ITEM CC1OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILMINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 13 January 2004 commencing at 10.30 am and finishing at 6.10 pm Present: Councillor DAVID TURNER – 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.
1/04. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
(Agenda Item 1) RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 4 November 2003 be approved and signed as a correct record. In relation to Minute 89/03 (Questions with Notice from Members of the Council), Councillor Margaret Godden undertook to provide the further written answer to Councillor Brighouse that had been promised at the last meeting. In response to a query from Councillor Hodgson in respect of Questions 3, Councillor Fawcett reported that he was pursuing his discussions with officers over making summaries of Scrutiny and Best Value Reviews available in libraries and museums. For his part, Councillor Mitchell confirmed that he and Councillor Margaret Godden had joint responsibility for the display of information in County Hall and that arrangements would be made for similar information to be held by Reception, together with details of how members of the public could contact members should they have views or ideas about the issues being raised. In relation to Minute 92/03 (Motion from Councillor Anne Purse – GM Crops), Councillor Simmons asked what progress had been made since the last meeting. In Councillor Purse’s absence, Councillor Margaret Godden explained the current position and outlined the work that had been done by officers to date. She undertook to circulate a written statement setting out the position to all members of the Council. In relation to Minute 93/03 (Motion from Councillor Brian Hodgson – Child Poverty), Councillor Hodgson drew attention to a survey of poor families currently being undertaken by the Fabian Society and Councillor Margaret Godden undertook to bring this to the attention of the Social Inclusion Working Group. In relation to Minute 96/03 (Motion from Councillor Janet Godden – Campsfield House), the Leader of the Council undertook to send a reminder to the Home Secretary seeking a response to his earlier letter.
2/04. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
(Agenda Item 2) Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andrew Crawford, Dickie Dawes, Mrs C. Fulljames, Margaret MacKenzie, Anne Purse, Don Seale, Christine Witcher and Harry Wyatt.
3/04. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Agenda Item 4) Wolvercote Division The Council received a report from the County Returning Officer on the outcome of the by-election held on 27 November 2003 in the Wolvercote Division. The Chair welcomed Councillor Bearder to her first meeting. Councillors Brian Law and Roy Tudor Hughes The Chair advised the Council of the death on 21 November 2003 of Councillor Brian Law. Councillors Mitchell, Brighouse, Margaret Godden and Simmons paid tribute to Councillor Law and the Council observed a minute’s silence in his memory. The Chair also advised the Council that Councillor Roy Tudor Hughes had resigned on 6 January 2004 due to ill-health. The Council asked that their best wishes for his recovery be sent to Mr Tudor Hughes. Council was advised that by-elections in both divisions would be held on 19 February 2004. Queen’s New Year’s Honours List The Chair reported that Barry Adby (former Watlington Fire Station Officer in Charge) and former County Councillor John Giddings had both received the award of MBE in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours List. He had written to them, and to all other Oxfordshire residents who had received Honours, congratulating them on behalf of the Council.
4/04. APPOINTMENTS
(Agenda Item 5) RESOLVED:
Community Safety Scrutiny Committee Councillor
Bearder in place of Councillor Roaf Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee Councillors Jelf and Mallon to fill the Conservative vacancies Environment Scrutiny Committee Councillor Bearder in place of Councillor Bryden Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee Councillor Wilmshurst to fill the Conservative vacancy Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee Councillor Roaf in place of Councillor Patrick Social & Health Care Scrutiny Committee Councillor Viney to fill the Conservative vacancy Best Value Committee Councillor Jelf to fill the Conservative vacancy Democracy & Organisation Committee Councillor Bearder in place of Councillor Roaf Pension Fund Committee Councillor Hook to fill the Conservative vacancy
5/04. REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION
(Agenda Item 8) The Council considered a report (CC8) which presented the outcomes of the first extensive review of the Constitution since it was adopted by the Council in September 2001. The review had been undertaken by an informal Constitution Review Group comprising the Leaders and Deputy Leaders of the three political groups and Councillors Andrew Brown, Jean Fooks, and Carol Viney, together with the Chief Executive, Head of Democratic Services and the Head of Committee Services. The work of the Group had been informed by the results of a questionnaire of councillors undertaken in February 2003, a series of informal lunches for members of Scrutiny Committees hosted by the Chief Executive during the Spring and Summer of 2003 and a discussion paper produced by the Leader of the Council. The Group had also addressed constitutional issues raised in the Audit Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment published in December 2002 and other adjustments to the Constitution required in the light of operational experience. Councillor Mitchell open the debate by moving the following motion which was seconded by Councillor Margaret Godden:-
