Agenda item

Motion by Councillor M J Hill OBE

 

It was moved and seconded that:

 

'This council notes:

 

1.    The difficult funding scenario for local government in general and LCC in particular, resulting in a budget saving requirement of £200m plus for this council.

 

2.    The agreed budget reduction to the library service of £2m as a contribution to the financial issues noted in paragraph 1 and the recent service prioritisation exercise.

 

3.    The steady decline in active borrowers – 25% in ten years – along with the continuing growth in the use of online services, a trend reflected nationally.

 

4.    The proposed model which designates 15 core libraries plus universal and targeted support as well as potentially 35 volunteer-led libraries with substantial council support.

 

5.    This could result in delivery of the necessary savings, keeping more libraries open with increased access and opening hours, and the welcome enhanced engagement of volunteers with all ensuing benefits to local communities.

 

6.    The failure of last year's judicial review challenge to the lawfulness of the model proposed by LCC Executive in December 2013.

 

7.    The recent actions of the council to address the issues raised in the JR that led to the decision being quashed. This included the receipt of expressions of interest from organisations wishing to provide a library service for Lincolnshire.

 

8.    The legal framework in which we have to operate in and officer advice regarding such.

 

IT IS PROPOSED that:

 

In the light of the evidence, this council supports the decision of the Executive to go out to tender on the basis recommended in the report that it considered on 3 February 2015.'

 

A recorded vote was successfully requested and upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

 

Details of the recorded vote taken:

 

Those voting for the motion:

 

Councillors B Adams, W J Aron, Mrs P A Bradwell, D Brailsford, A Bridges, Mrs J Brockway, M Brookes, J P Churchill, C J Davie, R G Davies, R L Foulkes, M J Hill OBE, D C Hoyes, M S Jones, B W Keimach, T Keywood-Wainwright, C E H Marfleet, J R Marriott, Mrs A M Newton, P J O'Connor, C R Oxby, N H Pepper, Mrs S Rawlins, P A Robinson, R A Shore, C L Strange, Mrs C A Talbot, T M Trollope-Bellew, A H Turner MBE JP, S M Tweedale, W S Webb, Mrs S Woolley, L Wootten, R Wootten, N Worth and Mrs S Wray.

 

Those voting FOR – 36

 

Those voting against the motion:

 

Councillors K J Clarke, P M Dilks, S R Dodds, G J Ellis, J D Hough, D M Hunter-Clarke, R J Hunter-Clarke, N I Jackson, A J Jesson, R C Kirk, B McAuley, C Morgan, N Murray, Mrs M J Overton MBE, C Pain, S L W Palmer, Mrs H N J Powell, Mrs J M Renshaw, R A Renshaw and P Wood.

 

Those voting AGAINST – 20

 

Those abstaining:

 

Councillors C E D Mair, D McNally and Mrs A Reynolds.

 

ABSTENTIONS – 3

 

Motion by Councillor C Pain

 

It was moved and seconded that:

 

"Lincolnshire County Council, in common with other parts of the public sector is faced with continuing reductions in funding with increased demands on many services. The latest round of £90 Million cuts I believe has put Lincolnshire services at risk. In fact, if you take on board the government information and predictions that have been revealed, most County Councils will be defunct or handing back the keys to the council buildings in 2017/18. The latest government actions, in trying to reduce the deficit, means that they are implementing the cuts in government spending over three years instead of the original planned five years. The effects I believe are cutting Government Funding too quickly and will seriously affect the services that we provide. In fact, without our council reserves we would not be able to achieve these savings with more cuts being planned in the future. Our Council reserves are not infinite and can only maintain 2 years of cuts of this nature. 

The fact that we are pumping billions of pounds into foreign aid and the EU daily, beggars belief. Lots of this money vanishes with corruption or goes into Swiss bank accounts, the Cayman Islands, posh boats, jets, fast cars or plush palaces.  On top of this we are an underfunded rural county, with a crumbling road network that is made far worse by a below par road and rail infrastructure.

We must, in particular, explore options that maximise impact on finances whilst minimising adverse impact on the people we all serve.

 

One of those options is to explore unitary local government for the county.  Recent experiences have shown that considerable savings can be made.  

For example, Wiltshire's Unitary Council is smaller in area and population than Lincolnshire. It estimates that it has saved £100million from 2009-2013 with transition costs of £18million and improvements in several services. Equivalent savings for Lincolnshire could be £25 million up to £38 million every year even after transition costs are taken into account.

 I feel as councillors we should have grasped this thistle before and explored the benefits and issues surrounding it. Unfortunately turkeys don't vote for Christmas, but we have to represent the best interests of the Lincolnshire people and the county as a whole. I think that my fellow Councillors need to leave their party politics at the Council Chamber door and tackle this issue now.

We cannot ignore this issue any longer, so I propose the following:

 

The Council sets up a Task and Finish Group to look closely at the potential benefits, risks, costs and savings from having a single unitary authority for our county; and this group makes recommendations back to full council as soon as its work is completed."

 

An amendment was proposed and seconded by the Lincolnshire Administration Group as follows:

 

To delete part of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 in its entirety, and remove the words "having a single unitary authority" and replacing them with "having unitary status".  With the effect of the above being as follows:

 

"Lincolnshire County Council, in common with other parts of the public sector is faced with continuing reductions in funding with increased demands on many services.

We must, in particular, explore options that maximise impact on finances whilst minimising adverse impact on the people we all serve.

