CC04/2

MINUTES of the meeting of COUNTY COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, St Helen Court, County Hall, on Thursday, 22 January 2004 at 2.00pm. PRESENT: Helen Whitworth - Chairman of the County Council Ron Snell - Vice-Chairman of the County Council

Peter Aldous, Tony Andrews, Sue Back, Trevor Beckwith, Peter Bellfield, Bill Bishop, Malcolm Cherry, Jeremy Clover, Mary Crane, John Field, Wil Gibson, Joan Girling, John Goldsmith, Terry Green, David Grutchfield, Russell Harsant, Jane Hore, Peter Howard, Steven Hudson, Brian Hunter, Nick Irwin, Richard Kemp, Gerry Kiernan, Adi Lavender, Maggie Lee, Rae Leighton, Don Levick, Tony Lewis, Kevan Lim, Inga Lockington, David Lockwood, Duncan Macpherson, Harold Mangar, Graham Manuel, Sandy Martin, Guy McGregor, Charles Michell, Jane Midwood, Betty Milburn, Peter Monk, Ray Nowak, Patricia O’Brien, Stefan Oliver, Jeremy Pembroke, Kathy Pollard, Selwyn Pryor, Bill Quinton, Keith Rawlingson, John Wyn Roberts, Marie Rodgers, Morris Rose, David Rowe, Bryony Rudkin, Bill Sadler, Robin Sargent, Janet Sibley, Don Smith, Joanna Spicer, Jane Storey, Julian Swainson, John Taylor, David Thomas, Sue Thomas, Alan Thwaites, Bob Tostevin, Ron Ward, Leslie Warmington and David Wood. The following Councillors were unable to be present: Jane Andrew-Smith, Nigel Barratt, Roger Bellham, John Kelso, John Le Grys, Roger Pendleton, Ross Scott, Sue Sida-Lockett and Val White.

[At 1.50pm, councillors had the opportunity of gathering for prayers, which were led by the Reverend Keith Morrison, Curate at St Augustine’s, Ipswich.]

1. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Before the formal business began, the Chairman made a number of announcements:

(i) Photographs. She advised councillors that the press (Evening Star) would be taking a number of photographs at the start of the meeting so that they could show people what a council meeting in progress looked like. It was intended that it would only take a few minutes and would be as unobtrusive as possible.

-1- (ii) Extraordinary Meeting of Council Further to the Chief Executive’s letter of 15 January, the Chairman confirmed that an extraordinary meeting of the Council had been called on Thursday, 4 March. This meeting would look specifically at the Boundary Committee’s proposals on Electoral Arrangements and the proposal to establish a Regional Management Board for certain Fire and Rescue Service strategic matters. She added that as this was an extraordinary meeting, the agenda would deal with those two items only. The meeting would not, therefore, include questions to Executive Committee portfolio holders.

(iii) Environment & Transport IIP The Chairman was pleased to announce that the Investors In People Assessors had confirmed that Environment & Transport had achieved the standard of an Investor In People. The former Highways Department originally met the standard in 1995, and this was the third time Environment & Transport had been reviewed and succeeded in achieving the standard. This was an excellent achievement and a credit to the Council in achieving external recognition of the way staff were developed. Her thanks went to the 60 people who were interviewed by the Assessors. The Assessors had enjoyed their visits and went away with a very positive view of Environment & Transport.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST AND DISPENSATIONS The following declarations were noted:

(i) Jane Hore and Betty Milburn declared a personal interest in Paper CC04/1 (Strategy for Learning) as Board members of the Learning and Skills Council;

(ii) Steven Hudson declared a personal interest in Paper E04/4 relating to Strategic Technological Partnering; (iii) Bryony Rudkin also declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Paper E04/4.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2003 were confirmed by the Council as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman.

