HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

MINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall, Hertford, on Tuesday 15 July 2008.

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

N E Agar
D A Ashley
S A Batson
M V Bayes
D Beatty
N Bell
C L Berry
D E Billing
N K Brook (Chairman)
P T J Channell
G R Churchard
R S Clements
K J Coleman
M D Colne
G Cook
M Cowan
M E Coxage
A D Dodd / M Downing
D J Drake
K F Emsall
B C Engel
S B A Giles-Medhurst
P V Goggins
R I N Gordon
B N W Hammond
T C Heritage
D J Hewitt
D W Hills
J A Hobday
N A Hollinghurst
S M Holmes
A F Hunter
S E Jones
I H Laidlaw-Dickson
B J Lamb / A Lee
B Lee
D B Lloyd
D E Lloyd
J Lloyd
R Mays
J T Metcalf
A Mitchell
J Morton
M D R Muir
S M P Newton
A Oaten
R G Parker
D A A Peek
S J Pile
J Pitman
T J Price
R G Prowse / S L Rackett
E T Roach
R Roberts
P A Ruffles
D T F Scudder
A M R Searing
E N Singam
R H Smith
L J B Spencer
W A Storey
S J Taylor
R A C Thake
M J Tucker
J W A Usher
C J White
A S M Witherick
Upon consideration of the agenda for the meeting of the County Council held on 15 July 2008, as circulated, action was taken or decisions were reached as follows:-
1. / MINUTES
The minutes of theAnnual Meeting of the Council held on 20 May 2008 were confirmed.
2. / CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
2.1 / Death of FormerCounty Councillor W Miller
The Chairman reported the recent death, at the age of 93, of former County Councillor Bill Miller, JP, who had represented the Letchworth East and Baldock division from 1981 to 1985.He had also been a member of the former Letchworth UDC and of the North Herts DC, of which he was their first Chairman.
The Council stood in his memory.
2.2 / Queen’s Birthday Honours
The Council congratulated County Councillor Sherma Batson on being awarded the MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List.
2.3 / Awards
The Chairman announced that the County Council had won an award for Most Effective Benefits Strategy for Working Parents and Carers, from Employee Benefits Magazine.
The Council also congratulated Hertfordshire Catering on being awarded Employer of the Year by OaklandsCollege.
3. / PUBLIC QUESTIONS – STANDING ORDER 7 (10)
(a) / Mrs L Mirams from Stanstead Abbotts asked the Executive Member for Adult Care and Health:-
“What safeguards did Herts County Council put into the new contract which commenced on 1 April 2008 to ensure an efficient and safe handover of the homecare contract to Care UK and, bearing in mind the continued crisis, what is happening to remedy the continued neglect being faced on a daily basis by the vulnerable, frail or disabled members of the Hertfordshire community?”
(b) / S M P Newton replied:-
“There was an extensive evaluation process undertaken which looked at the providers ability to run a robust home care service. This evaluation also looked at the providers’ ability in managing large transfers and explored their experience of dealing with the potential issues that can sometimes be inherent in transfers of this nature.
To protect employees, the Council clearly stated that TUPE (the Transfer of Undertakings for the Protection of Employment) applied to these contracts. In an attempt to minimise any disruption the Council only accepted tenders from organisations that submitted bids in accordance with this legislation.
Furthermore, the Council acted as facilitator in relation to the TUPE information and, although TUPE is, by Law, a matter between outgoing and incoming provider, the Council did all within its power to ensure that the outgoing provider not only applied the Law of TUPE, but also where possible went beyond the limits of the Legislation and applied best practice to ensure a smooth transfer. It should be noted that the actual transfer from the outgoing provider to Care UK was in fact very smooth, with nearly all staff transferring.
However issues arose following transfer and the council suspended its contract with Care UK on 29 May and has not placed any new work with them since that date. Some existing packages of care have also been moved to alternative providers, though capacity generally in the County is very tight. The Council continues to work with the Care UK to overcome the difficulties that they have experienced. We have an ongoing action plan in place which is regularly reviewed and is now having a positive effect on the delivery of care. We have implemented strict requirements on the provider, including the need to draft in over 20 experienced care workers to help stabilise the service.
We have also been working closely with other agencies in the area, several of whom we also have contracts with, in order to ensure that new packages of care can be put into place as they are needed
Looking to the future, the new contract sets out clear requirements for the robust and secure provision of care. This includes the use of electronic monitoring and a range of clear Standards and Key Performance Indicators, in addition to the National Minimum Standards that all of our Home Care Providers have to meet. The Key Performance Indicators cover the standards for attendance, with specific parameters set out for arrival time, length of visit and continuity of care amongst others. Not meeting the Performance Indicators will have a financial impact on providers.”
