Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Paul Swansborough and Nina Wood-Ford, with Councillor Pattie Hill attending as substitute for Councillor Wood-Ford.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests, and any Party Whip.

Councillor David Bush declared a pecuniary interest as Director of Oakside Property Limited in respect of minute no 24, the Executive Minutes and Work Programme.  In particular this interest related to an item listed on the Work Programme; Applying Article 4 directions to the Council’s schedule of locally listed buildings. He left the room and took no part in the discussions in respect of this item.

To confirm the minutes of the most recent meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as a correct record.

(Minutes from 9th June meeting attached, minutes from 24th June meeting to follow)

In respect of the exempt minute from 24th June Officers highlighted that the management team had spoken with local authority representatives and not trust representatives as stated.

RESOLVED that

Subject to the amendment detailed in the preamble above, the minutes of the meetings held on 9th June 2015 and 24th June 2015 be confirmed as correct records and signed by the Chair.

To consider the findings of the Provision of Support Networks for the LGBT Community Task Group and to determine whether to support the group’s recommendations.

(Report attached, presentation to follow)

The Chair invited the Chair of the Task Group, Councillor Joe Baker, to present the Provision of Support Networks for the LGBT Community Task Group’s final report to the Committee.  Councillor Baker provided information which highlighted the relevance of the Task Group at a local level, as the data detailed within the report referred to issues nationally.  He also gave the Members of the Task Group who were present, Councillors Natalie Brookes and Gay Hopkins, the opportunity to share with the Committee what the work of the Group had meant to them.

During the presentation Councillor Baker highlighted each recommendation and provided background information as to why each was appropriate and the positive results which could be achieved from their implementation.  A display had also been provided by the group as an example of the positive aspects that could be incorporated into any future LGBT History month, as detailed in recommendation 3.  Councillor Baker acknowledged the valuable contribution of the partners who had helped to organise the event in 2015 and praised them for making arrangements under difficult circumstances.  However, in future years it was suggested that the event should be used as an opportunity to celebrate the LGBT community as well as to provide guidance and support to Members of the community where needed.

Following the presentation Councillor Baker responded to questions from Members in respect of the following:

·         Training for frontline staff to ensure they had a better understanding of the problems faced by members of the LGBT community.

·         The Stonewall Education Equality Index and work which was already being carried out within some schools in the Borough, including the work carried out by the Community Safety team.

·         The production of a leaflet to advertise support networks for the LGBT community living locally and the option for this to be sponsored to assist with the cost. 

·         The use of County Councillors’ divisional funds and the option for the LGBT Support Services Redditch to apply for grant funding from both the Council and the national lottery.

·         Whether ethnic groups had also been consulted as part of the group’s investigation.

·         The promotion of the health and wellbeing implications and the importance of raising awareness of the support and assistance that was already available.

Councillor Baker thanked his fellow Members of the group for their hard work and support in producing this report, with thanks also to the Democratic Services Officer.

The Chair in turn thanked the group for an excellent report and presentation which had provided Members with some useful information and insight into the LGBT community and the problems its members faced on a daily basis.

RECOMMENDED that

1)    Redditch Borough Council should participate in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index every year;

2)    Worcestershire County Council should take part in the Stonewall Education Equality Index.

Worcestershire County Council should also encourage schools to take part in the Stonewall School Champions Programme and / or to use the Birmingham LGBT Schools Toolkit;

3)    there should be a greater celebration of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To pre-scrutinise the final report concerning the future management of Redditch Outdoor Market.

(Report to follow).

The Chair invited Officers to present the report and in so doing he advised members that the Redditch Outdoor Market was one of three markets managed and operated through North Worcestershire Economic Development Regeneration (NWedr), a shared service hosted by Wyre Forest District Council, which had been established under a Collaboration Agreement in May 2011.  The other markets were in Bromsgrove and Kidderminster and the NWedr Client Management Group had instructed officers to explore options for the future operation and management of all three markets.   As part of this process, the consultancy arm of the National Association of British Market Authorities (NABMA) had been commissioned to provide a review and advice on the respective markets.

The report presented to Members included that report together with a summary of the options and highlighted the recommendations which had been brought forward following an Overview and Scrutiny Task Group investigation carried out in 2012/13.  A number of the scrutiny group’s recommendations, which had been approved by the Executive Committee, remained to be implemented.  It was considered that those recommendations would be best taken forward through the market being operated by an external provider.

Officers summed up by explaining to Members that the Executive Committee would be asked to consider three options as set out within the body of the report.  Officers also responded to questions from Members in respect of the following areas:

·         How the project would be managed and details of the other markets involved, including whether they would also be managed by the same external operator.

·         The shared service arrangement and options available when the agreement comes to an end.

·         The procurement process and the detail which would be included within the specification.

·         The conclusions reached by the Task Group and the need for improvements to be made as soon as possible.

·         The merits of option three as detailed within the report, which Members urged the Executive Committee to endorse.

Following further debate it was

RECOMMENDED that

the conduct of a procurement and contracting process to select and appoint a contractor to manage Redditch Outdoor Market be delegated to Wyre Forest District Council in consultation with the Chief Executive and the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Regeneration, Economy and Transport.

To pre-scrutinise the report concerning the future operation of Leisure Services at Redditch Borough Council.

(Report to follow)

Officers introduced the report and in so doing reminded Members that this was the final element of the Committee’s three stage approach to pre-scrutiny of this item.  For the meeting a covering report was presented, which followed detailed scrutiny of the options appraisal at the previous meeting.

