Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2014.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2014 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Please see note (b) at the end of the agenda.

A copy of the declarations of interest is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.

Please see the briefing note, which does not accompany this agenda, but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

a)        Cllr Bill Whelan

The Chairman welcomed Cllr Bill Whelan back to the Council Chamber following his recent illness.

b)       Flooding

The Chairman thanked officers from the Council, emergency services, Environment Agency, district councils, utility companies and voluntary organisations such as SARA for their efforts over recent weeks.

c)         Stewart Edgar

The Chairman welcomed Stewart Edgar who had recently been appointed to the post of Chief Fire Officer.

d)       New highways contract

Officers would be present on the Council Chamber landing following the meeting to provide information on the new contract.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 19 February 2014.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Two public questions were received.  A copy of the questions and answers were circulated and are attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Diana Shirley asked whether Gloucestershire County Council could now start to negotiate with Urbaser Balfour Beatty for an alternative technology.

In response Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that this would not be appropriate.

Question 2 – Diana Shirley stated that in addition to some councillors, there were officers who had championed incineration. She asked whether the officers advising on this issue should be the ones who had already promoted incineration as being the correct solution.

Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that officers did the best job they could and would continue to be independent.  He said that it was important to select the best technology.

The following oral questions were asked:

Oral Question 1 – Diana Shirley asked whether Gloucestershire County Council had made any effort to discover whether fracking would increase the likelihood of the release of radon gas.

Cllr Will Windsor-Clive stated that each application would be looked at in accordance with the Council’s planning policy. National research would be used and, at the moment, no planning applications had been received.

Oral Question 2 – Diana Shirley stated that as British industry was at last catching up with the US and EU lead that incineration was not the correct way to deal with our waste and bearing in mind that Conservatives were not, or should not, be in control of this Council now. Would it be possible for the councillor answering the public questions about incineration not to be one who was simply repeating the policy of the old Conservative controlled council?’

Cllr Ray Theodoulou responded that all things were possible.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written members’ questions.

The closing date for the receipt of questions is 10am on Wednesday, 19 February 2014.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Twenty nine member questions were received.   A copy of the answers was circulated and is attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Cllr Iain Dobie referred to the issue of self harming in private schools and asked whether Cllr Binns was satisfied that the help and support provided by the Council on self harming was equally available to private schools.

Cllr Dorcas Binns replied that the Council did a lot with regards to self harm and mental health issues and worked with all schools across the County. She gave the example of Gloucestershire Healthy Living and Learning and a forum where self harm and mental health issues were discussed.

Question 2 – Cllr Paul Hodgkinson asked why the Council would not provide detailed maps down to specific postcodes providing information on when areas would receive faster broadband and what type. He stated that other Councils were providing this level of detail to residents.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne stated that the Council was working with BT and that residents could use the postcode checker on the website to see what information was available.  ‘Fastershire’ was something to be celebrated and he suggested that we should welcome the investment. He explained that the government had announced an additional £10m for the project within the Gloucestershire/Herefordshire area.

Question 3 – Cllr Paul Hodgkinson asked for assurances that issues raised by the National Star College regarding families accessing guidance and support were being given due attention.

Cllr Paul McLain stated that he believed the issues raised had been addressed, however, he was happy to talk to the National Star College. He referred to member advocates such as Cllr Shaun Parsons and the work that they did. He drew attention to the excellent special schools and colleges in Gloucestershire where the Council spent significant sums each year.

Question 4 – Cllr Dr John Cordwell explained that the answer to his original question had not contained reference to the landslip at Old London Road and stated that it had been closed for 15 months. He asked where the road was in terms of priority and why it was behind some of the roads listed.

Cllr Vernon Smith apologised for Old London Road not being included in the answer and confirmed that it was on the list. The County Council’s position was that public safety was paramount and some roads had to be closed to undertake the appropriate survey before reopening the road. Officers were working hard in order to progress this work as soon as possible. 