(c) / Mrs Mirams then asked the following supplementary question:-
“What would you expect that service users and family carers do to ensure that they receive the appropriate care that community charge residents of Hertfordshire are paying for?”
(d) / S M P Newton replied:-
“I can understand the passions and feelings this situation has evoked. It is not acceptable and never will be acceptable. Care UK (which represents about 7% of care provided in this area) are still being investigated, and to date we are not happy with their performance. We still have them suspended. What the County Council has done is to put in provision of emergency care and other special arrangements. These include rapid response home care staff who are deployed in the evenings, at night and over weekends (also covering hospital admissions and emergency response). If that hasn’t happened for you then it must happen as of today.
Care UK are a national company who had, until now, very good references and a good track record. They incurred 2 problems: first they lost key middle managers, who are the people who deploy the carers. I would say at this point that the carers themselves are doing a sterling job. It is not their fault; it is a failure of management. The carers are under fire and their morale is a bit low, so I must support them.
Secondly, Care UK experienced IT problems, and that coupled with the loss of the middle managers knocked them for six.
Having said that, I would have liked them to come to us sooner, so that the County Council could have sorted things out, which we are now doing. In future we will keep an even closer watch on our care agencies, though we already have very robust arrangements.
I can only apologise to you and your husband for the experience you have had, but I do thank you for drawing the matter to our attention in this way. We will now look very closely as to how we go forward with having agencies working for us, or whether we take services back in house, as we have in the past. This will be looked at very closely. Thank you for taking time to come here today.”
4. / QUESTIONS: HERTFORDSHIRE POLICE AUTHORITY – STANDING ORDER 7 (6)
None were notified.
5. / REPORT FROM COUNTYCOUNCILLOR MEMBERS OF THE HERTFORDSHIRE POLICE AUTHORITY
The Council received a report from CountyCouncillor members of the Hertfordshire Police Authority, under Standing Order 7A, presented by the Vice-Chairman of the Police Authority,R H Smith.
6. / PUBLIC PETITIONS – STANDING ORDER 14
Michelle Kirby from Borehamwood presented a petition regarding 20 mph speed zones.
This was referred to the Director of Environment for consideration and report to the Environment Group Spokesmen.
7. / HERTFORDSHIRE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY: HERTFORDSHIRE 2021 A BRIGHTER FUTURE
7.1 / The following motion was proposed by R I N Gordon and duly seconded:-
“That the Sustainable Community Strategy document attached as Appendix A to the report be approved.”
7.2 / The following amendment proposed by D E Billing, and duly seconded, was WITHDRAWN following an assurance from the Leader of the Council that the issue raised would be taken to the next meeting of Herts Forward for further discussion:-
“ Amend the motion at 7.1 by adding at the end :
‘subject to the following proposed addition being agreed for the Leader to recommend to Hertfordshire Forward for inclusion :
add to the Short Term Actions on page 12 (Children and Young People) a further bullet :
Young people get a wide range of properly resourced opportunities and facilities for easily accessed positive activities to match their identified needs
and modify the existing penultimate bullet to read ‘young people to get a wide range of opportunities to enjoy and to learn’.”
7.3 / The following amendment proposed by S J Taylor, and duly seconded was WITHDRAWN, following an assurance from the Leader of the Council that the issue raised would be taken to the next meeting of Herts Forward for further discussion:-
“Amend the motion at 7.1 by adding at the end :
‘subject to the following proposed addition being agreed for the Leader to recommend to Hertfordshire Forward for inclusion :
in the Short Term Actions on page 18 (Housing etc), amend the final bullet to read 'Increase substantially the number of affordable homes delivered'.”
7.4 / The motion at 7.1 was then CARRIED.
8. / GENERAL REPORT FROM THE CABINET
8.1 / (a) / The following motion was proposed by R I N Gordon, and duly seconded:-
“That the general report from the Cabinet be received.”