Councillor Mrs Heathcoat then moved and Councillor Hook seconded that in respect of the changes proposed for the conduct of business at Council meetings (Annex 2) Council meetings would in future commence at 10 am and not 10.30 am. After debate this amendment was put to the vote and was carried by 29 votes to 19. Councillor Ferriman then moved and Councillor Harris seconded that Annex 2 be further amended by the deletion of paragraph 4 (reduction in time limits for individual members’ speeches). On being put to the meeting this amendment was lost by 32 votes to 22. Councillor Hodgson then moved and Councillor Segaran seconded that Annex 2 be further amended so as to disapply the reduction in time limits for individual members’ speeches (as set out in paragraph 4) in respect of the Annual Budget meetings of the Council. On being put to the vote this amendment was carried by 37 votes to 15. Councillor Evans then moved and Councillor Brighouse seconded that the proposal in paragraph 6 of Annex 3 (Section F: Scrutiny Committees) be amended to read as follows: "Amend paragraph 2(iv) to read as follows (deletion as shown and addition in bold italics): with
the exception of the Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee, exercise
the right to call in, for reconsideration, decisions made but not
yet implemented by or on behalf of the Executive In Procedure Rule (17), delete the references to call in of decisions of ordinary committees." Councillor Mitchell indicated that this amendment was acceptable to him and with the leave of the Council and of his seconder he amended his motion accordingly. Councillor Margaret Godden then moved and Councillor Mitchell seconded that the further options for structuring debate on member motions with notice (set out in paragraph 10 of the report) be adopted, specifying a limit of 4 speeches for and against each motion in addition to the proposer and summator. On being put to the vote this amendment was lost by 47 votes to 4. Councillor Mitchell then moved and Councillor Brighouse seconded that the further options identified in paragraph 10 be referred to the Constitution Review Group for them to consider further and advise the Council at a future meeting. On being put to the vote this amendment was carried by 37 votes to 11. In respect of the changes to Scrutiny Committees proposed in Annex 1, Councillor Crabbe then moved and Councillor Hayward seconded that there be 12 County Councillors on the Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee rather than 10. On being put to the vote this amendment was carried nem con. After further debate the substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and was carried by 53 votes to 0. RESOLVED:
"Amend paragraph 2(iv) to read as follows (deletion as shown and addition in bold italics): with
the exception of the Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee, exercise
the right to call in, for reconsideration, decisions made but not
yet implemented by or on behalf of the Executive In Procedure Rule (17), delete the references to call in of decisions of ordinary committees."
6/04. COUNCILLOR ROLE DESCRIPTIONS AND ANNUAL REPORTS
(Agenda Item 9) On 9 September 2003 the Council, in considering recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel relating to members’ allowances, had asked officers (following consultation with the Councillor Reference Group) to draw up more detailed proposals for how the Panel’s recommendations as to "role descriptions" for councillors and a system of annual reports by individual councillors might be implemented. A further report (CC9) was now before the Council for consideration. Councillor Harper opened the debate by moving the following motion, which was seconded by Councillor Margaret Godden:-
During the ensuing debate the following suggestions for textual changes to the documents at Annexes 1 and 2 were made for consideration by the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee:- Annex 1 Amend the ninth bullet point under role of Chair/Chairwoman/Chairman of a Scrutiny Committee to read "To represent the Scrutiny Committee at meetings of the Best Value Committee and the Executive as necessary" Amend the heading "Role of Chairman of the Council" to read "Role of Chair/Chairwoman/Chairman of the Council" and insert an additional bullet point as follows:- ". To ensure that meetings are effective and conducted in a timely fashion" Amend the heading "Role of the Vice-Chair(man) of the Council" to read "Role of the Vice-Chair/Chairwoman/Chairman of the Council" Amend the heading "Third Group Spokesperson" to read "Third Group Spokespersons of Scrutiny and Council Committees" Annex 2 Delete "Constituency" and replace with "Division" After debate Councillor Harper’s motion was put to the vote, each paragraph being voted on separately. Paragraph (a) was carried by 52 votes to 3. Paragraph (b) was rejected by 27 votes to 20. Paragraph (c) amended to refer only to Annex 1 was adopted nem con. RESOLVED:
7/04. MEMBERS’ TRAVELLING AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES
(Agenda Item 10) On 9 September 2003 the Council had agreed to adopt a series of recommendations from the Independent Remuneration Panel relating to payment of members’ allowances. However, in view of advice that had cast doubt on the legality of paying travel and subsistence allowances for attendance at political group meetings, the Council had deferred consideration of that aspect pending a report from the Monitoring Officer. The Council now had such a report before them (CC10). This report contained Counsel’s Advice not only on the issue of political group meetings but also on the legal validity of certain other categories of travel and subsistence allowances in the Council’s scheme in respect of which some uncertainty as to the legal position had arisen. Councillor Margaret Godden moved and Councillor Harper seconded that the Council:
Councillor Harris then moved and Councillor Ferriman seconded that a decision on (a) above be deferred pending further investigation and advice. On being put to the vote this proposal was lost by 31 votes to 15. During the ensuing debate, it was confirmed that in the final documentation any reference to "constituencies" would be replaced by "divisions". On being put to the vote the substantive motion was carried by 46 votes to 0. RESOLVED: accordingly.