It was highlighted that potential savings had been built into the Medium Term Financial Plan which were reliant upon alternative models for the provision of the leisure service, details of which were included within the report.  Members were informed that there had been limited dialogue with staff and the trades’ unions, in respect of the options available, pending a decision being made as to the next stage of the process.

Officers also drew Members’ attention to a number of limitations which needed to be fully considered by the Executive Committee should it wish to consider pursuing an alternative delivery model based on the options appraisal.  Particular attention was drawn in this respect to the scope of the services that would be included and the need for sufficient detail to be available in respect of costs and capacity required to deliver on the options.  The recommendations which were being presented for the Executive Committee’s consideration were therefore open and gave no specific steer as to a preferred option.  It was highlighted that in respect of an alternative delivery model officers would need to commission external support and advice in order to undertake a further, more comprehensive business case with an estimated cost of between £25,000 and £30,000.

In respect of the savings which had been built into the Medium Term Financial Plan, these would be met through balances for 2014-15.  However, the projected savings for future years would need to be addressed through the budget setting process which would take place later in the year.

Following presentation of the report Members discussed the following areas in more detail:

·         The potential for more detailed information to be made available in order for an informed decision to be made.

·         The mix of service to be included in any trust model and other types of model that could be considered.

·         The inclusion of £150k savings within the budget for 2014/15.

·         The external support required (and its cost) should an alternative model be given further consideration.

·         The nature of the transformation work which was referred to within the report and the impact that this could have in the longer term.  It was anticipated that the results of some of this work would be available within 3-4 months.

·         Any control which would be retained by the Council should the trust option be considered and the impact this would have on potential savings.

·         The impact on staff should the trust model be considered including the cost of such things as TUPE, pension and any redundancies.  Whilst it was understood that all staff would be transferred to a trust, there was the potential for that trust to carry out a review of staffing and any costs from that would be met  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To consider any completed scrutiny proposal forms and to determine whether to launch any Task Groups or Short, Sharp Reviews to investigate the proposed subject(s) further.

(No reports attached).

Officers confirmed that following completion of the Provision of Support Networks for the LGBT Community Task Group there was the capacity for the Committee to undertake further Task Group or Short, Sharp Reviews if it so wished.  Members noted that in order to propose a Task Group or Short, Sharp Review exercise a completed scoping document would need to be completed setting out potential objectives for a review.  It was suggested that all Members give this some thought prior to the following meeting, which was due to be held on 1st September 2015.

To consider a Scrutiny Proposal received from Worcestershire County Council to participate in a joint scrutiny Task Group review of Increasing Physical Activity in Worcestershire and to determine whether to participate in this review.

(Report attached)  

Officers informed Members that this report provided an overview of a proposal which had been received from Worcestershire County Council to undertake a joint scrutiny review in respect of increased physical activity rates in Worcestershire.  The draft terms of reference had been included for Members’ consideration.

All the district Councils in Worcestershire had been invited to participate. It was confirmed that Bromsgrove District Council had already agreed to participate and the proposal would be considered by Worcester City Council at its meeting on 12th July 2015.   If the Committee chose to participate any representative appointed needed to be a member of the Committee and would be expected to provide regular verbal updates on the progress of the investigation.

The Chair commented that the review could have implications for services delivered by the Borough Council. The review also linked to recent work undertaken by scrutiny Members to assess obesity levels in the Borough and could have a positive impact on the health of residents. For these reasons there was general agreement that it would be useful for Redditch to participate in the joint scrutiny exercise.

RESOLVED that

1)    the Council participate in the Joint Scrutiny of Increasing Physical Activity in Worcestershire; and

2)    Councillor Gareth Prosser be nominated to represent the Council on the Joint Scrutiny investigation.

To consider the minutes of the latest meeting(s) of the Executive Committee and also to consider whether any items on the Executive Committee’s Work Programme are suitable for scrutiny.

(Minutes and Executive Work Programme attached).

Officers had no updates in respect of the Minutes and informed Members that they were able to scrutinise any item on the Work Programme if they so wished.  The Chair highlighted that there were very few items on the Work Programme and questioned whether further items would be added.  However, Officers confirmed that they were unaware of any further items which would be coming forward.

Further information was requested in respect of the item “Applying Article 4 directions to the Council’s schedule of locally listed buildings”.  In particular, Members were keen to obtain clarification about the purpose of this item.

(Prior to discussion of the item Councillor David Bush declared a pecuniary interest as Director or Oakside Property Limited in Applying Article 4 directions to the Council’s schedule of locally listed buildings.  He left the room during its consideration and did not take part in the discussions.)

RESOLVED that

the Executive Committee Minutes of 9th June 2015 and the latest Executive Work Programme be noted.

Members were reminded that there were a number of items where presentations had been requested, following the scrutiny training exercise and the relevant officers had been contacted.  Once they had confirmed their availability the Work Programme would be amended to record the dates for these presentations.  Dates had also been confirmed in respect of the various elements of budget scrutiny, which would be included within the Committee’s work programme for the following meeting.

The Chair informed Members that the Worcestershire Health and Wellbeing Board had referred the Tackling Obesity Task Group’s findings to the Health Improvement Group (HIG).  The Board had felt that the Health Improvement Group was most appropriate to receive such a report.  Consideration of the group’s findings was scheduled to take place at a meeting of the HIG in December 2015.

In Councillor Wood-Ford’s absence, it was confirmed that the next meeting of the Worcestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee was not due to take place until 15th July 2015.