4. SUFFOLK STRATEGY FOR LEARNING 2004 - 2009 Paper CC04/1 by the Acting Director of Learning referred to the Government’s intention to remove all the statutory planning obligations

-2- currently required of local education authorities and instead require them to develop a ‘Single Education Plan’ covering all the responsibilities of the Council as Local Education Authority. Suffolk was one of 12 local authorities that had been invited to pilot the introduction of this Plan and a draft was attached to the report which appears in the Minute Book. Decision Council agreed to:-

(i) endorse the Authority’s participation in the pilot stage for the Single Education Plan;

(ii) authorise the Acting Director of Learning in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Children & Young People and for Economic and Social Regeneration to agree any changes that were required in the light of further discussions and points made at the Council meeting and then submit the final document to the Department of Education and Skills by 31 January 2004. Reasons for Decision The Council recognised that participation in the pilot would bring early benefits from the lifting of current planning requirements and give the opportunity to review and improve current approaches to planning. It was a welcome step forward in terms of a reduction in bureaucracy. It was also noted that the Learning for Life Overview and Scrutiny Committee had looked at the strategy in detail at its meeting in December and the document reflected its observations on key areas of activity and aspirational learning goals. There were a number of comments made by Councillors that were noted: (i) There were some of areas of work where it was felt that in the future other bodies might develop a lead role, including extended schools projects in local communities and also the development of youth facilities. There were arguments therefore that the Local Education Authority should be prepared to play more of a facilitating role; (ii) The role of school governors should be given greater prominence in the document; (iii) Aspirations for improved participation and achievement in education and training post-16 were hampered in certain areas of the County by limited access to public transport; (iv) There was a suggestion that the document title should incorporate the phrase ‘Single Education Plan’ to link it explicitly to the Government’s initiative.

-3- The Portfolio Holder for Children & Young People acknowledged the point about facilitation but impressed that this was a timing issue. As for post 16 transport, this was being reviewed nationally which might lead to some relevant developments. The title of Suffolk’s Plan reflected the broader cross-cutting approach to learning developed by the Council over a number of years. Alternative Options Council could have decided not to take part in the pilot but it was recognised that such a delay would have little advantage and would postpone the benefits of deregulation. While consideration would be given to the points raised above, there were no formal proposals put forward for an amendment to the Plan. Declarations of Interest As noted in item 2, Jane Hore and Betty Milburn had declared an interest in this report. Dispensations Not applicable.

5. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO REPORTS AND QUESTIONS The Council received the report by each portfolio holder which were circulated with the agenda and copies appear in the Minute Book. Under Rule 7.3 a period not exceeding 60 minutes was allowed for questions and answers and the following Councillors had submitted their question in writing to the Monitoring Officer prior to the 10am deadline two working days before the day of the Council meeting. Councillors were only allowed to ask one question during that period, although they were entitled to one supplementary question arising directly out of the original question or reply.

(i) From Councillor Richard Kemp to Councillor David Rowe: “Your comments are noted regarding the tax on second homes; also the fact that this will be applied to reduce the impact of Council Tax. This county has a serious problem with the price of property in general and in particular to the plight of our young people. Therefore, is Mr Rowe aware that in many similar counties, this money has been invested with district councils specifically to deal with such problems? Was this course of action considered by ?” David Rowe said that he was aware that some counties were sharing the money for reducing the discount on second homes but the numbers doing so were very limited. From his sources he knew of far

-4- more counties who were using the extra income to hold down the level of Council Tax. The course of action to devolve extra income to Districts was considered but the people of Suffolk said their primary concern was the Council Tax increase and the Administration decided to use the income to offset against that increase. While some communities with second home were likely to have unique problems, so did other areas of the County. The County Council was in discussion with Districts and Boroughs to get real evidence of the impact of second homes on local communities. That would assist all authorities in deciding how best to address this issue. By means of a supplementary question, Richard Kemp was of the view that next year the settlement was likely to be good and he asked for serious consideration to be given, with Districts and others, to the problems of the county in terms of affordable homes for young people and putting real money towards that cause. David Rowe said again that he wanted to see the evidence before coming to a view and would then look at the issues with partners including housing associations and the voluntary sector. He had no information in terms of the settlement for 2005/06 and was not in a position to pledge any money to particular causes.