8/04. EVALUATION OF THE JOINT OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL AND SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE AREA FORUM PILOT
(Agenda Item 11) The Council considered a report (CC11) which presented the Area Forum Implementing Group’s evaluation of the Joint South Oxfordshire Area Forum Pilot which had run from October 2002 to October 2003. The report’s primary purpose was to inform the County Council of progress in the pilot and to make recommendations for the future of County Council area forums across Oxfordshire. In addition, and as a result of joint working and the joint evaluation of the pilot with South Oxfordshire District Council, the report also reflected the views that were common to the Area Forum Implementing Group and South Oxfordshire District Council, and made recommendations regarding the existing Joint South Oxfordshire Area Forums. The report had been considered by the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee and the recommendations had the support of that Committee. Councillor Brown moved and Councillor Johnston seconded the recommendations in paragraph 34 of the report, amended at the suggestion of Councillor Hudson by the addition of the words "and to report on progress to the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee within six months" at the end of paragraph (2)(k). Councillor Margaret Godden then moved and Councillor Fooks seconded the following amendment:- "Amend (k) to read:
Add new (l):
Add new (m):
Renumber existing (l) as (n)." On being put to the vote this amendment was lost by 33 votes to 13. After further debate the substantive motion was put to the vote, paragraphs (1) and (2) being voted on separately. Paragraph (1) was carried by 28 votes to 20 and paragraph (2) was carried by 34 votes to 15. RESOLVED:
and
(j) clarify and promote its strategy for consulting and engaging with the public recognising that local area forums could only be part of the solution;
9/04. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE
(Agenda Item 12) The Council considered the report of the Executive (CC12) and Executive Members responded to questions in relation to the following items included in the report:-
10/04. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
(Agenda Item 13) In accordance with the arrangements set out in Council Procedure Rule (9)(b)-(j) questions were asked and answered as follows:-
1. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR C.H. SHOULER TO COUNCILLOR TONY CRABBE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SCHOOLS
The Council was required by Government to submit to the Department for Education & Skills by 31 December its proposals for distributing the recently announced Targeted Transitional Grant to Schools. Would the Executive Member for Schools please describe the arrangements that have been proposed and the principles underlying the submission? ANSWER The transitional support grant of £4.4m is most welcome in helping schools to overcome the difficulties experienced in 2003/04 caused by the underfunding by Central Government. However, the allocation of this grant places this Authority in a very difficult situation with regard to a fair distribution to schools. Following discussions with the Oxfordshire Schools Forum it is planned to distribute this grant under six different financial pressure headings:-
In the interest of simplicity a school that has forecast a deficit budget will receive a sum allocated in proportion to its AWPU's.
A change in the Oxfordshire funding formula in 2001/02 has placed an accelerated pressure on those schools with falling rolls. A rerun of the 2001/02 formula for recent years will identify those schools who have experienced this pressure. A reimbursement of lost funding on a like for like basis will be arranged.
Some schools experience widely differing annual pupil intakes. Where it is not possible to make up form groups of 26 to 30 pupils across two years the shortfall will be made up by ghost pupils.
This will be a straightforward reimbursement of the loss, on a school by school basis, where an increase in the School Standard Grant does not cover the shortfall.
In a limited number of schools a loss of one or two pupils has put the school below a funding threshold. Those schools who lost out in this way will be treated as though their pupil numbers had held up in 2003/04.
