Agenda and minutes

Councillor Jim Armstrong – personal

Councillor Alex Ball – personal

Councillor Alan Clark - personal

Councillor Steve Young – personal

Councillor Nick McDonald - personal

Councillors Brian Parbutt and Alex Norris and Corall Jenkins declared interests in agenda item 13 – Pay Policy Statement, as they are employed by Trade Unions. They left the chamber for consideration of this item.

Ms R. J asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Community Services:

I understand that the present practise of collecting paper and glass together in the same recycling bin and lorry is making the paper useless for recycling. This is because it contains broken glass. Will the City Council change its collection method, so paper and glass are kept separate throughout the recycling process?

Councillor Nicola Heaton responded as follows:

Thank you very much Lord Mayor and I’d like to thank Ms R J for her question. We currently recycle over 9500 Tonnes of paper every year through the practise of collecting paper, glass and other recyclables together.  Whilst there would be some advantages to the quality of paper and glass available to the market if the two were separated, the mixing of glass and paper does not prevent recycling.  What is more, there is evidence that the additional vehicle use required for separate collection could offset any environmental benefit.  There would also be additional inconvenience for citizens of having extra bins and this could also lead to reduced take up of recycling. Therefore, we are not looking at changing our collection method for recycling, however I would like to thank Ms R J for their concerns.

Councillor Jackie Morris submitted a petition on behalf of 33 signatories, requesting Nottingham City Council support and endeavour to continue the YMCA Physical Activity referral classes at Bulwell Riverside.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2017 were confirmed and signed as a true record by the Lord Mayor.

The Chief Executive reported the following:

There has been widespread sporting achievement in Nottingham over the past two months, with the Nottingham Wildcats Girls Under 16s basketball team beating Southend in their first ever National Championship Cup Final in February. Nottingham U13 Boys football team also beaten Liverpool and will meet Newcastle-Upon-Tyne in the semi-final of the English Schools FA Playstation Trophy at University Highfields Sports Ground on 18 March. This is the first time since 2006 that a Nottingham team has reached a national semi-final. We have also received funding from Sport England to support the Council’s delivery of the ‘This Girl Can Swim’ project in the city. This project seeks to address some of the barriers to swimming participation in women and girls aged 14+.

Nottingham Futures, Advice Skills and Employment received an Ofsted outstanding rating for its delivery of the East Midlands National Careers Service – the first in the country to receive this rating.

Nottingham and the surrounding districts have also secured £10m European funding through the Sustainable Urban Development Strategy.

At the Royal Town Planning Institute awards held last week, the Planning services team were awarded Local Authority Team of the year.

Nottingham has been awarded £100,000 from the national Domestic Abuse Fund. The money will go towards ensuring that survivors of domestic abuse with complex needs such as alcohol and substance addiction and mental health issues are fully supported.

Finally, it is with sadness that I report to Council the death of Sir Peter Mansfield, who passed away aged 83 on 8 February 2017. Sir Peter pioneered the creation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), one of the most important and revolutionary breakthroughs in modern medical science. Sir Peter was awarded the Nobel Prize for this achievement in 2003 and he continued to help the diagnosis, research and the treatment of millions of patients around the world. In July 2013, Sir Peter was made Honorary Freeman of this city and held the position of Professor of Physics from 1979 until his retirement in 1994 at the University of Nottingham.

Councillor Mike Edwards and Georgina Culley spoke in tribute to Sir Peter Mansfield and a minutes’ silence was held.

Councillor Dave Liversidge asked the following question of the Deputy Leader:

Would the Deputy Leader advise Council whether Nottingham has been offered the same deal as the one offered to Surrey County Council?

Councillor Graham Chapman responded as follows:

Thank you Lord Mayor. Nottingham City Council has not been offered the same deal as Surrey County Council. I have written to the Department of Communities and Local Government about receiving the same deal and I have had an acknowledgement but no substantive reply. Actually, we do not know what the precise deal is. In an article in the Municipal Journal last week it was stated that Whitehall had refused to disclose details of the discussion, not just with Surrey, but with other potential pilot areas.