(ii) From Councillor Jeremy Pembroke to Councillor Bryony Rudkin: “Would the Leader of the Council agree with me that the Alastair Campbell type leak of the proposed increase in Council Tax for the next year is not a satisfactory way of informing the overtaxed people of Suffolk let alone your fellow councillors?”. Bryony Rudkin gave an assurance that it was not a planned leak. It was not a proper way of informing anyone and she agreed with him on that point.

(iii) From Councillor Janet Sibley to Councillor Peter Monk: “Could the Public Protection Portfolio Holder please tell me what plans there are for incorporating a county emergency centre in Endeavour House? If there are no such plans, where will the County Management for emergencies be located?” Peter Monk said that he was aware that the initial project plan had not included facilities for the County Emergencies Centre. However, that issue had been noted and the project team was currently looking at how such facilities might be incorporated into Endeavour House. He said it would remain in Committee Room 1 at County Hall until an effective solution was found.

(iv) From Councillor Guy McGregor to Councillor Bryony Rudkin:

-5- “Please explain the discrepancy between the submission by this Administration to the Boundary Committee for England that in future the number of county councillors should be 90 (this being the official view of Suffolk County Council) and the submission by the Suffolk Liberal Democrats’ Constituency Prties that the number should 82?” Bryony Rudkin said that she was unable to answer on behalf of the Suffolk Liberal Democrat Constituency Parties. In a supplementary question, Guy McGregor asked if she agreed with him that it highlighted common practice amongst Liberal Democrats to say different things in different places? Bryony Rudkin repeated that she was not there to answer on behalf of Liberal Democrat groups.

(v) From Councillor Trevor Beckwith to Councillor Bryony Rudkin: “When I asked a question at November’s full Council regarding school transport from Moreton Hall to Hardwick Middle School, you responded by asking the Chief Executive for a report by the end of November. I anticipated that I would be given a copy of the report and any supporting documentation. Was I being over optimistic?“ Bryony Rudkin said that during the last week of November she had corresponded with him to try and ensure that the report was presented on time. Part of the report was a planning document from 1974 which could not be e-mailed and despite the number of attempts to contact him the deadline had come and gone. She had taken the end of November to mean just that but assured him the report would be made available if he still wanted a copy. She said there had been a number of Government announcements building on the Moving People programme and the County Council had expressed a strong interest to the DfES to explore alternative arrangements for home to school transport. Nationally managed pilots were expected to be confirmed shortly although they were unlikely to be introduced earlier than September 2006. Officers and councillors were still working hard on this issue but she advised him that Government thinking might not be how he wanted it to go. In the end the Council had to make the best provision for transport for the people in Suffolk in general. Trevor Beckwith confirmed that he would like a copy of the report for a public meeting on the Moreton Hall estate. (vi) From Councillor Patricia O’Brien to Councillor Terry Green: “I note with interest the good work of the Mental Health Expenditure Approval Team in reducing the projected overspend in September 2003 from £130,000 to £15,000 in December 2003. If it carries on which such levels of success for the next three months will there be no overspend or even an underspend?”

