ITEM CA3CABINET – 16 May 2006Minutes of the Meeting commencing at 2.00 pm and finishing at 3.35 pm Present: Voting
Members: Other
Members in Attendance: Officers: Whole of meeting: J. Leverton and K. Coldwell (Chief Executive’s Office). Part of meeting: M. Simm (Community Safety); P. Clark (Resources); S. Kearey (Social & Community Services); M. Mill (Children, Young People & Families). The Cabinet considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with a schedule of addenda tabled at the meeting, and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda, reports and schedule, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.
82/06. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor John Howell.
83/06. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Item 10 – Local Government White Paper Councillor Chapman declared a personal interest on the grounds that she was a member of West Oxfordshire District Council.
84/06. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 May 2006 were approved and signed.
85/06. YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2006/07
(Agenda Item 5) The Cabinet considered a report (CA5) on the Youth Justice Plan 2006/07, together with a copy of the draft Plan and the comments of the Community Safety Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Patrick, speaking in place of the Shadow Cabinet Member for Community Safety, expressed concern that Health had not made a proportionate contribution to the Youth Offending Service and endorsed the Community Safety Scrutiny Committee’s view that discussions should be pursued with the Learning & Skills Council regarding the need to provide adequate training to assist young offenders aged 16 and 17 into employment. She further expressed concern that staff reductions in the Youth Offending Team had led to reductions in performance and asked if the removal of certain posts to rectify a budget deficit had provided value for money. Mr Simm responded that although the Education Manager post had been deleted, officers were now achieving better outcomes through close co-operation, adding that it was hoped that this work could now be delivered in-house. Members of the Cabinet welcomed the advice of the Community Safety Scrutiny Committee and echoed Councillor Patrick’s concern about the Health sector’s contribution to the Youth Offending Service. Councillor Mitchell undertook to write to the new Chairman and Chief Executive of the reconfigured Strategic Health Authority and to Mr Andy Burns, the Council’s Relationship Manager at the Audit Commission, to express the Cabinet’s concern regarding Health’s failure to make a proportionate contribution to the Youth Offending Service. In response to an expression of concern that school liaison officers had been withdrawn from a number of local schools as a result of the reorganisation of the local police force, Mr Simm undertook to emphasise to the Police Area Commander the importance of rural schools in the context of the plans to reinstate school liaison officers in certain Oxfordshire schools, commenting that the Police were currently addressing this issue and would be reinstating officers into those schools deemed to be most at risk according to national indicators. RESOLVED: to:
86/06. CHERWELL COMMUNITY PLAN 2016
(Agenda Item 6) The Cabinet considered a report (CA6) on the updated Cherwell Community Plan 2016 together with a copy of the draft plan. RESOLVED: to
endorse the Cherwell Community Plan 2016, subject to the riders set
out in the report. (Agenda Item 7) The Cabinet had before it a report (CA7) which sought Cabinet approval to the County Council signing Level 2 of the Strategic Partnering Agreement for the Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) in Oxfordshire. Councillor Armitage, speaking in place of Councillor Janet Godden, Shadow Cabinet Member for Social Care & Policy Co-ordination, stated that he had been concerned that the copy of the Agreement which had been provided to him had contained a section drafted on the basis of exclusivity, contrary to the stated objectives in the report. The County Solicitor had assured him that this would not be the version that the County Council would be asked to sign and that there would be no exclusivity arrangements written into the new Agreement. Councillor Armitage urged that this principle be maintained. Councillor Couchman urged the Cabinet not to sign up to Level 2 of the Agreement for the following reasons:
Mr Clark concurred that it would be advisable for County Council officers to undertake a full risk assessment prior to signing any arrangement, particularly in relation to the liability of partners when projects were stopped prior to implementation. Mr Kearey accepted that the immediate benefits of full partnership were limited, and suggested that the position be reviewed at a later date in the light of a full assessment of the benefits and risks. RESOLVED not to agree to the County Council signing the LIFT Strategic Partnering Agreement at Level 2.
