Meeting documents

All members of the committee were present.

Councillors Michael Green and M Tomlinson declared personal interests in item 7, as members of Lancashire County Council. Councillor K Jones declared a personal interest as an elected governor of Penwortham Priory Academy and the Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Councillor Martin declared a personal interest in items 7, 8, & 10 as an employee of Lancashire County Council. All were able under the Code of Conduct for Elected Members to take part in the discussion and voting thereon.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
The minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.
?

Matters Arising from Previous Meetings
The committee considered the list of matters arising from the last and earlier meetings. It agreed to remove them from the list, except:

28/10/14 ? min. no.28 (originally 12/08/14 ? Member Development Plan Outturn report 2013/2014 and draft Member Development Plan 2014/2015 ? min. no.13 ((6) ? e-learning)) ? request HR investigate possible e-learning available to members including liaison with other authorities such as Chorley borough and the County Council.

28/10/14 ? min. no.28 (originally 12/08/14 ? Scrutiny Review of Health Inequalities - Progress Report ? min. no.15 (2)) ? it had not been possible to arrange an informal discussion with the Cabinet member. The Cabinet member be invited to attend committee on 27 January 2015 and explain the reasoning behind non-acceptance of the Healthy Borough Status recommendation.

28/10/14 ? min. no.29 ? City Deal ? as this was an ongoing project it would remain on the list.

28/10/14 ? min. no.30 (4) ? Performance, Budget and Risk Monitoring Report: mid-year 2014/15 (April 2014 ? September 2014) ? the Cabinet member be requested to explain what publicity there was currently, and planned for the future.

28/10/14 ? min. no.30 (5) ? Performance, Budget and Risk Monitoring Report: mid-year 2014/15 (April 2014 ? September 2014) ? the Cabinet member be requested to clarify the existence of a Health Strategy document.

The chairman welcomed to the meeting Councillor Mullineaux (Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods and Street Scene), Mark Gaffney (Director) and Inspector Barff-Lewis (Lancashire Constabulary).

The Cabinet member briefly commented that the partnership was making good progress which was good news for the borough.

The Director replying to an enquiry about the work of the partnership indicated that it
co-ordinated the work of the community safety partners across the borough, delivering the safer agenda and impacts on reducing levels of crime. The partnership working was very strong in South Ribble. The partners now emphasised addressing issues ?upstream?, before they actually resulted in actual crime and/or anti-social behaviour etc. The Inspector added that the police had to work closely with partners. This had further increased over the last 6-7 months, in particular with the council?s licensing and environmental health teams. The impact of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, was very new and changing the powers available. The partnership was targeting anti-social behaviour (ASB) and was meeting tomorrow with the clinical commissioning group, borough council and social landlords to identify hotspots and the best ways forward to assist high risk residents. Good examples of partnership working were the areas in Leyland such as McDonalds and Tesco which had a history of ASB and both had seen a reduction. The partnership had targeted identified individuals, imposed sanctions and there had been a reduction in reported crime and ASB. The partnership continued to launch campaigns, raise awareness, seasonal operations which were ongoing and was hoped would produce even greater success over time.

In respect of governance arrangements, the Director confirmed he was currently the partnership?s chairman. This rotated every two years between this council, Chorley borough and police. There was the Responsible Authorities Group which included, district council, county council, fire & rescue service, police and probation service. The partnership also pulled in other bodies. The partnership had recently changed its model of operation as it had found the previous quarterly meetings had not engaged partners. It now held an Annual Conference with its partners attending and holding workshops. This created the partnership?s priorities and subsequently an action plan to deliver these.

Whilst the Director confirmed that some partners including statutory ones were not as involved as some others, the partnership was working to address this.

Responding to an enquiry about the partnership?s former joint management position, the Director explained how that post had operated and the changes that led to its deletion. The partnership at South Ribble now had management through its environmental health team and a dedicated officer working on the borough?s geographical footprint. This council?s officers worked very closely with counterparts at Chorley. The partnership?s performance was managed against the council?s corporate plan. The Director confirmed with the current structure he was confident that the partnership met its responsibilities under the crime & disorder legislation.

The Inspector confirmed that the MATAC (multi agency tasking and co-ordinating) were localised and supported the council?s approach to neighbourhood working. They included partners such as the fire & rescue service and social landlords dealing with issues in an area, such as ASB hotspots and set up task groups to design these out and target specific individuals. There was a well established MATAC in the Kingsfold area. The Director added that MATACs were officer operation meetings not councillor meetings. If councillors wanted to be involved and give/receive information this could be arranged. It was acknowledged the partnership could probably do better promoting those links.

