Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 78 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Anne Gowing or James Stanton 020 8541 9938 Email: anne.gowing@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no apologies.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 22 and 30 OCTOBER 2013
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 22 and 30 October 2013 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Additional documents: |
|
Additional documents: Decision: Five questions had been received from Members. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 1.
N.B. The Annexes for the response to question 4 have been published under item number 4 on the agenda page.
Minutes: Five questions had been received from Members. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 1. (N.B. The Annexes for the response to question 4 have been published under item number 4 on the agenda page)
Mrs Watson asked the following supplementary questions:
She requested a copy of the agreement between Surrey County Council and the Mayor of London’s office, which confirmed that the Prudential RideLondon cycle event would take place in Surrey for five years, starting in 2013. The Leader of the Council informed her that this had been a verbal agreement between himself and the Mayor of London.
She also said that a previous response from Cabinet in September 2013 had said that the cycle events had incurred no direct costs for the County Council but the response to question (4) today had set out costs for the Tour of Britain 2012 and 2013. The Leader of the Council responded by stating that the answer provided in September only referred to the Prudential RideLondon event which had not incurred direct costs to the County Council.
|
|
Additional documents: Decision: One question has been received from members of the public. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 2.
Minutes: One question has been received from members of the public. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 2.
Mr Crews asked the following supplementary question:
‘Paragraph 48 of the report to the Cabinet on 30/10/13 states: ‘Deloitte anticipate formally confirming that there is no material difference between Option 1 and Option 2 based only on financial analysis.
I now understand Option 1 means delivery of the Eco Park within the Waste PFI contract. Option 2 means termination of the Waste PFI contract and delivery of waste disposal by SCC through third party arrangements.
Paragraph 11 of the report to the Cabinet on 23/07/13 states that this Option 2 is £78m more than Option 1 where the £78m is a net present value over 25 years.
How can a difference of £78m in July become no material difference in October? Please could the answer be given in writing and expressed in qualitative terms to overcome the fact that no cost information can be released to the public.’
The Leader of the Council agreed to respond in writing to Mr Crews supplementary question.
|
|
|
Petitions
Additional documents: Minutes: No petitions were received.
|
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
Additional documents: Minutes: No representations were received.
|
|
|
REPORTS FROM SELECT COMMITTEES, TASK GROUPS, LOCAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Youth Justice Strategic Plan
Additional documents: Decision: Following finalisation of the Plan by all our partners, to recommend to Council the approval of the Youth Justice Strategic Plan.
Reasons for Decisions:
The council has a duty under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 to formulate a Youth Justice Plan setting out: · how youth justice services in their area are to be provided and funded; and · how the youth offending team or teams established are to be composed and funded, · how they are to operate and what functions they are to carry out. Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Children and Families informed Members that the Council had a duty under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 to formulate a Youth Justice Plan setting out: (i) how youth justice services in their area were to be provided and funded; (ii) how the youth offending team or teams established were to be composed and funded, (iii) how they were to operate and what functions they were to carry out.
She said that she hoped that Cabinet would agree the Youth Justice Strategic Plan today so that it could then be approved at the County Council meeting on 10 December 2013.
She also said that in Surrey, the delivery of youth justice services was now embedded within the integrated Youth Support Service, following the transformation of Services for Young People that commenced 1 January 2012.
She highlighted the key achievements of the service in Surrey (as set out in paragraph 2 of the report) and made particular reference to Surrey’s restorative justice programme, which was nationally recognised.
She also confirmed that the Plan identified five (and not six) areas of risk.
Other Cabinet Members commented on the report and were very supportive of the work of the service and fully endorsed the Youth Justice Strategic Plan.
The Leader of the Council suggested that the Cabinet Member for Children and Families wrote to Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary informing him of the notable achievements of Surrey’s youth justice partnerships.
Finally, she thanked Mrs Hammond, who had previously had responsibility for youth justice in her previous portfolio.
RESOLVED:
Following finalisation of the Plan by all our partners, to recommend to Council the approval of the Youth Justice Strategic Plan.
Reasons for Decisions:
The council has a duty under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 to formulate a Youth Justice Plan setting out: · how youth justice services in their area are to be provided and funded; and · how the youth offending team or teams established are to be composed and funded, · how they are to operate and what functions they are to carry out. |
|
|
Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) Public Safety Plan Update
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That a review of the Public Safety Plan 2011- 2020 be endorsed. 2. An updated draft Public Safety Plan be agreed by Cabinet in October 2014, prior to public consultation.