-6- Terry Green said it was one of several things put in place to balance the budget in Social Care and they were in line to do that. He hoped that there would be no overspend and anything beyond that would be a bonus for Social Care. In a supplementary question Patricia O’Brien asked whether the Learning Disabilities Expenditure Approval Team was having similar success? Terry Green said that he would answer that question outside the meeting as he believed it was not directly related to the original question. (vii) From Councillor Jane Storey to Councillor Terry Green: “I note that the integrated discharge project is, to quote, “beginning to pay real dividends in enabling better discharge from hospital.” This is only one aspect of trying to reduce the delayed transfer to care fines. Are similar schemes being looked at in other parts of the county?” Terry Green said that it was vital that good practice was rolled out across the county and in this instance it would happen. (viii) From Councillor Peter Aldous to Councillor Bryony Rudkin: “In the light of the Boundary Committee’s comment that “we are concerned that ensuring that Ipswich is allocated 16 councillors is the prime factor behind the County Council’s proposal” for 90 councillors, can we have an assurance that in making any representation to the Boundary Committee’s draft recommendations for the future electoral arrangements for Suffolk County Council that the Administration will take account of the interests of the whole of the County?” Bryony Rudkin said that the short answer was “yes”. The Boundary Committee’s response was not the reason the suggestion had been made. The Council made the case because of the workloads of councillors, the shift from committee to locality working and the 36% increase in the electorate of Suffolk since 1974 spread unevenly across the County. The submission had to take into account the needs of areas where there had been specific growth. In a supplementary question, Peter Aldous asked the Leader whether in hindsight she agreed it was wrong to submit a proposal for 90 members of the Council having not carried out any public consultation? Bryony Rudkin said that this matter was to be discussed at a later Council meeting but that she would currently stay with the original submission. (ix) From Councillor Russell Harsant to Councillor David Rowe: “In the Evening Star of 14 January, Councillor Rowe is quoted as saying “We have taken a root and branch look at every area of

-7- council spending…” and “we have made many changes to the way that we do things.” Can he explain why such an approach to budgeting has not been adopted before?” David Rowe said that he had not implied that the budgets had not been looked at in detail in previous years, certainly since he had been a Councillor. The difference this year was that more savings had been identified than in previous years. The priority based approach for the current year had meant there had been investments to achieve priorities and this had put the Council in a good position. An extremely vigorous and robust approach had been developed and savings had been identified for next year and the year after that. This had resulted in the Administration proposing the lowest council tax ever and the February Council meeting would give Mr Harsant a chance to show his support. In a supplementary question he agreed that it was a good thing to come down from the 18.5% increase but asked whether he was wrong in suggesting that this was an attempt at self preservation for 2005? David Rowe said that it was quite clear that the investment for 2003/4 had meant the Council was in a position to sustain low levels of Council Tax increases. When he gave his budget speech in February, Councillors would see that savings had been identified for 2005/06 and also for 2006/07 which showed how confident he was. (x) From Councillor Selwyn Pryor to Councillor Jane Hore: “Councillor Hore’s report (see page 20-22) has no mention of Suffolk. Surely Councillor Hore, we do not want a lecture on Government policy?” Jane Hore said that it was important to have an understanding of Government thinking on this matter including the importance of that to the economy of Suffolk. Councillors needed details of the changes ahead and the potential opportunities post 2006. She said that forward planning had started with that summary. (xi) From Councillor Rae Leighton to Councillor Julian Swainson: “Would the portfolio holder agree that the fall of half a million (500,000) in bus passenger journeys in Suffolk last year proves the failure of the Administration to increase the use of public transport?” Julian Swainson said that the current performance against targets of bus passenger journeys showed an overall decline from 17.8m in 2000/01 to 17.3m in 2002/03 – a 1.4%pa decline in patronage. This was disappointing but recently published national figures were showing a 2% reduction for the Eastern Region as a whole. It could be argued that the Council had been more successful than neighbouring counties in arresting the decline.