Question 6 – Cllr Dr John Cordwell welcomed the additional resources in the Public Rights of Way (PROW) Team and stated that he hoped to hear progress on this issue in the future.

Cllr Vernon Smith stated that work was underway to reduce the backlog on Commons and Public Rights of Way (CROW). He thanked Cllr Dr Cordwell for his work over the years as part of the CROW  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To receive petitions, if any, without discussion.

Cllr Colin Guyton presented a petition to Cllr Vernon Smith, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Flood, requesting a reduction in the speed limit on Morse Lane, Drybrook.

For debate and decision.

A      Report and recommendations

B      Medium Term Financial Strategy

C      Council Strategy

D      Budget consultation

E      ‘Due regard’ statement

The Chairman stated that the budget was arguably the most important item of business for the Council each year.  With a minority administration the Council’s task was more complex than in previous years.  The collective objective was to agree the Council budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy and, following discussion with Group Leaders, a pragmatic approach had been agreed on how the budget should be presented and debated.  In order to facilitate this, there would need to be some flexibility to the normal rules of debate.

The Chief Executive explained the procedure that would be followed. Firstly, Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Leader of the Council, and Cllr Ray Theodoulou, Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, would be asked to present the recommendations from the Cabinet.

Secondly, in order to reach a position where a substantive motion could be debated, the other groups would be invited to propose amendments to the budget but there would be no debate at that stage.  This would be a departure from the normal procedure where only one amendment could be moved and discussed at any one time.  The Chairman therefore proposed that under procedure rule 24.1 the following part of procedure rule 13.5 be suspended for the duration of the budget debate:

‘Only one amendment may be moved and discussed at any one time.  No further amendment may be moved until the amendment under discussion has been dealt with.’

The Vice-chairman seconded the motion and, on being put to the vote, the motion was supported.

Once the amendments had been presented, the Chief Executive advised that the Chairman would call for an adjournment to provide an opportunity for the relevant Group Leaders to reach a common position. 

After the adjournment, the Leader of the Council would advise members of those areas where it had been possible to reach agreement.  Any amendments which had not been accepted or withdrawn would then be presented by the groups, debated and voted upon. 

Thereafter all members would have an opportunity to debate the budget in line with the normal rules of debate.  At the end of the debate, the Leader of the Council would have the right of reply. 

Finally, a recorded vote would be proposed from the Chairman on the substantive motion, seconded by the Vice-chairman.  This fulfilled the expectation of the Government that decisions on the budget and Council Tax were transparent.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne, the Leader of the Council, presented the recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 5 February 2014.  He said that the proposed budget followed the principles established in recent years: ‘supporting vulnerable people, living within our means, providing the basics as the Council could not do everything and helping communities to help themselves’.  He was proud that despite the cheque from the Government getting smaller, the Council had been able to maintain spending on Adult Social Care at the same level as 2010.  He noted the success of community run libraries and youth activities.  Significant sums had been invested to support the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

For debate and decision on the day, unless the Chairman decides otherwise.

The closing date for the receipt of motions was 10am on Monday, 17 February 2014.

The following motions have been received:

Motion 701 - Female Genital Mutilation

This Council notes that the number of women and girls living with Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the UK is more likely to be around 170,000 -almost three times the existing official figures – and that 65,000 girls aged 13 and under are at risk of mutilation in this country.

This Council is aware that in spite of the UK law in 1985 banning what was then termed ‘female circumcision’ there has not been a single successful prosecution in the country.

This Council is concerned that this abusive practice is being carried out in areas within our own county and that more needs to be done to raise awareness, investigate concerns and secure prosecutions.

This Council recognises the importance of a multi-agency approach that primarily involves education, health and local authorities, the police and the CPS in appropriately coming together to share data and raise awareness.

This Council welcomes the decision that doctors and nurses in the UK are now to be told to log details of injuries suffered by victims of FGM. It has been reported that by September, all acute hospitals will have to report this data to the Department of Health, on a monthly basis.