Reasons for Decisions:
SFRS continues to modernise and adapt to changing demands and the community risk profile. With central government considering Sir Ken Knight’s Review, the increasing challenges around public spending, transformational collaborative working opportunities and our Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) targets, it is the right time to develop the PSP further.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Associate for Fire and Police Services was invited to present this report and began by congratulating the Chief Fire Officer and his staff for their professional approach at this difficult time – this was endorsed by the Cabinet.
She said that all Fire and Rescue Services were facing a changing demand and must adapt to provide more effective and efficient services. After extensive consultation in 2010, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service had established a long term plan, the Public Safety Plan 2011-2020, which the service proposed to update and develop to ensure it took account of new information including the census data and intelligence regarding the changing environment, national and local demands. She considered that Surrey County Council was at the forefront of planning for the future and commended the revised recommendations (tabled at the meeting) to Members.
RESOLVED:
1. That a review of the Public Safety Plan 2011- 2020 be endorsed.
2. An updated draft Public Safety Plan be agreed by Cabinet in October 2014, prior to public consultation.
Reasons for Decisions:
SFRS continues to modernise and adapt to changing demands and the community risk profile. With central government considering Sir Ken Knight’s Review, the increasing challenges around public spending, transformational collaborative working opportunities and our Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) targets, it is the right time to develop the PSP further. |
|
|
Specialist Rescue and Contingency Crewing Extension
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the current pilot contract for the provision of specialist rescue and contingency crewing capability be extended to 31 March 2015 with a break clause at 31 May 2014 to ensure suitable long term funding has been identified.
2. That the outcome of the Specialist Rescue and Contingency Crewing Review be presented to a future Cabinet meeting.
Reasons for Decisions:
1. SFRS has utilised the contingency crewing element of the contract during all periods of industrial action - this identified that the contractors are able to meet the minimum criteria established in the contract and have capacity to provide additional resources on request.
2. The additional capacity and flexibility provided by the SRCC contract offers potential to provide better value for money in a number of aspects of service delivery pertaining to SFRS, blue-light partners and other agencies. However, it is suggested that the current industrial action makes this an inappropriate time to take a long term decision on the SRCC arrangements, the benefits of which can be more fully assessed once the series of strike actions have concluded.
3. The Service intends to review and refresh the Public Safety Plan taking account of new information and government guidance. The recommendation will enable this activity to be completed prior to a decision on the future of the Specialist Rescue and Contingency Crewing contract, ensuring that the specification can take full account of SFRS requirements. 4. SFRS is therefore requesting approval from Cabinet to further explore these options by extending the current contract to 31 March 2015. The Service proposes to present the full year evaluation and proposals for consideration by Cabinet prior to the expiration of this extension. 5. The confidential annex (item 15) details the effects required and delivered through the contract.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Associate for Fire and Police Services was also invited to present this report and said that it provided a summary of activity and effectiveness of the private sector professional specialist rescue and contingency crewing (SRCC) pilot contract. The report also highlighted the positive impact of the contract through the current period of on-going industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union and provided clear evidence that the Cabinet had made the right decision in awarding this contract in October 2012.
She said that the report sought permission to extend the contract pilot period to March 2015, with a break clause at 31 May 2014, in order to undertake a full evaluation of the pilot and ensure that new opportunities could be fully assessed.
Finally, she drew attention to both revised recommendations, tabled at the meeting, and the confidential part 2 annex (item 15) which set out the financial information pertaining to this report.
RESOLVED (as amended):
1. That the current pilot contract for the provision of specialist rescue and contingency crewing capability be extended to 31 March 2015 with a break clause at 31 May 2014 to ensure suitable long term funding has been identified.
2. That the outcome of the Specialist Rescue and Contingency Crewing Review be presented to a future Cabinet meeting.
Reasons for Decisions:
1. SFRS has utilised the contingency crewing element of the contract during all periods of industrial action - this identified that the contractors are able to meet the minimum criteria established in the contract and have capacity to provide additional resources on request.
2. The additional capacity and flexibility provided by the SRCC contract offers potential to provide better value for money in a number of aspects of service delivery pertaining to SFRS, blue-light partners and other agencies. However, it is suggested that the current industrial action makes this an inappropriate time to take a long term decision on the SRCC arrangements, the benefits of which can be more fully assessed once the series of strike actions have concluded.