-8- He said the bulk of the patronage that made up this indicator (88%) was from the commercial sector and, under current legislation, the Council had little control over this. There had been a number of withdrawals of service in rural areas and the County had stepped in to provide a minimum level of service. Despite the drop in service provision, a service to at least the minimum level was being provided in 95% of the County’s communities. A bus strategy had been published which demonstrated the Council’s wish to work closely with the commercial companies and this was further demonstrated through the Public Service Agreement initiative. He believed that much of the problem derived from de-regulation in 1985 and the only area which had not seen a progressive decline was London, which was exempt from that legislation. He hoped that the Government would agree that transport policy required a review. While Rae Leighton supported a change in legislation, he reminded the Portfolio Holder of the PSA target. If the Council was relying on the success of Martlesham Park & Ride did he wish to comment on the apparent failure so far of that scheme as reported that day in the East Anglian Daily Times? Julian Swainson said that he was happy to discuss Martlesham Park & Ride including how well it was working. It took time for a new service to pick up and he saw the article as trying to cause trouble. However, he did feel that there was a case for being more cautious when setting such targets. (xii) from Councillor Jeremy Clover to Councillor Julian Swainson: “Now the Council has been advised of the 12% increase in staff travel would the Portfolio Holder agree that the Green Travel Plan has been an embarrassing disaster for the County council?” Julian Swainson said he did not see the situation as an embarrassment, but as a challenge. The 12% increase was over a number of years (from 1999) but it clearly showed there was a lot more work to do. The principles behind the Plan were supported and the Administration would continue to work hard to achieve them. There were a number of reasons for the increase in staff travel and they had been discussed at the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The move to Endeavour House alongside measures being introduced through Directorate’s Environmental Action Plans, together with the Green Travel Plan itself, would help to reduce business mileage. The Administration was committed to delivering high quality services to the public and where that service demanded that staff must travel, this had to be a priority. Moving to Endeavour House was seen as a step change and he reminded councillors that they were champions of green travel and should set an example. In a supplementary question, Jeremy Clover referred to Paper SO4/2 and a questionnaire response that identified that limited action was

-9- being taken to reduce business mileage caused in part by difficulties in accessing information. He said the Green Travel Plan had been in existence for two years and asked the Portfolio Holder how he could do anything about the problems without the necessary information? Julian Swainson said that he had already noticed the point that had been raised. It was being addressed by the fact that the Directorate Environmental Action Plans were pushing this forward and there could now be a far more co-ordinated approach. (xiii) From Councillor Stefan Oliver to Councillor Julian Swainson: “Can the Portfolio Holder explain how this Council set a target to reduce waste by 10% in 2002/03 and in fact increased it by over 30%?” Julian Swainson thought the 10% target had been rather aspirational. He was disappointed with the increase in waste created at the County Hall complex but was encouraged that the Council was recycling progressively higher amounts of that waste. There was a need to work harder to achieve a reduction but it had to be recognised that staff were currently being encouraged to clear their desks prior to the move to Endeavour House. From visiting offices it was clear that there was a lot to be done and in the short term the figures would get worse. However, there would be a clear base to work from in the future. In a supplementary question, Stefan Oliver asked the Portfolio Holder if he as aware that the Council was now using 54 million A4 sheets of papers a year which represented approximately 100 sheets of A4 paper each year for every adult in Suffolk? Julian Swainson said that he had not been aware of those precise details but would use them in campaigning for improvement. (xiv) From Councillor Joanna Spicer to Councillor Jane Hore: “Does the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development now regret trying to undermine local partnership working in by withholding support for the proposed Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft URC?” Jane Hore said that as Portfolio Holder for Economic and Social Regeneration she did not regret the decision. In a supplementary question, Joanna Spicer asked her to explain why the Labour and Liberal Democrat members on Sustainable Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Committee had voted against a recommendation that the Executive should be asked to show its support for Lowestoft rather than the niceties of Government for the sake of Lowestoft and the Urban Regeneration Company. Jane

