Agenda and minutes

In view of Mrs J Whitehouse’s apologies for the meeting, the Committee were asked to appoint a Vice Chairman for the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor F Maclaine be appointed Vice – Chairman for the meeting.

Decisions required:

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 September 2005.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 September 2005 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record subject to the inclusion of Councillor Mrs M Sartin in the apologies for absence for the meeting.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs P Brooks was substituting for Councillor Mrs J Whitehouse at the meeting.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs D Collins declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 (Commissioning a Patient - led NHS - Consultation exercise) by virtue of being the Chairman of the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust. She declared that her interest was prejudicial and that she would vacate her position as Chairman for the meeting during the consideration and voting on the item.

Recommendation:

To consider and make comments on behalf of the Council on the ‘Commissioning a Patient - led NHS’ initiative.

(Joint Chief Executive (Community)). The ‘Commissioning a Patient Led – NHS’ exercise has placed a requirement on Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) to lead a process to review the pattern of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).

In addition to this, the North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust has recently been awarded Three Stars for their performance, which enables them to seek Foundation status.

A widespread consultation on these proposals and publicity exercise will be undertaken. As part of this the Committee is asked to consider a number options and submit comments.

Aiden Thomas, the Chief Executive of the Epping Forest PCT will be attending the meeting to help formulate any District response.

A letter of the Head of Housing Services together with documents  concerning the initiative has been circulated to Members of the Committee and placed in the Members Room for perusal.

(Councillor F Maclaine acted as Chairman for this item)

The Chairman reported that the ‘Commissioning a Patient Led NHS’ exercise had placed a requirement on Strategic Health Authorities  (SHAs) to lead a process to review the pattern of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs). He introduced and welcomed Aidan Thomas the Chief Executive of the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust to the meeting  who was in attendance  to discuss a number of options in relation to the process and help formulate any District response.

Mr Thomas stated that the exercise was designed to implement two main aims of the government which were to reduce management costs following the introduction of  new payment arrangements for acute services and create a change in the way that services were delivered to reflect patient choice. He reported that the proposals sought fewer PCTs and SHAs, changes in responsibility for certain services provided by the NHS, practice based commissioning and attempted to secure improvements in health care, reduce inequality in services, and identify and meet local needs. He reported that SHAs had been tasked with the  process and would be submitting views to the Department of Health by the deadline of 15 October 2005. This would be followed by a formal consultation to start in December 2005.

He asked the Committee to consider the following three main options for PCT configuration:

Option 1:            one PCT covering the whole of the Essex County Council, Southend on Sea and Thurrock Unitary Authority areas; or

Option2:             two PCTs, one covering North Essex and one covering South Essex; or

Option3:            five PCTs each covering the catchment area of one of the Essex District General Hospitals:

·               North East: Colchester and Tendering

·               Mid: Braintree, Chelmsford & Maldon

·               West: Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford

·               South West:: Basildon, Brentwood and Thurrock

·               South East: Castle Point Rochford and Southend.

He reported the likely outcome of options for SHAs and various other permutations under consideration for PCT reconfiguration including the ‘M11 options’ and the Hertfordshire Borders which had regard to housing proposals for the area.

Mr Thomas answered a series of questions. He stated that under the options, trusts would not be as local to patients . This could impact on patients ability to influence the decision making process. He advised that existing user and patient involvement forums would still be required but would cover larger areas. He reminded the Committee that improvements to St Margarets Hospital in Epping were funded by the Private Finance Initiative and  therefore would not be affected by the reorganisation. He stated that the proposals indicated that certain services might be provided by a range of different providers to include the private sector. He advised that services should not be affected in the short term and that he had yet to identify the implications for services in Ongar.

The Committee noted that Epping Forest PCT had responded to  the consultation  to express their  concerns. The response stated that the Trust were of the view that option 3 (5 PCTs) was the best  identified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). To consider the attached report which was deferred from the last meeting of the Committee

The Senior Democratic Services Officers reported that at the 7 July 2005 meeting of the Panel, preliminary consideration had been given to the policy to be adopted in relation to press and public attendance at Scrutiny Panels. Legal requirements stated that Panel’s need not be subject to access to information procedure rules as they were not decision making bodies. This did not preclude open meetings but provided a legal basis for excluding public access if that was the view of Members.

The Committee considered four options:

(a)        Option 1 - no attendance by press and public

(b)        Option 2 - all meetings open except where confidentiality must be preserved

(c)        Option 3 - presumption that press and public will not attend unless Chairman determines otherwise.

(d)        Option 4 - regular press briefings on OS/Panel work, subject to resources

The view was expressed that Panels’ would need to engage in policy formation in private. Discussions might be speculative in character and possibly misleading. In support, Members were reminded of the objective under the new arrangements  to encourage public involvement in scrutiny. If Members wished to pursue this, open meetings could assist. Most supported this view.