Prior to 2002/03 a Standards Fund grant for schools with challenging circumstances provided £70k to secondary schools and £25k to primary schools. The cessation of this grant has placed these schools, which invariably already have budget problems, in severe difficulty. Equivalent sums will be allocated to schools in these categories from the transitional support grant. I would also like to draw attention to the conditions placed on the LEA which are attached to this grant.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION I am particularly interested in (a) – Under-Funding of teachers’ pay. It says in the interest of simplicity a school that has a forecast deficit budget will receive a sum. Does that mean it will get all of that deficit repaid to it from this money and then all the other things will follow on afterwards or will it be a proportion of the deficit? What I find difficult to accept in this arrangement is that schools who have actually taken some action to reduce their deficits themselves it seems are not going to get the same amount of money that those who have taken little or no action. In the school where I am a governor and Chairman of the Finance Committee we took the decision last year to reduce a number of classes by 1. We reduced the number of teacher assistant hours. The new Head was required to teach 2 days a week. We even took up Mr Clarke’s offer of transferring capital money into revenue. Does this package that you have put forward and which I believe that you were obliged to put forward mean that that school is not going to get the money we would have got if we had not taken that action, and how do I go back to that governing body and explain that that is fair? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER This is quite a difficult one. I will deal with the last point first. If you look at my original answer, I did actually append at the end the conditions which are placed on the Council in distributing and actually obtaining this grant and item 4 says that the support will be targeted to schools in deficit in 2004/05. So this is actually for the next two years. It does not actually apply to the last year. That is the first point I should make.
Last year there were problems with many schools and many of them overcame them by using up their balances. That of course they will not be able to do this year, and so although they did not have a deficit budget last year they will possibly have a deficit budget this year. That is one category. There are other schools who as you have quite rightly said took the appropriate action, saw that there was a problem and actually addressed the problem. They had no deficit last year and hopefully will not have a deficit in the next two years. Then there is a third category of school who will have used their balances last year and will not have them and will clearly have a deficit in the coming year. So all schools will be different. First, to that school or those schools who have addressed the problem properly, I would congratulate them on managing their financial affairs properly. Secondly, it is rather perverse in fact that those schools who did manage them will not be getting any additional funding unless they are going to go into deficit in the coming two years. That is not an invitation for you to go to your school and say "set a deficit budget next year", as it could imply. I would also give a health warning to the plan that I have identified to you. This was a plan that had to be given to the Minister by the end of December and we will only be getting this grant subject to his approval. That approval has not yet been forthcoming.
Evidence is emerging from the audit of the 2002/03 Accounts that Social Services Income amounting to almost £1m over three years was allowed to accumulate in a bank account that was not cleared on a daily basis into the general County Council bank account. This income was not credited into the Council’s General Revenue Account. Would the Leader of the Council please explain (a) how this came about, (b) what interest, if any, was earned in this account and (c) why was not this failure of our financial systems detected earlier by Internal and External Audit? ANSWER How this came about?
What interest, if any, was earned in this account? The money in this account was included within the Council’s total banking figures for treasury management purposes, so invested on the money market. It would be time consuming to extract all the daily totals and come to an exact figure, but it is safe to say that interest was not lost. Why was not this failure of our financial systems detected earlier by Internal Audit and External Audit? (a) Internal Audit are not expected to routinely "double check" all year end balances, or review detailed financial transactions, but they detected this bank account on 6 August 2003 during their audit of Fairer Charging and reported it to me immediately. At this point, I instigated a full enquiry, which included Internal Audit involvement. This was a significant example of a breakdown in internal control and the internal audit role is to systematically review controls and report weaknesses. Responsibility for internal control rests with management, which, in this instance, was a joint responsibility of the Social & Health Care (and their predecessors) financial administration staff and Finance staff managed by the Head of Finance/County Treasurer. This includes the proper responsibility for ensuring bank accounts are reconciled with the main Council accounts, banking arrangements, reconciliation of balance sheet entries and budgetary control. (b) External Audit have indicated that they did not find the error because they are primarily responsible for certifying our Statement of Accounts and the figure of £500k fell below their materiality threshold of £2m. They check bank account totals by concentrating on the main accounts and doing a selection of the others, but this account was not one of those selected. I understand that Andy Burns (District Auditor) may be responding to you separately on this matter. The conclusion is that it was both Social Services Finance functions and the Central Finance functions which failed to exercise proper financial control. Procedures and systems are now in place in both functions, to prevent any reoccurrence of this breakdown. supplementary question Can