3. The Service intends to review and refresh the Public Safety Plan taking account of new information and government guidance. The recommendation will enable this activity to be completed prior to a decision on the future of the Specialist Rescue and Contingency Crewing contract, ensuring that the specification can take full account of SFRS requirements. 4. SFRS is therefore requesting approval from Cabinet to further explore these options by extending the current contract to 31 March 2015. The Service proposes to present the full year evaluation and proposals for consideration by Cabinet prior to the expiration of this extension. 5. The confidential annex (item 15) details the effects required and delivered through the contract.
|
|
|
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 - Updated Corporate Policy and Protocol
Additional documents: Decision:
Following statutory introduction of approval from a Justice of the Peace, that the proposed new Corporate Policy and Protocol on the application of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, (as set out in Annex 2 to the submitted report), be endorsed.
Reasons for Decisions:
The introduction of a new Corporate Policy and Protocol will provide an updated framework to ensure that the authority continues to comply fully with the requirements of RIPA. It will maintain existing controls and the external audit regime and implement the additional statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Community Services requested that Cabinet endorsed an updated Corporate Policy and Protocol on the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) by council services.
She said that the proposed policy provided an updated framework to ensure that the Authority continued to comply fully with the requirements of RIPA following the coming into force of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and took account of the changes in the structure of the Trading Standards Service.
She referred to examples set out in the report, detailing how/why the powers may be used and also said that both the previous and proposed policy and protocol on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act had been attached as Annexes to the report. Finally, she drew attention to the comprehensive Equalities Impact Assessment attached to the report.
The Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration Programmes said that he was pleased that it was now a statutory requirement for all application to be considered by a Justice of the Peace.
RESOLVED:
Following statutory introduction of approval from a Justice of the Peace, that the proposed new Corporate Policy and Protocol on the application of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, (as set out in Annex 2 to the submitted report), be endorsed.
Reasons for Decisions:
The introduction of a new Corporate Policy and Protocol will provide an updated framework to ensure that the authority continues to comply fully with the requirements of RIPA. It will maintain existing controls and the external audit regime and implement the additional statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. |
|
|
Budget Monitoring Report for October 2013
Additional documents: Decision: Cabinet noted the following: 1. The forecast revenue budget for 2013/14 is balanced on services, adding the unused £13m risk contingency brings this to £13m overall underspend, as set out in the Annex (paragraph 1) of the submitted report. 2. The forecast ongoing efficiencies and service reductions achieved by year end, as set out in the Annex (paragraph 63) of the submitted report. 3. The forecast capital budget position for 2013/14, as set out in the Annex (paragraphs 67 to 71) of the submitted report. 4. The management actions to mitigate overspends, which appear throughout the submitted report. The following resolutions be approved: 5. Contributions to reserves: · £2.8m creditor write-off transfer to the Budget Equalisation Reserve, as set out in the Annex (paragraph 46) of the submitted report. · £3.5m waste PFI grant transfer to the Eco Park Sinking Fund Reserve, as set out in the Annex (paragraph 48) of the submitted report. · £1m interest rate rise contingency transfer to the Interest Rate Risk Reserve, as set out in the Annex (paragraph 49) of the submitted report. 6. A virement of £2.0m of Dedicated School Grant (DSG) be distributed into the follow areas: Services for Young People (£0.8m) and Schools and Learning (£1.2m) (Appendix - paragraph App.3 to App.6 of the submitted report). 7. A virement of £2.0m of Dedicated School Grant (DSG) be held as a risk budget and delegated to the Assistant Director of Schools and Learning to allocate appropriately (Appendix - paragraph App.3 to App.6 of the submitted report).
Reasons for Decisions:
To comply with the agreed strategy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for approval and action as necessary.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Leader of the Council presented the council’s financial position at the end of period 7 (October) of the 2013/14 financial year and focused his introductory comments for this budget monitoring report around the four core elements of the Council’s financial strategy:
· Balance the 2013/14 revenue budget · Reduce reliance on council tax and government grants · Continuously drive the efficiency agenda · Continue to maximise our investment in Surrey.
On the Revenue Budget, he highlighted the following points:
· The financial position at the end of October seemed to be progressing well through continuing achievement of efficiencies and service reductions in the face of growing demand for our services. · The forecast end of year position for all services was balanced. · The Council budget prudently provided a £13m risk contingency (to mitigate the risk of non delivery of service efficiencies) and there were no plans to use this contingency. This meant that the overall year end forecast is also a £13m underspend.
