predictions about savings expected to accrue until there is a solid basis for such expectations. This is to avoid raising false expectations and so as not to encourage the Opposition on this Council to seek to spend money they have not got.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
The question was about procurement strategy and insofar as the reply is factual I am very pleased that the Executive is taking action. About six months ago this group drew attention to the vital importance of having a national procurement strategy which could save potentially millions and millions of pounds and as long as the Executive does not pursue that vigorously they are wasting public money. Will Councillor Mitchell, in addition to the excellent news about our own local procurement strategy, now be pursuing with the LGA and others the possibility of a national scheme which could lead to major savings?
ANSWER:
Well all parties have members on the LGA, and if the Leader of the Labour Group wants to pursue that I would applaud him for so doing. I will concentrate on trying to get less money stolen from this Council and moved up into the North. That is my first priority in the LGA and elsewhere.
In the report on the Council’s Capital Strategy to the Executive on 23 July 2002 (page 11) the maintenance backlog for the County’s schools was estimated as £61 million. In view of the Chancellor’s statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 2002, that capital investment to modernise schools has risen from £68 million in 1997 to £2.25 billion in 2001, rising to £4.45 billion in 2005/06, is the Executive pleased that the backlog will be tackled at last?
ANSWER:
Given this government’s track record to date in terms of double and treble counting of expenditure; of announcing, re-announcing and re-re-announcing the same spending plans; of endless spin without substance and failure to deliver improvement in public services, this Executive will bide its time in expressing pleasure unless and until the Chancellor’s statement is translated into money in the bank.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION:
This really is an incredibly negative reply, and I think it does Councillor Mitchell’s reputation no good to be so scathing. The original statement on Capital Spending for Education by the Chancellor talked about a 400% real terms increase since 1997 to the year 2005/06. I went to a conference in Leeds where there was a presentation on the Government spending programme and it was said "a very substantial increase in capital is on the way". Yesterday there was an article in the Guardian, from somebody who was very critical of the Labour Government, but he said that huge sums pumped into public services show they are not completely oblivious to the national mood. Is Councillor Mitchell not aware that at the Strategy & Resources Committee meeting in October 2001 he actually said "schools have money coming out of their ears, thanks to this Government"? Does he not read his own Executive report which says "the Council has a huge capital programme over the next few years primarily for school building and transport schemes" and did he not hear Councillor Tudor Hughes quite reasonably and eloquently point out that there are huge sums for transport schemes?
ANSWER:
Well Chairman it’s the three great lies, isn’t it? The first great lie is "the cheque is in the post", the second great lie is "of course I’ll respect you in the morning" and the third great lie is "the Government is going to pour more money into public services but it won’t be for a few years yet". Now, my reason for cynicism is I think three-fold. Firstly the figures Councillor Hodgson is talking about are future figures that we have not seen happen yet, and I said I will believe it and I will cheer when I see them, not just being spent, but being spent in Oxfordshire. The second reason for cynicism is the fact that the Chancellor’s spending predictions are based on growth figures in the economy that I think a number of experts are now questioning quite seriously and whether the Chancellor is actually going to be able to deliver or not will depend perhaps on the will of the Labour Party to put up taxes. While the Labour Party here might happily put up taxes, I am not sure that Mr Blair’s Labour Party will want to do that, so there may be some interesting debates in the future I think about the ability of the Government to fund the promises that it has made. My final problem I suppose is a fairly technical one in that capital money cannot be used on maintenance and repairs. Capital money is used on new build to provide investment in new building and not to patch up the old ones and so if this money does come to Oxfordshire it is not necessarily a way of addressing the backlog. This needs to come out of Revenue funding year on year and here we have a Government that is going to take £20million away from Oxfordshire to give to its friends in Durham, Sheffield and Newcastle. I am not entirely clear that we should be anything other than seriously worried about our ability to meet the maintenance and repair backlog, so my scepticism Councillor Hodgson remains unaltered.
How much will the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July 2002 on more money for affordable homes for key workers in the public sector help towards the Executive’s aim to achieve its Public Service Agreement on key worker accommodation?
ANSWER:
There is, as yet, no indication as to how much, if any, of this funding will come to Oxfordshire. Given this government’s past record on the number of times an item of expenditure is announced and re-announced, the Executive remains skeptical until it sees the money in the bank. However, in principle, this government’s support (both policy and cash) for affordable housing fits well with Oxfordshire’s Public Service Agreement (PSA) proposal on affordable housing. We have had an excellent response from the ODPM on our PSA proposal. To quote from their response, "we consider the scheme to be an exciting initiative". The aim is to extend our scheme, in time, to other local authorities in Oxfordshire (currently only Oxford City is directly involved) and to other public and private sector organisations. Our scheme may provide the basis for the effective deployment of some of the new money promised by Mr Prescott - we anticipated this possibility when we designed the scheme and have included a bid for funding for research to support/develop the scheme in our PSA submission.
