Agenda item

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am on the working day before the meeting, ask a question on any matter in respect of the Cabinet’s delegated powers.

The number of questions which may be asked by any councillor at any one meeting is limited to two (or one question with notice and a supplementary question at the meeting) and the time for questions will be limited to 30 minutes in total. As with questions at Council, any questions which remain unanswered at the end of this item will receive a written response.

Questions submitted prior to the agenda being despatched are shown below and will be the subject of a response from the appropriate Cabinet Member or such other councillor or officer as is determined by the Cabinet Member, and shall not be the subject of further debate at this meeting. Questions received after the despatch of the agenda, but before the deadline, will be shown on the Schedule of Addenda circulated at the meeting, together with any written response which is available at that time.

Councillor Richard Stevens had given notice of the following question to the Leader:

“1.        Recent research reveals that over 40% of GP's believe that the proposed changes contained in the Health White Paper (Liberating the NHS) will lead to a postcode lottery, with services to patients becoming more varied.  The research also shows that over 70% of GPs believe the changes will lead to much greater private sector involvement in the NHS.  Given these statistics, can the Leader of the Council explain why his government is only consulting on the implementation of these changes and not the actual changes themselves?”

Councillor Mitchell replied:

“These figures are taken from a small survey of 300 GPs, compared to over 40,000 GPs in England.  From the Government's own discussions with GPs around the country, it is clear that many are enthusiastic about the reforms. Indeed, 92% of GP practices are already part of practice-based commissioning groups, a policy actively espoused by the Labour Government and our proposals for GP-led commissioning simply build upon these.

The actual changes which the Government is undertaking are consistent with the Coalition agreement: a strong local voice for patients through democratic representation and the devolution of commissioning responsibilities to GPs.  The reforms the coalition government has announced are simply the most cost-effective way of achieving these changes and that is why the government is consulting on how to implement them. The proposals are to be included in the proposed Health Bill and will therefore be subject to Parliament’s approval.”

Councillor Liz Brighouse, OBE  had given notice of the following question to the Leader:

“2.        On Tuesday 14^th September Council agreed two motions concerning support for the most disadvantaged.  In order to ensure the poorest people in the county are not disproportionately affected by the fiscal policies of the government, will the Cabinet assess each policy change required in relation to its impact on poverty?”

Councillor Mitchell replied:

“The Cabinet will most certainly be assessing the impact of public spending cuts on all of our residents and, particularly, on the most disadvantaged.  However, "poverty" can be defined in many ways and is not necessarily synonymous with disadvantage.   The Cabinet will be concentrating on assessing the impact of potential decisions on all categories of disadvantaged people throughout its budget deliberations and providing an evidence base for this.”

Supplementary: Councillor Brighouse referred to news today of cuts to children’s projects across Oxfordshire. She asked that in looking at issues of deprivation consideration also be given to rural isolation. Given that the funding was in budgets she queried how much further the cuts would go and how many more projects would be affected?

Councillor Mitchell replied that the current government cuts were 25% compared to 20% envisaged by the previous government and were the price for years of structural imbalance to bring spending into line with income. Public Sector Borrowing had hit a record high in August 2010. Rural deprivation would be one of the factors considered in action taken.

Councillor Roy Darke had given notice of the following question to the cabinet Member for Finance & Property:

“3.        David Cameron said earlier this year that "This economy is going to recover when we get the private sector going, by boosting enterprise."  Given the recent announced job losses at the Cowley BMW plant, and the recent collapse of other local firms, can the Cabinet Member for Finance explain exactly how cutting public sector jobs in Oxfordshire is going to boost the private sector?” 

Councillor Couchman replied:

“This question starts from the premise that the country has an alternative to cutting public spending.  It does not.  The last government spent more than it received in every year since 2001.  This was well before a banking crisis and recession.  The last government's level of indebtedness meant the country was ill prepared for the measures necessary to counter the downturn.  The present government has inherited a structural imbalance which means that there is £4 of spending for every £3 of income.  It will inevitably take time to rectify this structural deficit and, until then, we will be adding to the mountain of debt and not reducing it.  The question is not "should we be cutting public spending" but "by how much and how quickly must we make the cuts?".  Labour had already planned to cut public revenue spending by 20% and capital spending by 50%.  After seeing the degree of the structural deficit, the coalition has increased Labour's 20% of cuts to 25% on revenue and maintained Labour's cuts on capital at 50%.