Although the DCLG has insisted that all councils will be free to participate in these public pilots, those in the frame do not know what they are applying for. Except, of course, if you are a Conservative council threatening a 15% council tax rise and referendum and are called Surrey. And, of course, if you happen to have the Chancellor in your area as an MP. If you meet these objective criteria, not only will you know what you are applying for, you can do deals on the internet, with people called ‘Nick’ in the Cabinet Office who for some reason, are empowered to cut through the normal rules of fairness and good governance and offer sweeteners, because that is precisely, what is happening. Unfortunately, the Leader of Surrey got his ‘Nicks’ in a twist and by mistake he tried to deal with the Leader of the LGA Labour Group who is also called Nick, as opposed to the Nick in the Cabinet Office. If he hadn’t, we would never have known about this deal.

Even though we know there was skulduggery, only Surrey and Nick in the Cabinet Office seem to know what the nature of it is. Legitimate pilots have been agreed to take place from 2017 but they are designed to be 100% cost neutral at the point of delivery. So, the question begs to be asked what precisely was in it for Surrey for them to do a U-turn on the referendum and what precisely were they offered by the Cabinet Office during phone calls and internet messages that were going back and forth between Surrey and the Cabinet Office.

I suspect the following, that Surrey will be able to retain 100% of their business rates without the strings other authorities will be asked for, without the expectation of a mayoral system and possibly not top sliced by the government. That is what I suspect, I may be wrong. I also believe that it will apply not from this year but from next and that it will not be announced with a fanfare but hidden in some obscure document which is slipped out into the public domain under the cover of a much bigger event, perhaps even as a coder for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Report of the Leader

The Leader submitted a report on decisions taken under urgency procedures, as set out on pages 29 to 34 of the agenda.

RESOLVED to note the urgent decisions taken, as follows:

(1)  Urgent decisions (exempt from call-in);

(2)  Key decisions (taken under special urgency procedures).

Report of the Deputy Leader

The Deputy Leader submitted a report on the Treasury Management Strategy for 2017/18, as set out on pages 35-28 of the agenda.

RESOLVED to

(1)  approve the 2017/18 Treasury Management Strategy Document, including the strategy for debt repayment and the investment strategy, as detailed in Appendix 1;

(2)  approve the Prudential Indicators and limits from 2015/16 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix 3 (pages 15-17);

(3)  adopt the current Treasury Management Policy Statement, as detailed in Appendix 5 (pages 20-21).

Report of the Deputy Leader

The Deputy Leader submitted a report on the 2016/17 Budget, as set out on pages 39-44 of the agenda.

Councillor Georgina Culley proposed an amendment to the Budget, as follows:

“In recommendation 2.1 (1) add after “the revenue budget for 2017/18”

Subject to the following:-

In recommendation 2.1 (2) add after “the capital programme to 2021/22”

Subject to the following:-

Section 2

It is recommended that review of the following areas be undertaken:

·  Further expand shared services with other local authorities

·  Review of company structures and future funding plans

·  Review the rent level policy for Council owned commercial properties

And amend the following recommendations as indicated:

·  In recommendation 2.1 (3) substitute £99,033,399 for £100,947,113;

·  In recommendation 2.1 (3) (a) substitute £982,339,819 for £983,427,423;

·  In recommendation 2.1 (3) (b) substitute £883,306,420 for £882,480,310;

·  In recommendation 2.1 (3) (c) substitute £99,033,399 for £100,947,113;

·  In recommendation 2.1 (4) substitute £1,562.83 for £1,593.03

And amend the following sections as indicated:

·  In section 5.2 substitute £99,033,399 for £100,947,113 and £1,562.83 for £1,593.03

·  In section 5.3 and 5.6 substitute the following basic amounts of council tax for the ones shown in the report:

Report of the Deputy Leader

The Deputy Leader submitted a report on the changes to the arrangements for the appointment of external auditors, as set out on pages 45-50 of the agenda.

RESOLVED to opt in to the national scheme for auditor appointments led by the Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd.

Report of the Portfolio Holder for Community Services

The Portfolio Holder for Community Services submitted a report on the Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18, as set out on pages 51-140 of the agenda.