To accommodate these comments, the Committee agreed that option (c) be pursued however varied to indicate that there should be a presumption that the press and public would attend meetings unless the Chairman in accordance with procedural rules, and officer advise determined otherwise.

RESOLVED:

That there be a presumption that press and public be allowed to attend Overview and Scrutiny Panel meetings unless Chairman determines otherwise and published accordingly.

(a)             Review of Work Programme and reports of Panel Chairman

The Committee is asked to consider the attached report on the review of the current work plan. To advise on current developments, all Panel Chairman have been asked to attend this meeting to report on progress with their individual work plans.

Standing Panels                         Chairman

Finance and Performance Management                          Councillor  J M Whitehouse

Housing                        Councillor S Murray

Planning and Environmental Services                        Councillor D Stallan

E-Government and Information and

Communication Technology                        Councillor F Maclaine

Constitutional Affairs                        Councillor R Morgan

Task and Finish Panels

Externally Funded Leisure and Youth Provision                        Councillor Mrs A Grigg

Register of Development Proposals                        Councillor F Maclaine

Member Training                        Councillor Mrs M Sartin

Traveller Issues                        Councillor P McMillan

(b)               Constitutional Affairs Standing Panel – Work Programme

In considering this initial review, the Committee is asked to consider the attached report of the Constitutional Affairs Standing Panel which seeks changes to its current  work plan.

(a)         Progress Reports – Standing and Task and Finish Panels

(i)           Finance and Performance Management

Councillor J M Whitehouse reported on the work of the Finance and Performance Standing Panel. The Panel had considered the draft Budget and issues paper. The Panel were of the view that the proposed target for next years Council tax increase could be achieved. However, there were a number of uncertainties that would need to be resolved before a firm view could be taken on the matter. The Panel would be examining fees and charges and monitoring the effects of the removal of the Highways Agency The Panel had considered the emerging new Council Plan and would further consideration to a framework at a future meeting. The Panel had focused on Planning Performance and asked appropriate officers and the Portfolio Holder to respond on this. Members were invited to submit questions for this exercise.

(ii)     Housing

The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor S Murray updated members on the meeting of the Panel held in September 2005. Two housing briefings had been held and had been well attended. The final session would take place on 17 October at 6.00 p. m in Committee Room 1. He invited Members to attend. The Councillor summarised the items considered by the Panel in which he focused on the Choice Based Lettings and Housing allocations scheme.

(iii)       Environmental and Planning Services

The Committee considered and agreed to add to the terms of reference ofthe Panel the formulation of a response to the DEFRA Cleaner Neighbourhoods consultation document. Noted that this addition would cover those points raised in Councillor Mrs Whitehouse’s request on the reserve list on the provision of uniformed neighbourhood wardens as part of wider considerations.

The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor D Stallan reported that the Panel had met on 13 September 2005. At that meeting it was reported that the Panel would receive a copy of the Outline Business Plan for the Joint Waste Procurement Process before the end of the year. It was noted that representatives of local interests groups who might be affected by the East of England Plan who had not yet been invited to participate in the  examination in the public attended the meeting to express their views about this. It was reported that the Panel requested sight of future submissions of the Council to the examination. The Panel considered the Local Plan and scheme and would give further consideration to the plan at its next meeting on 20 October 2005. The review of the re-use of agricultural buildings in the Green Belt was underway but was awaiting the completion of a traffic count.

      RESOLVED:

That the Terms of Reference for the Environmental and Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel be amended to include consideration of the DEFRA Cleaner Neighbourhoods Consultation document.

(iv)             ICT and E Government

The Chairman of the Panel, Councillor F Maclaine reported that proposals on the ICT strategy would be submitted to the next meeting of the Panel in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

(Head of Environmental Services). At the meeting of the Environmental and Planning Services Standing  Panel on the 13 September 2005, the Panel requested that this report be submitted to this meeting for comments prior to its consideration by the Cabinet on 10 October 2005.

It was reported that, at the meeting of the Environmental and Planning Services Standing Panel on 13 September, the Panel requested that this report be submitted to this meeting for comments prior to its consideration by the Cabinet on 10 October 2005.

The Head of Environmental Services advised that before the West Essex Waste Partnership and the West Essex Joint Management Committee could continue with the procurement process they needed to be assured that constituent councils remained committed to the fundamental principles of Joint working. The changes that had been recently made to the process gave Members the opportunity to review and reconsider the position . He reported that it was the view of the Portfolio Holder and officers that partnership working should remain central to the process.