75/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON(Agenda Item 13)
Councillor Hodgson moved and Councillor Brighouse seconded the following motion standing in his name at item 13 in the agenda:-
"This Council asks the Democratic Services Unit to produce an annual report on ways of increasing voter participation in local elections, for debate at a full Council meeting. The report would be drawn up in consultation with the five district councils in Oxfordshire and would include:
Councillor Margaret Godden then moved and Councillor Julian Cooper seconded the following amendment.
Insert after "This Council": "believes that no significant change in voter participation in local elections can be expected until local councils are given more autonomy over finance and policy. Nonetheless it…"
Delete "to produce...........informed suggestions" and replace with "to continue to advise the Democracy & Organisation Committee"
Insert after "younger people": "Council notes that it is already taking such measures as in, for instance, the introduction of a County newspaper, the establishment of an improved web-site and a separate youth web-site, preparation for e-government and greater consultation with the electorate on specific issues."
Delete "; and (b) measures" and replace with: "The Council asks the Democracy & Organisation Committee to continue to work with district councils in Oxfordshire."
Delete "Other measure could include proper facilities for" and replace with "and"
After debate this amendment was put to the vote and was carried by 33 votes to 21.
The substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and was carried by 33 votes to 3.
RESOLVED: that
"This Council believes that no significant change in voter participation in local elections can be expected until local councils are given more autonomy over finance and policy. Nonetheless it asks the Democratic Services Unit to continue to advise the Democracy & Organisation Committee of ways in which the Council might present itself so as to engage the interest of the electorate, particularly younger people. Council notes that it is already taking such measures as in, for instance, the introduction of a County newspaper, the establishment of an improved web-site and a separate youth web-site, preparation for e-government and greater consultation with the electorate on specific issues.
"The Council asks the Democracy & Organisation Committee to continue to work with district councils in Oxfordshire to improve access to the election process for all people, including those with disabilities and blind and partially sighted voters."
76/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON(Agenda Item 14)
Councillor Hodgson moved and Councillor MacKenzie seconded the following motion standing in his name at item 14 in the agenda:-
"The Council agrees to amend its Constitution in order to give any member whose motion is adopted by the Council, and that motion then requires the Executive to consider taking action on the issue(s) raised, the right to attend and speak on the matter when it is discussed at the relevant Executive meeting."
RESOLVED: in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 21(b) to defer this motion for consideration at the next meeting in light of a report from the Monitoring Officer.
77/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON(Agenda Item 15)
Councillor Hodgson moved and Councillor McIntosh-Stedman seconded the following motion standing in his name at item 15 in the agenda:-
"This Council requests the Executive to publish an annual report on:
this report to be debated by the Council every year."
After debate the motion was put to the vote and was lost by 29 votes to 21.
78/02. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR DAVID WILMSHURST(Agenda Item 16)
Councillor Wilmshurst moved and Councillor Greene seconded the following motion standing in his name at item 16 in the agenda:-
"The Council recognises the need to focus more effectively on and prioritise the critical key issues affecting the overall performance of the Authority through:
The Council resolves to set up an informal working group, comprising three members from each of the party groups together with appropriate officers, to consider (a) and (b) above, reporting back to Council via the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee."
Councillor Hodgson then moved and Councillor Joslin seconded the addition of the following after paragraph (b):-
"(c) involving councillors earlier in the formulation of strategy and policy documents"
and the addition of the words "and (c)" before "above" in the final paragraph.
Councillor Wilmshurst indicated that this amendment was acceptable to him and with the leave of the Council and of his seconder he amended his motion accordingly.
In replying to the debate, Councillor Wilmshurst confirmed that:
The motion as amended was then put to the vote and was carried by 38 votes to 7.
RESOLVED: that
"The Council recognises the need to focus more effectively on and prioritise the critical key issues affecting the overall performance of the Authority through:
Subject to the views of the Councillor Training & Support Reference Group, the Council resolves to set up an informal working group, comprising three members from each of the party groups together with appropriate officers, to consider (a), (b) and (c) above, reporting back to Council via the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee."
in the Chair
Date
of signing 2002
|