Cutting public spending is bound to impact on those parts of the private sector that deliver public services.  It is inevitable.  Oxfordshire is particularly vulnerable, given our high dependence on public sector jobs.  This is why it is vital to promote conditions that will allow the private sector to thrive.  This involves improving education and skills provision to equip school and college leavers for successful and well paid careers; to enable workers of all ages to re-skill and up-skill where necessary; and to help those not in education, employment or training to gain confidence, skills and pride in employment.  It involves making the planning system more welcoming and supportive of the economy.  It means improving our transport system to make movement easier.  It means stripping away some of the red tape and blockages that inhibit economic growth.  It means welcoming overseas investment to a county with the most exciting science and knowledge transfer facilities anywhere and a living environment of equal quality. 

That is why an Oxfordshire City Region Enterprise Partnership is so important to capitalise on our assets, address our shortcomings and support a vibrant and growing private sector as the public sector necessarily declines.  The country cannot go on spending more than it earns.”     

Supplementary: Councillor Darke referred to the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister expressing concern over the possibility of a further downturn in the economy. Does the County Council have a Plan B in the light of the decline in the economy given that in recent reports Oxfordshire was seen as being particularly susceptible?

Councillor Couchman replied that until the Spending review in October and the local government settlement in late November/early December there was no need for a Plan B. He awaited the outcome with interest.

Councillor John Sanders had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet member for Transport:

“4.        I was astounded to receive notification of the proposed 25% increases in charges to residents for parking in Controlled Parking Zones in Oxford. 

The saga of these charges and their unpopularity goes back several years.  One of the strong objections put forward by Oxford residents was that once the system was embedded, the Conservative-led County Council would be free to increase charges as it saw fit.   At that time an assurance was given that increases would only be in line with RPI inflation.  This was put in writing and repeated at public meetings. 

For example:

Cabinet report 19 Sept 2006 (page 29) in response to an objection by residents that "The £40 charge will quickly be increased to a much higher figure” the Council officer comment is “The Draft Traffic Order limits increases in the charge to an adjustment once every three years based on inflation over this period."

Proposed Charges for Residents’ and Visitors’ Parking Permits: Consultation Information (June 2006). "Adjustments for inflation –The charges will be kept the same for three-year periods.  After each three-year period the charges would be adjusted for inflation using the Retail Price Index"

There is no mention of slapping on a hefty increased charge.

Will the Cabinet member for Transport explain why, only three years after a firm promise to the people who reluctantly took part in the consultation, he now intends to renege on it?”

Councillor Rose replied:

“When the City council effectively handed over the running of Oxford on-street parking to the County Council, as they were unable to administer the scheme properly, the County were clear that the charge would cover the administration costs. Since then, national legislation increases in Penalty Charges has seen a 25% drop in offences. We could not have foreseen this result, which has been reflected by other Authorities. We finished up with other Council budgets subsidising the administration costs. In the new climate of a National debt of £950,000,000,000 after 13 years of a Labour government the Council can no longer continue to charge at less than the costs involved.”

Supplementary: Councillor John Sanders queried how much of the £950,000m could be attributed to running CPZ schemes in Oxford. The level of national debt was comparable to that at the end of the last Conservative government. He asserted that the new charges were to recoup money wasted on a particular scheme and questioned when there would be an admittance of incompetence.

Councillor Rose replied that the question was factually incorrect so he was not going to answer it.

Councillor Richard Stevens had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Member for Transport:

“5.        Can the Cabinet Member for Transport explain why nobody from the County Council is being made available to attend the Area Committees to explain the recently proposed above-inflation increase in parking charges that are to be levied on people in Oxford?”

Councillor Rose replied:

“All members whether county or city can put their concerns down in writing to officially object to the proposals and I will take their concerns into account when coming to my decision on this matter. The service is not able to resource officer attendance at all of the Area Committees prior to the decision committee. It would be inappropriate for me to attend as this matter is coming before me to make the final decision at cabinet member decisions.”