The MATACs were located where there was greatest need, and whilst it was confirmed that there was no MATAC for the Western Parishes, issues such as ASB could be addressed/designed out through other partnership meetings.

The Inspector replying to a question about measuring success, commented that the performance of operations such as Bright Sparx were measured on the number of ASB calls, amount of crime, notable incidents and the levels in previous years. The partnership used social media to broadcast key messages and raise public awareness. The Director added that whilst these were still termed operations they were now embedded into the partnership?s ordinary business. The partnership?s crime statistics had reduced for the last five years, except for a slight increase this year. It was not felt a reduction could be achieved every year. It was important how safe people felt and this had increased.

The committee commented that if the partnership measured performance against previous years and reviewed against an action plan, it appeared appropriate to include metric measures. Whilst this report had not included statistics, the Cabinet member indicated that this would be considered and looked at for future reports.

The Inspector confirmed that Community Triggers was a new provision introduced by the recent legislation and the impact on the partnership was as yet unknown. No one in the partnership area had instigated one and, in a much larger policing area such as Manchester there had been only a few.

The Director responded to an enquiry regarding section 4 of the report (funding position) and confirmed that the significant reduction of external funding to ?10,000 had not been essential to the effective operation of the partnership. The level of external funding had previously been ?80,000 but the partnership was now working effectively and efficiently and addressing issues upstream. Its strength was the level of partnership working and whilst the ?10,000 helped this, it had been allocate with set criteria which the partnership had to deliver against. It was confirmed that if external monies were available the partnership would make a bid. Also the Cabinet member added that if there was a particular problem area the partnership would make a bid to the Police & Crime Commissioner to address.

Responding to an enquiry concerning this year?s increase in crime figures, the Inspector commented that until this year, for the last five years there had been a year on year reduction. The increase between April-December 2014 was relatively small, 78 crimes representing (+2.3%). In respect of any specific issue(s) the Inspector stated ? insecurity - people leaving their property unlocked/insecure. It had been a very nice summer with vehicle crime (90) and sheds (38). This might not be people being less aware but some offenders now being back in the community, last year?s figures were very low and the police were no longer reluctant to report certain crimes.

In response to enquiries from the committee, the partnership confirmed that Child Sex Exploitation (CSE) had been identified as a threat and was being addressed county-wide. There was an awareness week involving schools, licensed premises and take-aways etc and with ambassadors going into communities. There was a pack available. The Public Protection Unit (Operation Charish) was targeting apprehending perpetrators of CSE. It was high on the partnership?s agenda. The message was being put out as well as educating staff and general public. Whilst there were no reported cases in South Ribble, the partnership was alive to the issues and places (gathering), if anyone had concerns these needed to be fed through to the police.

The Director confirmed that in respect of the IDVA (Independent Domestic Violence Advocates) Service, the partnership paid into the county-wide initiative and most (not all) partners contributed financially, some contributed in kind. Under the current arrangements this South Ribble contributed ?4,000 but now received a lot more than previously. As a result of the better resourcing, whilst the number of referrals had increased South Ribble was now able to deal with more medium level cases.

In respect of the police?s role in such events as Christmas in Leyland and the Lostock Hall Remembrance Parade, the Inspector explained that whilst these would still be supported by the police, organisations had to take responsibility for such events including any road closures etc. In respect of the Leyland event, there was no road closure and there were more people than expected. In respect police officers/PCSOs managing the public, the points made were taken on board and any future events would be dealt with through management plan. The Director confirmed that for any events in the future, these had to be considered by the Local Safety Advisory Group (key partners overseeing events).

The Cabinet member confirmed that South Ribble had committed revenue funding to maintain the CCTV cameras in the borough and those recently repaired were ready to operational.

In response to an enquiry about Community Beat boundaries in Farington, the Inspector explained that this followed the police re-structure and the inclusion of Preston in the Southern Division. Whilst there was no specific boundary for policing, there was for the two different radio signals (Leyland and Preston) that covered the Farington area.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that
1. the Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods and Street Scene), the Director and Police Inspector be thanked for their attendance and responding to the committee?s comments and enquiries;
2. the committee requests the partnership to include in future reports, more detailed statistical information showing performance against targets;
3. the committee supports the partnership?s efforts to ensure that all of its statutory partners fully engage and are involved;
4. the committee
i) requests the partnership improve its lines of communication with ward members regarding MATAC projects; and
ii) encourages all members engage and be involved with a MATAC in their ward.
5. the committee considers it appropriate to look at the issue of CSE and the role of partners at a future meeting; and
6. the committee supports proposals that in future the traffic management arrangements etc will be considered by the Local Safety Advisory Group before council events and those organised by others can take place.