He also said that reducing reliance on government grants and council tax was key to the Council’s ability to balance the budgets in the longer term. One of the projects to help achieve this was the Revolving Infrastructure and Investment Fund. By year end it is forecast that over £28m would have been invested, which would generate net income of £800,000 and over the medium term, the net income would be re-invested into the fund to support its further growth.
In relation to the efficiency agenda, he made the following comments:
· That the revenue budget required total efficiencies of over £68m - services were making good progress in delivering these and the current forecast for the full year was £63m.
· That one third of Adult Social Care’s demanding (£46m) savings requirement relied on the success of the policy to maximise use of social capital through friends, family and community. Given the scale of innovation and challenge in the first year of these ambitious plans, it was unsurprising that there had been slippage. To cover this, Cabinet had approved draw down of £7.5m available from the Whole Systems funding.
On continuing to maximise investment in Surrey, he said that: · The council’s capital programme not only improved and maintained the Council’s service delivery, it was also a way of investing in Surrey and of generating income for the Council.
· The 2013/14 capital programme had been reviewed at the start of the year and a small number of schemes reprofiled. The current forecast was that service capital budgets would underspend by under £11m. This was largely due to delays with planning issues and archaeological finds. However, the underspend had been offset by bringing other projects forward where possible.
Other Cabinet Members were invited to highlight the key points and issues from their portfolios, as set out in the annex to the report.
RESOLVED: Cabinet noted the following: 1. The forecast revenue budget for 2013/14 is balanced on services, adding the unused £13m risk contingency brings this to £13m overall underspend, as set out in the ... view the full minutes text for item 210/13 |
|
|
Surrey Integrated Community Equipment Services (ICES)
Additional documents: Decision: That the current five-year contract for the Integrated Community Equipment Service, which commenced April 2009 and expires 31 March 2014 with Millbrook Healthcare, be extended for a further one year period until 31 March 2015, with the option to extend for a final one year period until 31 March 2016, as set out in the original Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) notice and in the current contract with Millbrook Healthcare.
Reasons for Decisions:
Millbrook Healthcare has consistently provided very high levels of service for the duration of this contract and has worked proactively to look for innovative solutions to improving service delivery and financial savings. The service provided by Millbrook Healthcare for the duration of the current contract has been to a very high standard, with an open book approach to the development of innovative solutions, improved service delivery and financial savings. Over 99% of all deliveries of equipment are completed within the specified time period; stock control for the peripheral stores in the major acute hospitals is excellent; joint initiatives are regularly undertaken, for example in identifying equipment for collection and recycling, and in running training programmes for the 1200 prescribers across health and social care. In order to respond to increasing demand and reducing resources, a whole systems review of all types of equipment and building adaptations is being undertaken. ICES forms a central core of this agenda, and potentially has links to many other equipment related services. An extension of 1 + 1 year of ICES will enable the review to be completed, and service specifications developed for a more integrated and personalised service. An extension will allow a review of the potential for future collaboration with neighbouring authorities, who are planning to tender during 2014/15. Rejection of a contract extension for 2014/15 would require an immediate re-tender for a steady-state service. Due to the wider Whole Systems review, an ICES re-tender would only be for a short-term contract, which would be seen as unattractive to the marketplace, with large set-up costs for the supplier. A contract extension would bear no additional cost to Surrey County Council in year 1 above that already budgeted. The Medium Term Financial makes allowances for the cost of ICES for each of the years of the proposed extension. ICES is funded jointly with the Surrey NHS CCGs, on a 50:50 basis within a section 75 pooled fund agreement. Surrey CCGs have agreed to a potential one year extension, but are not yet in a position to consider the possibility of a second year.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Adult Social Care Select Committee] Minutes: Surrey County Council with Surrey NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) provided approximately 28,000 people in Surrey last year with items of equipment to assist them to live as independently as they would wish, either because they are living with a long term condition or are recovering from illness or accident. The provision of equipment was a statutory service and was called ICES (Integrated Community Equipment Service). Following a robust tender process, the current contract for ICES was awarded to Millbrook Healthcare to begin 1 April 2009 on the basis of a five year term until 31 March 2014, with options for two additional years. The service provided by Millbrook Healthcare for the initial five years has been to a very high standard: the number of people receiving a service annually has increased; the proportion of equipment deliveries completed to timescale is 99%; the number of complaints was low, 0.3-0.4% of 2,800 activities each month. The service was joint funded with the Surrey CCGs who had agreed to an initial one year extension. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care asked Members to agree the optional extension period of up to 2 years: one year until 31 March 2015 with joint funding confirmed by the Surrey CCGs; with the option to extend for a final year until 31 March 2016 subject to continued best value, acceptable performance by the contractor, and confirmed funding from the Surrey CCGs. Cabinet considered that Millbrook Healthcare had provided an excellent service and were fully in support of this contract. RESOLVED:
That the current five-year contract for the Integrated Community Equipment Service, which commenced April 2009 and expires 31 March 2014 with Millbrook Healthcare, be extended for a further one year period until 31 March 2015, with the option to extend for a final one year period until 31 March 2016, as set out in the original Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) notice and in the current contract with Millbrook Healthcare.