88/06. SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACES AND FUTURE PROVISION
(Agenda Item 8) The Cabinet considered a report (CA8) outlining the position in respect of secondary school places in Oxfordshire, which proposed strategies to cope with future demographic change, in the context of future central government funding to support the modernisation and development of the school estate. Mr Mill drew the Cabinet’s attention to the following amendments to the report:
Councillor Moley, speaking as a local member, stated that he was a member of King Alfred’s Educational Trust, which owned the King Alfred’s central site. He urged the Cabinet to conduct a MORI type poll in order to glean community views on whether or not a new school should be built. He commented that this issue had implications for transport, the environment and community vitality. In his view, the School Governors were not equipped to make strategic decisions relating to the provision of schools; they had advocated the creation of a vast super school, which had been rejected by the community, as evidenced by the previous MORI poll. Councillor Waine commented that all interested groups would be consulted on the possible future strategy. It was too early to respond to the King Alfred’s foundation status, proposal. He personally was in favour of a more diverse and high performing service and would look to high levels of partnership and co-operation between all organisations. In response to a question from a Member of the Cabinet, Mr Mill confirmed that clarification of possible options in relation to the 16-19 age range was still being sought through discussions with the Learning & Skills Council. RESOLVED: to:
Councillor Robertson left the meeting at this point. 89/06.
EDUCATION PROJECT APPRAISAL : DIDCOT GIRLS’ SCHOOL The Cabinet had before it a detailed project appraisal (CA9) in respect of improvements at Didcot Girls School. RESOLVED: to approve detailed project appraisal ED642.
90/06. LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER
(Agenda Item 10) The Cabinet considered a report by the Leader of the Council (CA10) which set out the background to and possible content of the Local Government White Paper. Councillor Patrick, as Leader of the Opposition, welcomed the report. She considered that a structure based on Oxfordshire without the City of Oxford was not tenable, although one comprising two unitary councils, for the north and south of the County, did appear possible. If there were to be a single unitary council for Oxfordshire she considered that more decisions should be taken at a more local level, through area committees. She referred to the County Councils Network view that any future structure should have regard to the interdependence of urban areas and their rural hinterland. Councillor Liz Brighouse, as Leader of the Labour Group, expressed concern that the Chief Executive was only being recommended to work up options that considered enhanced two-tier working with district councils and a unitary council for the whole of the county, and urged the Cabinet to explore other options which had been identified by the former Minister for Local Government and Communities, to recognise the unique position of Oxford and to have regard to the regional dimension. Councillor Mitchell stated that, in the light of Oxford City Council’s plan unilaterally to seek unitary council status, he considered it necessary for the County Council – both in the interests of staff and of public understanding – to be seen to be responding. He believed that the City Council proposal was not sustainable and would produce the worst possible scenario for both the City and the rest of Oxfordshire. He emphasised that he would wish to work with all the district councils in exploring options for the future and considered that work must begin now in order to provide sound evidence as to the effects of different options. Other Members of the Cabinet, commenting on the report, endorsed the need to respond to the City Council initiative and to evaluate possible options, including enhanced two-tier working, against a sound evidence base which covered service effectiveness and relative value for money. Councillor Chapman spoke against the recommendation, commenting that in her view, it would be premature to consider options until it was known what the Government was proposing to do. RESOLVED: By 7 votes (Councillors Belson, Couchman, Jelf, Mitchell, Robertson, Seale, Shouler and Waine) to 1 (Councillor Chapman), that the Chief Executive be instructed to work up options that considered the advantages and disadvantages of both enhanced two-tier working with the district councils and a unitary council for the whole of the county.
91/06. FORWARD PLAN AND FUTURE BUSINESS
(Agenda Item 11) The Cabinet considered a list of items from the Forward Plan (CA11) for the immediately forthcoming meetings. RESOLVED: to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings.
in the Chair Date
of signing 2006
|