RESOLVED to

(1)  approve and endorse the Council’s Pay Policy Statement for 2017/18;

(2)  note that the statement may need to be amended in-year for any necessary changes the Council may wish to adopt. Any such changes will be presented to Full Council for approval.

Motion in the name of Councillor Alex Norris:

This Council profoundly regrets the failure of the Government to adequately fund adult social care. In Nottingham, the 3% raise in Council tax allowed by government would raise £3 million; however the current shortfall is £10 million.

Since 2010, social care funding has been exposed to a 40% real terms fall in local government funding, and social care funding now accounts for less than 2% of Gross Domestic Product. Vital services that reduce the need for more expensive health interventions later in life are under pressure, adding extra cost to the system as a whole.

The government remains committed to the integration of health services and local authority social care by 2020. Working together in this way should strengthen services in the community and achieve some savings and efficiencies. However, continued failure to fund adult social care puts these benefits at risk.  

Therefore, this Council calls upon the Government to:

·  Make available the £2.3bn estimated by the King’s Fund that is required to safeguard statutory social care services as a matter of urgency, which along with the Government’s social care precept, would help to support local authorities’ spend on social care and would prevent the need to further reduce vital social care services;

·  Release all information of any deal made available to Surrey County Council and ensure that all local authorities have access to the same deal;

·  Establish a more sustainable national base for funding social care;

·  Protect vital funding for Health Visitors which gives children the best start in life and reduces the need for later interventions;

·  Protect vital Public Health funding which greatly reduces the need for later interventions;

·  Ensure that locally elected representatives are put at the heart of proposed changes to health and social care.

Moved by Councillor Alex Norris, seconded by Councillor Ginny Klein:

“This Council profoundly regrets the failure of the Government to adequately fund adult social care. In Nottingham, the 3% raise in Council tax allowed by government would raise £3 million; however the current shortfall is £10 million.

Since 2010, social care funding has been exposed to a 40% real terms fall in local government funding, and social care funding now accounts for less than 2% of Gross Domestic Product. Vital services that reduce the need for more expensive health interventions later in life are under pressure, adding extra cost to the system as a whole.

The government remains committed to the integration of health services and local authority social care by 2020. Working together in this way should strengthen services in the community and achieve some savings and efficiencies. However, continued failure to fund adult social care puts these benefits at risk.  

Therefore, this Council calls upon the Government to:

·  Make available the £2.3bn estimated by the King’s Fund that is required to safeguard statutory social care services as a matter of urgency, which along with the Government’s social care precept, would help to support local authorities’ spend on social care and would prevent the need to further reduce vital social care services;

·  Release all information of any deal made available to Surrey County Council and ensure that all local authorities have access to the same deal;

·  Establish a more sustainable national base for funding social care;

·  Protect vital funding for Health Visitors which gives children the best start in life and reduces the need for later interventions;

·  Protect vital Public Health funding which greatly reduces the need for later interventions;

·  Ensure that locally elected representatives are put at the heart of proposed changes to health and social care.”

The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Andrew Rule, seconded by Councillor Georgina Culley:

“In paragraph 1

Remove the ‘the government’ insert ‘successive governments’

After ‘adequately’ insert ‘plan for and’

In paragraph 2

Remove ‘since 2010, social care funding has been exposed to a 40% real terms fall in local government funding, and’ 

Remove bullet point 2

Amended motion to read:

The Council profoundly regrets the failure of successive governments to adequately plan for and fund adult social care. In Nottingham, the 3% raise in Council tax allowed by government would raise £3 million, however the current shortfall is £10 million.

Social care funding now accounts for less than 2% of Gross Domestic Product. Vital services that reduce the need for more expensive health interventions later in life are under pressure, adding extra cost to the system as a whole.

The government remains committed to the integration of health services and local authority social care by 2020. Working together in this way should strengthen services in the community and achieve some savings and efficiencies. However, continued failure to fund adult social care puts these benefits at risk.

Therefore, this Council calls upon the Government to:

·  Make available the £2.3bn  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.