The chairman welcomed to the meeting Councillor Hamman (Cabinet member for Shared Services and Corporate Support) and Janet Hinds (Principal Procurement Officer).

The Cabinet member commented that the current strategy expired at the end of the year with the one covering 2015-2018. Good progress had been made over the five year period with all targets achieved. The introduction of the financial management system had led to a great change with 80% of invoices now paid within days and 99% within 30 days. If most organisations could achieve this it would greatly help small suppliers. The introduction of the Chest (e-procurement) had greatly increased accessibility for suppliers. This report had already been considered and approved by the Shared Services Joint Committee and would be considered by the Cabinet in January 2015.

In response to the question of capacity and the deletion of a post in 2012, the Cabinet member commented that at the time that had been considered and approved by the joint committee. The Principal Procurement Officer added that the building blocks were in place and the profile could now be raised with the education of budget owners to increase savings through the procurement process (including access to the Chest). They were confident there was capacity to implement the new strategy.

The Principal Procurement Officer commented that in respect of the customer satisfaction survey, customers were all those supported through the procurement process both at Chorley and South Ribble. The customer base at each council was between 30/40, and this year satisfaction was 100%, last year it was 97%. The relatively low numbers meant that one or two individuals could make an impact on the figures.

The Principal Procurement Officer confirmed that whilst the satisfaction survey had not included external users of the Chest, they found it easier to be aware of and access opportunities. They registered a category on the internet and received free automated email alerts/prompts.

It was acknowledged that procurement was doing well and had achieved significant savings (?979,000). Could these have still been achieved without the strategy? In response it as accepted there could be an element however, through the Chest there was more competition, better documentation/information and more bids received. The Cabinet member commented on the window replacement at the Civic Centre, one contractor proposed a different way of working which produced a significant saving on the estimated cost of that contract.

The Principal Procurement Officer confirmed that it was felt the 2015-18 cumulative target of ?100,000 per annual was achievable and would be monitored and reviewed over the three years. A lot of savings had already been made and this target was a start, it would depend over the period what procurements came forward and why it needed to be reviewed. The Cabinet member added that this report was regularly considered and challenged by the joint committee for its suitability.

The Cabinet member confirmed that the subject of blacklisting was covered in the procurement process. However, fair-trade was not included in the strategy, if scrutiny wished this could be looked at. The Principal Procurement Officer added that the procurement template documents asked specific questions about blacklisting. Bidders were asked to confirm they complied with legislation and whether there were any areas of litigating actions. If there were a bidder would not proceed further. She also confirmed that the contract for the overflow car park at Worden Park had been in line with the policy on blacklisting.

In respect of income generation from procurement, the Principal Procurement Officer commented that this was not about selling of procurement services but a national target included in this strategy. An example was the potential procurement of payroll. In respect of both Chorley and South Ribble this was currently outsourced separately and could in future be subject to a joint procurement which might save money not generate income.

The Cabinet member confirmed that the shared services had been very successful producing significant savings and the joint committee had also asked questions concerning the further development of the shared services. However, it was not felt this would be of much benefit to Chorley/South Ribble but would be to any potential new partners.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that
1. the Cabinet member for Shared Services and Corporate Support and the Principal Procurement Officer be thanked for the comprehensive report, their attendance and responding to the committee?s comments and enquiries;
2. the committee requests an update on the council?s Fairtrade Policy and work to retain South Ribble as a Fairtrade Borough;
3. the committee welcomes the proposal to generate income from Procurement Services;
4. the committee encourages the council to re-explore the widening of shared services; and
5. the committee supports the further development of the performance management targets.

The chairman welcomed back Councillor Mullineaux (Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods and Street Scene) and Mark Gaffney (Director).

The Cabinet member was pleased to present the report which showed the partnership was making good progress and levels of performance.

The Cabinet member confirmed that increasing the amount of plastics recycled would increase the council?s recycling rates. The introduction of recycling food waste had made an increase. He was pleased to report that the government (DEFRA) had re-assessed the council?s 2013/14 recycling performance. This had increased the council?s recycling rate from 49.64% to 50.5%. This was the highest in Lancashire. The Cabinet member felt that the recycling of carpets instead of going to landfill would make a big impact. It was acknowledged other councils had achieved higher rates (Stockport 60%) and the council would look at how that was being done.

In respect of section 3.6 in the report (education programme), whilst acknowledging the good work with school children it was wondered what efforts were made to encourage adults to recycle. Such as explaining there would be a saving in council tax by increasing the level of recycling. The Cabinet member accepted that that could be an incentive, however, it would be difficult in the current environment. The Director added the promotion of recycling was on-going, school children were powerful advocates with adults (parents/grandparents). When non-recycling households were indentified, they were politely contacted and encouraged to recycle.