The Portfolio Holder stated that this was a strategic decision at this stage. Members would be able to comment on detailed operation issues at appropriate stages in the process.

RESOLVED:

(1)            That the position regarding the procurement process, and in particular the requirements of ODPM in respect of PFI funding for a fully integrated waste management solution be noted;

(2)            That the Council continue to work in partnership with the County and District/Boroughs through the auspices of the Waste Management Advisory Board and the West Essex Joint Waste Committee; and

(3)            That the Council remains open to all procurement options including joint collection arrangements within the West Essex Grouping of collection authorities and aligning collection arrangements with the County Council disposal contract.

Recommendation:

To consider any items to be raised by the Chairman at the Cabinet meeting on 10 October 2005.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). Under the Overview and Scrutiny rules the Committee is enabled to scrutinise proposed decisions of the Executive. The Chairman is also able to report on such discussions to the Cabinet.

The Committee is asked to consider the 10 October 2005 Cabinet agenda (previously circulated) to see whether there are any items that they wished to be raised at that Cabinet meeting.

It was agreed that the item 16 of the agenda on E-Procurement be raised by the Chairman at the next Cabinet meeting on 10 October 2005.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). To consider the attached report.

The Committee considered a new protocol designed to regulate the Council’s links with partnerships and external organisations with which the Authority was involved. The Head of Research and Democratic Services reported that the protocol derived from an Internal Audit Survey Study and subsequent decisions of the Epping Forest Business Awards and the Business Excellence Award held in 2002.  The document set out the Council’s policy on involvement in external partnership and organisations and policy, written agreement, reporting arrangements insurance and indemnities. The Chief Internal Auditor provided advise to the Committee on this latter aspect.

RESOLVED:

(1)            That the draft Protocol on the Council's relations with Partnerships and External Organisations covering member and officer liabilities, indemnities reporting back to the Council, annual reports and training be approved; and

(2)            That a report be submitted to the Council at its next meeting recommending adoption of the Protocol and publication in the Council's Constitution

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). To consider the attached report.

The Head of Research and Democratic Services reported that at its last meeting on 1 September 2005, the Committee referred back to the Overview and Scrutiny Constitutional Affairs Standing Panel the question of counts following polling in the 2006 District Council Election.

At the last meeting of the Panel, the Returning Officer reported his concerns about convening the count on the night of polling in a  centralised venue. He advised that based on rough calculations, the arrangement would mean that it was likely that  the count could not be completed until the next morning. This would place an undue strain on count staff and had health and safety implications. The Returning Officer advised the Panel that his decision to hold the counts in three different centres would address these issues and  speed up the process. It was acknowledged that a decision was needed now so that the planning of the election could commence.

The Committee supported these views and suggested that technology be made available in the centres to communicate the election results.

RESOLVED:

That decision by the Returning Officer to proceed in planning for the May 2006 District Council Elections on the basis of three separate counts all to be held on the evening of the Polling Day be noted

(Joint Chief Executive) To consider the attached report. The Chairman of the Committee has agreed to its consideration in view of the timescale involved in the consultation exercise.

The Committee were asked to consider a consultation document issued by the Essex Police Authority and Essex Police in relation to a best value review currently being carried out in relation to Policing and force structure.

The Chairman agreed to this late report, in view of the timescale involved in the consultation exercise.

It was noted that the Police were seeking views of partnership organisations to identify considerations on which structure for the service represented the best for Essex. The Council had been invited to submit comments to the review  which were due by 25 October 2005.

The Committee were asked to consider whether the Council should respond to the consultation and if supported  determine whether a special meeting of this Committee be held to consider the matter or the appointment of members to be authorised to respond on behalf of the Council.

In considering this, attention was drawn to those Members who had been appointed to serve on the Police and Community Consultative Group. The Committee agreed that as these Members were experienced in the issues, they should be authorised to respond.

The Joint Chief Executive (Community) reported that the representatives would be attending  a public debate on the proposals at the next meeting of the Police and Community Consultative Group to be held on 12 October 2005. It was agreed that those  representatives who were also members of Area Plans Sub – Committee  ‘B’ also to be held that night would be written to so that they were informed about the arrangements and given the opportunity to appoint a substitute for the public debate if that was their wish.

It was noted that this matter would be considered by a further meeting at which the reply to be sent by the Council could be agreed.

RESOLVED:

(1)            That the following Members be authorised to respond to the consultation on behalf of the Council:

Councillors M Cohen, Mrs J Davis, P Gode, R Haines, J Hart, L Martin, Mrs S Perry, Mrs J Whitehouse

(2)            That a letter be sent to Councillors Mrs S Perry and Mrs J Whitehouse to ask them whether they wish to appoint a substitute for the public debate