(b) / The following amendment proposed by D E Billing, and duly seconded, was WITHDRAWN, following an assurance from the Executive Member for Education and Culture that he would meet with Opposition Spokesmen to discuss the matter:-
“Amend the motion at 8.1 (a) to add ‘but that in Item 3, the quoted section of the area review protocol, to amend all after the first sentence to read :
'If there are objections, the Director will brief the Executive Member for Education and Culture and the opposition CSF Spokespersons and agree the means of exploring any new information or issues raised. The Executive Member would agree, after consulting the opposition CSF Spokespersons, a panel of up to four people with interest in educational matters (depending on the issues raised, and other guidance criteria), with whom to consult informally about the issues and the need, and if appropriate, the process for hearing the views of individual objectors (or representatives of groups of objectors). Officers would attend ...... Cabinet'."
(c) / The motion at 8.1 (a) was then CARRIED.
8.2 / (a) / The following motion was proposed by R I N Gordon, and duly seconded:-
“That the Council endorses the resolution of the Cabinet to institute legal proceedings against the Secretary of State under Section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in respect of the validity of the Regional Spatial Strategy.”
Upon the Chairman calling for a vote on the motion at 8.2 (a), R I N Gordon required a recorded vote under Standing Order 12 (3).
The proposal was AGREED; the recorded votes being as follows:-
Those in favour (55) :-
D A Ashley
M V Bayes
D Beatty
C L Berry
N K Brook
P T J Channell
G R Churchard
R S Clements
K J Coleman
M D Colne
M Cowan
A D Dodd
D J Drake
K F Emsall
B C Engel
S B A Giles-Medhurst
P V Goggins
R I N Gordon
B N W Hammond / T C Heritage
D J Hewitt
D W Hills
N A Hollinghurst
S M Holmes
A F Hunter
B J Lamb
A Lee
B Lee
D B Lloyd
D E Lloyd
A Mitchell
J Morton
M D R Muir
S M P Newton
A Oaten
R G Parker
D A A Peek
S J Pile / J Pitman
T J Price
R G Prowse
S L Rackett
E T Roach
R Roberts
P A Ruffles
D T F Scudder
A M R Searing
R H Smith
L J B Spencer
W A Storey
R A C Thake
M J Tucker
J W A Usher
C J White
A S M Witherick
Those against the proposal (15) :-
N E Agar
S A Batson
N Bell
D E Billing
G M Cook / M E Coxage
M Downing
J A Hobday
S E Jones
I H Laidlaw-Dickson / J Lloyd
R Mays
J T Metcalf
E N Singam
S J Taylor
Those absent (7) :-
R J Clarkson, D W Cullen, D S Drury, J E Heywood, S Quilty,
H M Saunders, R Thomas
The motion at 8.2 (a) was then CARRIED.
9. / REPORT FROM THE HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
The following motion proposed by D B Lloyd, and duly seconded, was CARRIED, with no members voting against.
“(1) That the Report from the Health Scrutiny Committee be
received.
(2) That in Annex 8 of the Constitution the composition of
the Health Scrutiny Committee be amended to read:-
‘15 members of the Council (11 Conservative, 2 Labour, 2 Liberal Democrat, based on current proportionality) and 10 District Councillors (voting) nominated by the Hertfordshire Local Government Association’.
(the previous reference to places for Patient and Public Involvement Forum representatives, or representatives from their successor bodies, is therefore deleted).”
10. / REPORT FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
10.1 / (a) / The following motion was proposed by A M R Searing, and duly seconded:-
“That the Report from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be received.”
(b) / The following amendment proposed by J T Metcalf, and duly seconded, was LOST :-
“Add ‘but a one off scrutiny of Herts Forward be added to the programme’.”
(c) / The motion at 10.1 (a) was then CARRIED.
10.2 / The following motion proposed by A M R Searing, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-
“That the Guidelines for Scrutiny appended to the report be approved as revised Annex 9A of the Constitution.”
11. / KEY DECISIONS/FORWARD PLAN
The following motion proposed by R I N Gordon, and duly seconded, was CARRIED:-
“That the position of Key Decisions in the decision-making process shown in the current edition of the Forward Plan be noted.”
12. / ITEMS OF BUSINESS REQUESTED BY MEMBERS UNDER STANDING ORDER 6 (2) (m)
None were notified.
13. / NOTICES OF MOTION – STANDING ORDER 8 (5)
13.1 / (a) / The following motion was proposed by S B A Giles-Medhurst, and duly seconded:-
“That this Council,
in view of the considerable public disquiet about the issues raised as a result of the recommendations of the Waste Management Cabinet Panel of 4 March 2008 to issue closure notices, effective from October 2008, on the Wiggenhall Road Household Waste Recycling Centre in Watford and the Tringford Road Household Waste Recycling Centre in Tring:
(i) recommends to the Cabinet that these closure notices be not
proceeded with, and that the said sites continue to remain open
(ii) requests the Cabinet to request officers to pursue further options for
enhancements and improvements to the Wiggenhall Road Household
Waste Recycling Centre site, in conjunction with officers from Watford
Borough Council, and to the Tringford Road Household Waste
Recycling Centre, in conjunction with officers from Dacorum Borough
Council.”