I thank the Leader for a comprehensive and very clear answer to the questions I have put. This situation has some similarities to the Asylum Seeker fiasco that this Council was involved in going back about 4 years. I accept there has been no loss of interest but it is the third part of the answer that I have some difficulty with and that is why internal and external audit did not pick this up earlier. In the event internal audit did pick it up but after it had been running for about 3 years. The questions really arise around both internal and external audit and there were the same sort of problems with the asylum seekers situation in that no-one in those two bodies would take responsibility. Bearing in mind that the external audit costs this authority and will cost this authority next year in the budget book £360,000 and that some of that cost may be for checking the tick boxes in the CPA and checking the best value indicators to see that we are doing all that, are we right to say that they do not have a responsibility for this? Are they actually being deflected from what they ought to be doing by these other initiatives. SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER I have worries about this. I have a little bit of knowledge of auditing and for the external auditor of a public limited company carrying out the audit of the accounts at the year end, one of their standard procedures will be to write directly to the company’s banks requesting a bank audit from all the banks setting out in considerable detail information on every single bank account that organisation has throughout its entire group of subsidiaries. That will be a huge document setting out all the arrangements for borrowings, security, off-sets, loans, the whole works. One of the jobs the auditors would do is verify the money the company says it has in the bank is the same as the bank thinks it has in the bank, subject to cheques that are going through the process of clearing, and quite an important part of the process is the process of reconciling the bank records with the bank to ensure that there is accuracy, because particularly with computer systems, you rely on the systems being good, you rely on checks and controls being in place and one of the most reliant things you have is the external verification from the bank sent directly to the auditor that verifies what the company is telling them its got is actually there. I am not saying these processes are perfect but that is something I would have some reliance on and I have always thought that if you get a clean audit report you can be reasonably clear that the balance sheet position is reliable. There may be errors in the details of the revenue and expenditure but you can normally be reasonably assured that the balance sheet position is correct. I am pretty disappointed that the auditors had a reason for not carrying out an extensive and complete check. I have not done it yet, but I am minded to take this up with CIPFA and ask what their auditing guidelines are in relation to balancing verification of public sector bodies and see whether the auditor’s answer that we have got here actually complies with what I think is right or what the auditor thinks is right. It is pretty baffling that internally people did not notice something accumulating to £1 million over 3 years, but it is a bit more baffling that the auditor whose job is to verify the accounts did not pick it up. So I remain unhappy. The second aspect that I would like to have a look at I think is just to check that now our reconciliation systems in this Council are bang up-to-date because I had experience of another body quite some way away from here where the reconciliation got behind and the figures got extremely inaccurate and got into a real mess. So I think that there is room for a bit of a spot check on that but I think the real issue is around the audit reliance I would have on that balance sheet verification having taken place. I will undertake to write to CIPFA, to their professional standards people, and just check out what the appropriate professional practice is today for large organisations.
Will Councillor Robertson please help to ensure that negotiations are started as soon as possible with the current and prospective winners of the Cotswold Rail Line franchise, in order to extend the car park at Charlbury Railway Station? ANSWER I am pleased to advise Councillor Hodgson that we are already in dialogue with the First Group, initiated by them, about projects such as Charlbury Station and I am optimistic that we will be able to make progress on Charlbury and other station improvements in Oxfordshire. This of course will be subject to the normal proviso that adequate capital funding can be made available. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Thank you for the response. One of the reasons that I have asked this is that the scheme to prevent parking on Dyers Hill on the approach to Charlbury Station has been successful and that means that the car park is more frequently full than it was before. So I would like to know how optimistic Councillor Robertson is in two respects (1) how soon he hopes that the car park will be extended and (2) how hopeful is he that the so called adequate capital funding will be made available?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER First of all I am pleased to hear that the Dyers Hill scheme has been successful and that the car park is nearer full than it was previously. I am optimistic in the respect that the railway group who are the winners of that franchise have been very positive in the improvements that they want to bring about and in fact we have an added bonus because previously Thames Trains (who still run that franchise at the moment) had committed to building extra parking places at Hanborough Station and even though they lost the franchise they have said that they will still deliver that additional parking. So we are very pleased about that. I am very positive in that the new group have been very positive to us and they have delivered. As to the time element, I cannot say exactly when but I will certainly pursue it. As for capital funding, that depends where it is all going to come from but any coming from the County Council will be part of the bidding process which the single capital pot will go through between now and the end of March.