This Council requests for these figures to be monitored and evaluated also by the Health and Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee in order to see how big a problem these crimes really are in Gloucestershire and for this particular committee to determine what steps are being taken to stop the practice from happening to children in Gloucestershire.  

Proposed by Cllr Colin Hay

Seconded by Cllr Sarah Lunnon

Cllr Colin Hay and Cllr Sarah Lunnon, the proposer and seconder for the following motion on female genital mutilation (FGM), requested that it be deferred until the next meeting on 19 March 2014 to allow more time for a proper debate.

Motion 701 - Female Genital Mutilation

This Council notes that the number of women and girls living with Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the UK is more likely to be around 170,000, almost three times the existing official figures, and that 65,000 girls aged 13 and under are at risk of mutilation in this country.

This Council is aware that in spite of the UK law in 1985 banning what was then termed ‘female circumcision’ there has not been a single successful prosecution in the country.

This Council is concerned that this abusive practice is being carried out in areas within our own county and that more needs to be done to raise awareness, investigate concerns and secure prosecutions.

This Council recognises the importance of a multi-agency approach that primarily involves education, health and local authorities, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in appropriately coming together to share data and raise awareness.

This Council welcomes the decision that doctors and nurses in the UK are now to be told to log details of injuries suffered by victims of FGM. It has been reported that by September, all acute hospitals will have to reportthis data to the Department of Health, on a monthly basis.

This Council requests for these figures to be monitored and evaluated also by the Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee in order to see how big a problem these crimes really are in Gloucestershire and for this particular committee to determine what steps are being taken to stop the practice from happening to children in Gloucestershire.  

For debate and decision.

On 29 January 2014, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee supported the recommendations of the task group.

Cllr Brian Oosthuysen, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee, presented the recommendations of the Local Government Structure Task Group.  He explained that the task group had been set up following a motion proposed by Cllr Steve Lydon at the full Council meeting on 4 September 2013. The motion requested that an all-party scrutiny task group be set up to investigate the options for unitary working arrangements in Gloucestershire.

An ‘open conversation’ had been held with the district councils to seek their views on local government reorganisation.  He thanked the Leaders and Chief Executives from Cheltenham BC, Forest of Dean DC, Gloucester City, Stroud DC and Tewkesbury BC (or their representatives) for taking the time to attend the session.  Unfortunately no one from Cotswold DC had been available to attend.

The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, had indicated that proposals could be put forward to reorganise local government but they would not be considered unless all the councils in that area were supportive.  It was evident that it would not be possible to reach a common position in Gloucestershire at the present time.

Members were concerned at the unsettling nature of discussions regarding a potential unitary structure and believed that it was important to draw the scrutiny inquiry to a close.  Instead, they believed that efforts should concentrate on improving public services through co-operation between organisations. 

At the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on 29 January 2014, the task group’s recommendations were supported.  He thanked the members of the task group and officers for their efforts over recent months.

Cllr Steve Lydon stated that local government reorganisation would not go away and he believed that it was inevitable that it would come up again in the future.  He regretted that it had not been possible to seek the views of the wider business community.

A member stated that he was happy with the outcome of the scrutiny inquiry but believed that greater effort should be made to integrate services.  He said that the Council, the district councils and other public sector agencies needed to look long term and work strategically.  He hoped that this message could be conveyed to Leadership Gloucestershire and incorporated within the Council Strategy moving forward.

RESOLVED

a)    That, as there was no consensus in the local government community, there should be no further consideration of unitary local government for Gloucestershire at this time.

b)    To advise the district councils of the outcome of the scrutiny inquiry.

c)    To encourage public sector organisations in Gloucestershire, including the Council, the district councils, the health service, the police and the voluntary and community sector, to work together where there were mutual benefits. 

d)    The report be shared with Leadership Gloucestershire.

For information and members’ questions.

RESOLVED that the Cabinet Decision Statement for the decisions taken on 5 February 2014 be noted.

For information and members’ questions.

RESOLVED that the scrutiny report be noted.