Reasons for Decisions:
Millbrook Healthcare has consistently provided very high levels of service for the duration of this contract and has worked proactively to look for innovative solutions to improving service delivery and financial savings. The service provided by Millbrook Healthcare for the duration of the current contract has been to a very high standard, with an open book approach to the development of innovative solutions, improved service delivery and financial savings. Over 99% of all deliveries of equipment are completed within the specified time period; stock control for the peripheral stores in the major acute hospitals is excellent; joint initiatives are regularly undertaken, for example in identifying equipment for collection and recycling, and in running training programmes for the 1200 prescribers across health and social care. In order to respond to increasing demand and reducing resources, a whole systems review of all types of equipment and building adaptations is being undertaken. ICES forms a central core of this agenda, and potentially has links to many other equipment related services. An extension of ... view the full minutes text for item 211/13 |
|
|
LEADER / DEPUTY LEADER / CABINET MEMBER DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE THE LAST CABINET MEETING
Additional documents: Decision: That the decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting, as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report, be approved.
Reasons for Decisions:
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Members under delegated authority. Minutes:
RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting, as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report, be approved.
Reasons for Decisions:
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Members under delegated authority. |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED that under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
PART TWO – IN PRIVATE
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF BUSINESS WERE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE BY THE CABINET. SET OUT BELOW IS A PUBLIC SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN.
|
|
|
Surrey Integrated Community Equipment Services (ICES)
Minutes: This item was the confidential annex for Surrey Integrated Community Equipment Services (item 11). The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care advised Cabinet that the County Council’s commitment for the second year of the contract would be dependent on the position taken by the Clinical Commissioning Groups.
|
|
|
Specialist Rescue and Contingency Crewing Extension
Minutes: This item was the confidential annex, which detailed the Financial and Value for Money implications for the Specialist Rescue and Contingency Crewing contract extension (item 8). Members were asked to note the S151 officer’s comments.
|
|
|
Future Gov Investment Proposal
Decision: This report was withdrawn from this meeting. Minutes: This report was withdrawn from this meeting. |
|
|
Property Transactions - Acquisition of an office property in Ashtead Decision: (1) That freehold interest in this office property in Ashtead be acquired for a purchase price, together with ancillary costs of purchase (stamp duty, legal and surveyors fees), as set out in the submitted report, for the potential long-term school expansion in this area.
(2) Officers in Property review the options for the future use of the property in 2017 and beyond in conjunction with the Schools service and Finance and report the outcomes to the Strategic Director for Business Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Asset and Regeneration Programmes prior to the lease expiry in November 2016.
Reasons for Decisions:
The acquisition will provide the opportunity for the Council to consider and secure the longer term needs of schooling provision in the Ashtead / Leatherhead area. The property will in the meantime provide an income for the County Council in the short term.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committtee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration Programmes drew Members attention to an additional recommendation, tabled at the meeting, and said that this acquisition was a good investment for the county.
RESOLVED (as amended):
(1) That freehold interest in this office property in Ashtead be acquired for a purchase price, together with ancillary costs of purchase (stamp duty, legal and surveyors fees), as set out in the submitted report, for the potential long-term school expansion in this area.
(2) Officers in Property review the options for the future use of the property in 2017 and beyond in conjunction with the Schools Service and Finance and report the outcomes to the Strategic Director for Business Services in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Asset and Regeneration Programmes prior to the lease expiry in November 2016.
Reasons for Decisions:
The acquisition will provide the opportunity for the Council to consider and secure the longer term needs of schooling provision in the Ashtead / Leatherhead area. The property will in the meantime provide an income for the County Council in the short term.
|
|
|
PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS
Additional documents: Minutes: That non-exempt information relating to items considered in part 2 of the meeting may be made available to the press and the public, as appropriate.
|