In view of high road deaths in the County, do you believe it would be worthwhile asking Thames Valley Police to do ‘stop and search’ to target suspect illegal Driving Drug Users? This type of work is being done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As seen on Police Video, drug users when stopped were freaking out and this form of behaviour must be seen as dangerous, with potential for accidents as well as from the side effects of drugs. ANSWER Accidents where drug use has been judged to be a contributory factor amount to around 1% of reported injury accidents in Oxfordshire, with numbers (typically around 15 to 18) of such accidents being fairly stable in recent years. The current 'causation factor' system used in the national accident reporting system does not distinguish between medicinal or illegal drugs, but I am fairly confident that in the majority of accidents where drug use has been recorded, it is illegal drugs which are either suspected or confirmed. These accidents include those where either drivers or pedestrians have been impaired by drugs; note also that in 50% of the accidents where drug use has been identified, consumption of alcohol is also identified as a factor. Although numbers are therefore comparatively low, the severity of such accidents is higher than average, and I do not think anyone could dispute the high risks posed to both the drug users themselves and other road users. As regards counter measures, I would expect that the police would probably regard that their existing powers and procedures for dealing with both driving and illegal drug use are adequate, although they may also feel that they have inadequate resources to apply these as actively as they would wish. However, it would be worth consulting the police on this issue and the forthcoming meeting with the police in connection with the Best Value Review for Road Safety would appear be an appropriate opportunity. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION My question is do you agree that searches should be for all irrespective of colour in order to determine driving ability and so eradicate these dreadful accidents on the road?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER I would sincerely hope that the Police would not discriminate in who they stop and search.
Given that the pub industry signed up to a charter in 1999 to increase ventilation and the number of pubs with non-smoking areas, will Councillor Farrow ask Trading Standards to conduct a survey in Oxfordshire of hotels, restaurants and public houses to see how many have, or are planning to have:
ANSWER Yes. I can confirm that I am quite happy to discuss this with the Head of Trading Standards.
11/04. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ANDREW BROWN
(Agenda Item 14) Councillor Brown moved and Councillor Karmali seconded the motion standing in his name at Item 14 in the agenda in the following amended form. "This Council agrees that to work effectively with the public and with other bodies, internal structures and nomenclature need to be configured in a way that makes sense to users of our services. To this end, the Council requests the Executive to work with the Customer Services Manager to identify what can be done to make the Council’s services and staff more easily accessible for members of the public and other bodies and to report back by September 2004." After debate the motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con. RESOLVED: accordingly.
12/04. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ROY MOLD
(Agenda Item 15) Councillor Roy Mold moved and Councillor Brighouse seconded the following motion standing in his name at Item 15 in the agenda:- "This Council:
After debate the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 33 votes to 6. RESOLVED: accordingly.
13/04. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR PATRICK GREENE
(Agenda Item 16) Councillor Greene moved and Councillor Robertson seconded the following motion standing in his name at Item 16 in the agenda: "This Council urges the Government to provide adequate funding for Local Government to combat the growth in 'Fly Tipping', including measures such as surveillance cameras backed up by staff working in co-operation with the Environment Agency. The Council notes that the cost of court actions supported by covert camera-evidenced enforcement is a great deal less than the cost of clearing up 'Fly Tipping'. A properly funded national approach will reduce the huge cost of 'Fly Tipping', providing a net cost saving to the government and improving the environment for all." After debate the motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con. RESOLVED: accordingly.
14/04. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON
(Agenda Item 17) Councillor Hodgson moved and Councillor McIntosh-Stedman seconded the following motion standing in his name at Item 17 in the agenda:- "This Council urges the Executive to negotiate a second round Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) with the government, to set up a domestic violence specialist court, building on the experience of Oxfordshire’s very successful multi-agency Steering Group and following the example of Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council. Their LPSA was created jointly with the police and the Local Strategic Partnership. The Executive should also consider ensuring that the court sets up post-trial monitoring into, for instance, the effectiveness of probation and restraining orders, and other ways of dealing with domestic violence." During the debate a number of members, whilst having sympathy with the sentiments behind this motion, expressed concerns that such action would be premature at this stage, particularly bearing in mind the Review of Domestic Violence currently being undertaken by the Community Safety Scrutiny Committee. Those Councillors present who were members of that Lead Member Review Group indicated that they would be happy to look at the issue of domestic violence specialist courts as part of their Review. In the light of this, Councillor Hodgson (with the leave of the Council and of his seconder) withdrew his motion.
in the Chair Date
of signing 2004
|