 

One of those options is to explore unitary local government for the county.  Recent experiences have shown that considerable savings can be made.

 

For example, Wiltshire's Unitary Council is smaller in area and population than Lincolnshire.  It estimates that it has saved £100million from 2009-2013 with transition costs of £18million and improvements in several services.  Equivalent savings for Lincolnshire could be £25 million up to £38 million every year even after transition costs are taken into account.

 

I feel as councillors we should have grasped this thistle before and explored the benefits and issues surrounding it.  Unfortunately turkeys don't vote for Christmas, but we have to represent the best interests of the Lincolnshire people and the county as a whole.  I think that my fellow Councillors need to leave their party politics at the Council Chamber door and tackle this issue now.

 

We cannot ignore this issue any longer, so we propose that:

 

The Council sets up a Task and Finish Group to look closely at the potential benefits, risks, costs and savings from having unitary status for our county; and this group makes recommendations back to full council as soon as its work is completed."

 

Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was carried. This then became the substantive motion, and upon being put to the vote was carried.

 

RESOLVED

 

            That the Council set up a Task and Finish Group to look closely at the       potential benefits, risks, costs and savings from having unitary status    for our county; and this group makes recommendations back to full     council as soon as its work is completed.

 

 

Motion by Councillor P M Dilks

 

It was moved and seconded that:

 

"At the Audit Committee on 26^th January 2015 an internal audit report “Organisational Learning – Libraries Project” was presented.

 

It stated that,

 

“We have approached this review with a strong emphasis on governance - the aim being to ensure the Council continues to run well in times of significant change and challenge.”

 

Amongst other things it looked at “Effective Scrutiny/Decision Making” and it was critical of the way scrutiny had or had not been carried out. That scrutiny role was the responsibility of the Communities and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee.

 

It said that,

 

“We found little effective scrutiny contribution to the Library Needs Assessment preferred delivery model and Executive decision making. Earlier scrutiny meetings had acted more as a sounding board for library service concepts.”

 

In addition it was critical of the length of papers and the time allowed for consideration, for example,

 

“Sheffield Hallam University’s consultation outcome report, 205 pages (tabled – 15 minutes prior to the (scrutiny) meeting).”

 

On 27^th January 2015, the day after the Audit Committee meeting, another meeting of the Communities and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee was held to scrutinise the re-launched library proposals. The report was even longer than the Sheffield Hallam Universities report and while some questions were asked, members and officers struggled to answer some of them and questioning was cut short.

 

The alternative proposal from Greenwich Leisure Limited was dismissed largely on financial grounds. However the members of the scrutiny committee had no sight of the financial information on which they were asked to make a decision, and neither was any financial report presented.

 

Overall it was not an example of effective scrutiny – just 24 hours after the Audit Committee.

 

This example of bad scrutiny is not an isolated one in this council. Too much of our scrutiny practice is superficial, lacking in depth and ineffective.

 

The Council’s own guidance lists the following principles of good scrutiny:

 

1. Providing a healthy challenge

2. Giving voice to public concern

3. Supporting improvement in services

4. Providing an independent review.

 

Good scrutiny should allow councillors the opportunity to have an in depth look at both what the Council does and what it is proposing to do with the aim of improving the services the council currently provides and what it might provide in the future.

 

As the audit report emphasises we need to improve how we do scrutiny in the future. As a learning organisation it would be helpful to have fresh eyes looking at our scrutiny practices.

 

It is therefore proposed this Council agrees that:

 

1. A  Local Government Association (LGA) peer review of our existing scrutiny arrangements should be carried out to tell us how we can do things better from a member point of view.

 

2. In addition The Centre for Public Scrutiny to be asked to review our scrutiny processes and make recommendations about how we can make our scrutiny more effective and therefore more useful to the Council as a whole and ultimately to the public we serve."

 

An amendment was proposed and seconded by the Lincolnshire Administration Group as follows:

 

To delete the middle eight paragraphs, and to delete the final two paragraphs and replace with a new paragraph with the effect being as follows:

 

"At the Audit Committee on 26^th January 2015 an internal audit report “Organisational Learning – Libraries Project” was presented.

 

It stated that,

 

“We have approached this review with a strong emphasis on governance - the aim being to ensure the Council continues to run well in times of significant change and challenge.”

 

Amongst other things it looked at “Effective Scrutiny/Decision Making” and it was critical of the way scrutiny had or had not been carried out. That scrutiny role was the responsibility of the Communities and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Council’s own guidance lists the following principles of good scrutiny:

 

1. Providing a healthy challenge

2. Giving voice to public concern

3. Supporting improvement in services

4. Providing an independent review.

 

Good scrutiny should allow councillors the opportunity to have an in depth look at both what the Council does and what it is proposing to do with the aim of improving the services the council currently provides and what it might provide in the future.

 

As the audit report emphasises we need to improve how we do scrutiny in the future. As a learning organisation it would be helpful to have fresh eyes looking at our scrutiny practices.

 

It is therefore proposed this Council:

 

Asks the Chief Executive to secure external advice and support in conducting a review of the Council's scrutiny arrangements and to present recommendations for making those arrangements more effective."

 

The mover of the original motion accepted this amendment, and it then became the substantive motion.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion as amended was carried.

 

RESOLVED

 

            That the Council ask the Chief Executive to secure external advice and     support in conducting a review of the Council's scrutiny arrangements and to present recommendations for making those arrangements more             effective.