To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor WU Attfield and SJ Robertson.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest as a former Cabinet Member in the agenda item on suggestions by members of the public.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2008.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2008 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

(Councillor PJ Edwards declared a personal interest as a former Cabinet Member.)

In summary, a member of the public requested that the Committee call-in Council’s decision on the Notice of Motion submitted to the extraordinary meeting of Council on 4 September relating to the legal challenge to the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan, the majority of the points raised in the Notice of Motion not having been accepted by Council.  He said that no answers had been given to these points and questions raised in the Notice of Motion and that they warranted further investigation and clarification.

The Assistant Chief Executive – Legal and Democratic Services advised that the legal power of call-in did not apply to Council’s decision. The Council's constitution only permitted key decisions taken by the Executive to be called in.  The Council had properly debated the Notice of Motion and an amendment to the motion had been properly put and carried by Council.  The matter had been fully debated and accordingly scrutinised by Council.

A Member noted that an appeal had been lodged by Bloor Homes against the High Court judgment on the challenge to the Council’s resolution of July 2006 allocating land for housing at Bullinghope and was ongoing.  It was suggested that this limited the extent to which the issues involved could be discussed.

In summary, another member of the public requested the Committee to examine the Council’s approach to disclosure of evidence in connection with the High Court challenge to the Unitary Development Plan.

The Assistant Chief Executive – Legal and Democratic Services advised that Legal Services had acted in accordance with the advice of Counsel and had complied with the Court Rules.  The Judge had expressed his dissatisfaction with the Court Rules and it was understood he intended to issue a new practice directive.

The Chairman said that he looked forward to the directive being received.

To consider what comments the Committee wishes to make to Cabinet on the Service Delivery Review of the Council’s Service Delivery Partnership with Amey Wye Valley Ltd.

The Committee considered what comments it wished to make to Cabinet on the Service Delivery Review of the Council’s Service Delivery Partnership with Amey.

The report to be considered by Cabinet on 11 September had been circulated with the agenda papers.  This sought authority to commence formal negotiations with Amey based on a Herefordshire Model of service delivery, as outlined in the report, as the preferred model. This was a “managing agent” model under which, subject to successful negotiations, Amey would take on the relevant Council staff responsible for the relevant service areas under TUPE arrangements.  It was proposed that a further report would be submitted to Cabinet on conclusion of the negotiations.   Negotiation of the preferred model would not restrict the recommendation of a different model if it was clear that this would be in the Council’s best interests.

The report also proposed that Asset Management and Property Services should be excluded from the negotiation whilst a wider review of the property estate and its management was carried out, to be completed by the end of March 2009.

The Director of Environment and Culture invited comments on the report, the substance of which had been previously debated by the Committee in June.

In the course of discussion the principal points were made:

·         Concern was expressed as to whether due weight was being given in the discussions to the importance of quality of service.  It was suggested that it was hard to accept that savings of £1million per annum could be generated in the context of the current level of the contract and improvements made to the quality of service at the same time.  The Director said that he considered it was possible both to make savings and improve the quality of service.  The detailed report it was proposed to provide to Cabinet in December would set out how improvements in quality would be secured.

·         A number of questions were asked about the views of staff on the proposals and the effect the proposals would have on them.  The Director noted that the report to Cabinet was seeking approval to enter into detailed negotiations.  He believed staff were satisfied with the way the process had been conducted and communicated to date.  There had been regular newsletters and briefings.  However, staff had understandable concern about the implications of transferring to Amey.  Advice would need to be offered to staff on their individual positions.

      Members observed that the TUPE provisions protecting terms and conditions on transfer to Amey did have their limitations in that they ceased to apply if an employee changed their role or, for example, secured a promotion.

·         That there had been considerable tension between the Council and the contractor.  The managing agent model seemed to be the best way of resolving that difficulty.  However, it was important that reassurance was provided on the employment issues.

·         In response to a question the Director confirmed that the Trades Unions had been invited to all meetings of the Project Board,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To consider the Committee’s work programme

The Committee considered its work programme.

Further to discussion at the Committee’s meeting in July the Chairman of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee had requested that the proposal by the Children’s’ Services Scrutiny Committee regarding the appointment of Councillors on the Committee as champions for one of each of the outcome areas of the Every Child Matters agenda be authorised to proceed.

The following addition was noted:  a report consulting the Committee on completion of the asset management and property review.

It was requested that consideration be given to the agenda for the October meeting which already appeared too heavy, even after agreeing to move consideration of the Medium Term Financial Strategy to November.  

A request was made that lengthy reports should be accompanied by a proper summary of their content.

RESOLVED:

That       (a)     the work programme as amended serve as a basis for further development; and

               (b)     the proposal by the Children’s’ Services Scrutiny Committee regarding the appointment of Councillors on the Committee as champions for one of each of the outcome areas of the Every Child Matters agenda be authorised to proceed.