(b) / The Chairman determined that he would allow the motion to be debated on the day, in order to promote the Council’s interests.
(c) / The following amendment to (a) was proposed by D A Ashley, and duly seconded :--
“Delete (i) and (ii) and insert in their place:-
(i) in respect of Wiggenhall Road, welcomes the recent offer of additional
land recently made by Watford Borough Council
(ii) in respect of Tringford Road, agrees that closure is consistent with
County Council policy adopted on the recommendation of the
Environment Scrutiny Committee, and
(iii) in light of the above, endorses the recommendations made by the
Waste Management Cabinet Panel at its meeting on 9 July 2008 and
recommends Cabinet to resolve accordingly.”
(d) / Separate votes were taken on paragraphs (i) (ii) and (iii); whereupon paragraph (i) was CARRIED.
(e) / Upon the Chairman calling for a vote on paragraph (ii), S B A Giles-Medhurst required a recorded vote under Standing Order 12 (3).
The amendment was CARRIED, the recorded votes being as follows:-
Those in favour of the amendment (39) :-
D A Ashley
M V Bayes
D Beatty
C L Berry
N K Brook
P T J Channell
R S Clements
K J Coleman
A D Dodd
D J Drake
K F Emsall
B C Engel
R I N Gordon / B N W Hammond
D J Hewitt
D W Hills
S M Holmes
A F Hunter
B J Lamb
B Lee
D B Lloyd
D E Lloyd
A Mitchell
J Morton
M D R Muir
D A A Peek / S J Pile
J Pitman
T J Price
E T Roach
R Roberts
P A Ruffles
A M R Searing
R H Smith
L J B Spencer
W A Storey
R A C Thake
M J Tucker
J W A Usher
Those against the amendment (23) :-
N E Agar
S A Batson
N Bell
D E Billing
M D Colne
M Cowan
M Downing
S B A Giles-Medhurst / P V Goggins
N A Hollinghurst
S E Jones
I H Laidlaw-Dickson
J Lloyd
R Mays
J T Metcalf
A Oaten / R G Parker
R G Prowse
D T F Scudder
E N Singam
S J Taylor
C J White
A S M Witherick
Those absent (15) :-
G R Churchard, R J Clarkson, G Cook, M E Coxage, D W Cullen, D S Drury, T C Heritage, J E Heywood, J A Hobday, A Lee, S M P Newton, S Quilty, S L Rackett, H M Saunders, R Thomas
(f) / Paragraph (iii) was then CARRIED.
(g) / The following amendment to (c) proposed by S B A Giles-Medhurst, and duly seconded, was then LOST:-
“Amend (c) (i) to read:
‘recommends to the Cabinet that the closure notice in respect of Wiggenhall Road, be not proceeded with and welcomes the offer of additional land made by Watford Borough Council in 2006 that is now being taken up’.”
(h) / The substantive motion was then CARRIED, as follows:-
“That this Council,
in view of the considerable public disquiet about the issues raised as a result of the recommendations of the Waste Management Cabinet Panel of 4 March 2008 to issue closure notices, effective from October 2008, on the Wiggenhall Road Household Waste Recycling Centre in Watford and the Tringford Road Household Waste Recycling Centre in Tring:
(i) in respect of Wiggenhall Road, welcomes the recent offer of additional
land recently made by Watford Borough Council
(ii) in respect of Tringford Road, agrees that closure is consistent with
County Council policy adopted on the recommendation of the
Environment Scrutiny Committee, and
(iii) in light of the above, endorses the recommendations made by the
Waste Management Cabinet Panel at its meeting on 9 July 2008 and
recommends Cabinet to resolve accordingly.”
13.2 / (a) / The following motion was proposed by M H Cowan, and duly seconded:-
“That this Council notes with alarm the widespread threat to communities posed by the recently announced latest round of proposed Post Office closures. It resolves urgently to collect data from members and other interested parties as to the effect in their divisions and then seek a meeting with the Post Office, to bring home what the effect would be on local areas and to seek to reduce the number of closures in the county.”
(b) / The Chairman determined that he would allow the motion to be debated on the day, in order to promote the Council’s interests.