The Cabinet member was surprised to be informed that it appeared that very few people knew about recycling food waste but none about clothing. The council had to keep working on education and on a reasonably regularly basis promoting recycling through its website and providing general information.

In respect of the waste procurement contract, the Cabinet member confirmed an all party group had been involved in the process up to the bids being received by the council. The process was on track and was scheduled to be considered by the Cabinet in January 2015 with implementation in June 2015. In respect of a possible joint procurement with Chorley, the Director added that its contract still had six years to run, but this council?s procurement exercise included a provision should this be pursued in the future. The committee was advised that when the new contract started, residents would not see a change in service.

Regarding the current cost-sharing agreement with Lancashire County Council, the Cabinet member commented that whilst this did not expire until March 2018, it was actively being discussed by the authorities in Lancashire. It was acknowledged that at the moment, the county council?s position was not to renew the agreement which could cost this and other councils up to ?1M. Further exploration/discussions were needed, the county council might change its mind or another alternative might be found, the council was not just waiting for the end of the agreement. Similarly, there was a provision in the new waste contract.

It was confirmed that about 4,000 properties (terrace/flats) had the small green recycling boxes.

A member of the public commented that the county council planned to introduce charges for DIY waste and asked if the council was ready to deal with the consequences. The Cabinet member commented that this was still in the early stages and not implemented. Councillor Tomlinson, drawing on his knowledge as a county councillor was able to explain that ordinary people would not have to pay. Whilst they would have to apply for a permit to deposit DIY waste, it would be free. This was aimed at small traders who should be using skips. The county council would publicise/explain the changes.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that
1. the Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for Neighbourhoods and Street Scene and the Director be thanked for their attendance and responding to the committee?s comments and enquiries;
2. the committee commends the council and residents for breaking through the 50% recycling barrier;
3. the committee requests consideration be given to how recycling rates can be further increased, including learning from to the local authorities;
4. the committee requests an increase in the promotion and communication with residents explaining what items can be recycled;
5. the committee requests that the financial benefits of recycling be explained to residents (council tax payers); and
6. the committee requests regular updates on the cost-sharing scheme and potential options being explored.

The committee received a report and was asked to consider the key issues it would like to see in next year?s corporate plan, medium term financial strategy and risk register. The current corporate plan and risk register action plan were attached at Appendices 1 and 2.

The chairman referred to a note that had been circulated at the start of the meeting. This followed an initial discussion prior to the meeting and was the committee?s suggested comments. In respect of the note, a member of the committee suggested and it was accepted, that the third point under General comments be amended with the removal of the words ?and maximise?.

A copy of the committee?s amended comments is appended to these minutes.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the committee?s suggested comments as amended be agreed as its feedback on the Corporate Plan, Medium Term Financial Strategy and Risk Register for 2015/2016.

The committee received and considered the draft final report on the Impact of Welfare Reform from its Welfare Reform Task Group.

In response to a member of the committee, the chairman indicated that Recommendation 2 had been suggested by one of the partners involved in the review. It was good if this was already happening. The chairman also clarified that under Localisation of Council Tax on page 7 of the report, the contribution had initially been ?2.95 per week which had subsequently increased to ?3.50 per week. This followed an increase in the county council?s element of council tax for 2014/15. This contribution had the potential to change annually.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that
1. subject to making the above mentioned change, the draft final report of the Scrutiny Review of Welfare Reform be approved; and
2. the final report of the Scrutiny Review of Welfare Reform be presented to the meeting of the council to be held on 21 January 2015.

(a) Update on Scrutiny Review of Drainage and Flooding ? there would be a further meeting and the finalised report would be presented to a future meeting of the committee.
(b) Update on Scrutiny Review of Ageing Population ? to date held a number of meetings with partners, with Age Concern on 19 December. As a short sharp review be focused on social isolation/loneliness. There was to be a Member Learning Hour on 2 February and a stakeholder workshop on 17 February 2015, and a questionnaire would be circulated at the Leyland Older People?s Christmas Party.
(c) Update on Scrutiny Review of Road Casualties & Deaths ? due to start in February 2015 and would hopefully conclude after four further meetings.
(d) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ? the chairman confirmed he attended the recent meeting on 25 November 2014 whose discussions had included a presentation on healthy environment, adult social care complaints/representation report and disabled facilities grants.
(e) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? members of the committee reported their attendances at
i) health places workshop, NW employers? conference & awards, age UK conference, age concern central Lancashire AGM and, NW ambulance service?s consultation event; and
ii) Councillor Martin suggested it might be beneficial to visit and scrutinise the ambulance service
(f) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans - the committee noted the Forward Plans.