-10- Hore said that she could not respond on behalf of others and her recollection of the debate was not the same as Joanna Spicer’s. (xv) From Councillor David Wood to Councillor Peter Monk: “Due to the imposition of centralised control rooms for the Fire Service can the Portfolio Holder assure councillors that the County Council, the Fire Service and it’s staff will play a full part in negotiations to get the best result for the people of Suffolk and the staff concerned?” Peter Monk said that he did want to give that assurance. As regards the particular staff, they had met with the Chief Fire Officer and he had assured them that they would be involved in the decision making process. He had also met with the majority of them on a question and answer basis to allay their fears as to what might happen. He reminded Council of the timeframe and said that representative bodies would be involved and also that there was a representative from Suffolk on the Working Party. He also referred to his report including the integrated personal development system and the ‘rank to role’ transitions. Training was high on the agenda in terms of these changes and there would be a great deal of consultation as the processes were gone through. (xvi) From Councillor Inga Lockington to Councillor Jane Hore: “Could I ask if the EU Bid for money for Ipswich Village could include a bid for money towards a bridge across the Ipswich Docks?” Jane Hore said that this funding stream would not be appropriate to fund a major transport infrastructure. By way of a supplementary, Inga Lockington asked whether there were other funding streams for such a bridge? Jane Hore said that the County and Borough Council was working closely together to define projects in and around Ipswich Port. During the course of the year there would be a decision on what projects to work up as part of the Local Transport Plan submission in 2005. [Charles Michell reported that he had submitted a question to Peter Monk within the proper timeframe about the need for additional safety work on the A140 where escape or refuge lanes were badly needed to protect traffic collisions from the rear. Councillor Michell was promised a response to his question outside the meeting.]

6. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC Council agreed that, pursuant to Regulation 21 of the Local Authority’s (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 and Section 100a(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public

-11- should be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during that item there would be disclosure to them on exempt information.

7. STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGICAL PARTNERING: INTERIM REPORT ON BEST AND FINAL OFFER PROCUREMENT STAGE [EXEMPT: CONTRACT EXPENDITURE 8 AND CONTRACT TERMS 9] Paper E04/4 by the Chief Executive was a confidential report which had been considered by the Executive Committee on 13 January. The report referred to negotiations with the preferred bidder for a Strategic Technological Partnership and the proposal to complete the best and final offer stage of the procurement. Decision The Council agreed that:

(i) the officers and councillors appointed to the Negotiating Panel be authorised to proceed to the conclusion of the Best and Final Offer stage of the procurement, based on the revised business case and proposed scope of service;

(ii) an appropriate robust scrutiny mechanism be put in place to consider the partnership arrangements at the earliest opportunity and that future scrutiny be undertaken on a regular basis as part of an agreed forward agenda.

Reasons for Decision Council noted that the preferred bid and negotiations had produced a service improvement proposition and business case which the Executive Committee was able to recommend to Council. A projected surplus was now expected over the proposed ten year life of the Joint Venture Company and it was likely that the final decision could be made in April 2004. This was a very important issue and councillors had received briefings and would also have the opportunity of attending a seminar on 12 February. The principle of the technology partnering arrangement was supported by all of the political groups and the three main foundations set out in paragraph 18 of the report were highlighted. It did involve some major changes in the way that services would be provided including Finance, HR and ICT as well a public access services. There was concern therefore that appropriate scrutiny mechanisms should be put in place and an additional recommendation was proposed in the following terms:

-12- “That the Corporate Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee now scrutinise this partnership at the earliest possible opportunity and that future scrutiny is undertaken on a regular basis as part of its forward agenda.” This amendment was debated and councillors fully supported the need for future scrutiny. However, there were concerns that the Corporate Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee might not be the most appropriate vehicle, recognising also the interests of the Access and Community Involvement Overview and Scrutiny Committee. There were also some concerns expressed that the Council had not yet truly reached a point where scrutiny was being approached in the right manner and that further training might be appropriate. On further discussion the proposer and seconder agreed an amendment to the wording so as to ensure that an appropriate robust scrutiny mechanism was put in place to look at the partnering arrangements and this was supported by the Council. Alternative Options Council could have considered the re-advertisement of the contract according to the appropriate procurement regulations or the re-scheduling of the overall programme of works but there were no proposals put forward.

Declarations of Interest As noted in item 2, Steven Hudson and Bryony Rudkin had declared an interest in the report. Bryony Rudkin left the chamber while it was being discussed.

Dispensations Not applicable.

The meeting ended at 3.54pm.

Chairman

-13-