Highland Council Minute - October 27 2011

Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Highland Council held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 27 October 2011 at 10.30am.

Mr R Balfour opened the meeting with prayer.

1. Calling of the Roll and Apologies for Absence

Present:

Mr G Farlow, Ms L Munro, Mr D MacKay, Mr B Fernie, Ms G Ross, Mr G Smith, Mrs D Mackay, Mr J McGillivray, Mr I Ross, Mrs I Campbell, Mr R Greene, Dr A Sinclair, Mrs J Urquhart, Mr M Finlayson, Mr M Rattray, Ms M Smith, Mrs C Wilson, Mr R Durham, Mr A Rhind, Mrs F Robertson, Mr P Cairns, Mr D Chisholm, Mrs A MacLean, Mrs M Paterson, Dr D Alston, Mr B Barclay, Mr C Fraser, Mrs I McCallum, Mr H Fraser, Mr J Laing, Mr D Millar, Mr I Renwick, Mr B Clark, Mr A Henderson, Mr E Hunter, Mrs H Carmichael, Mrs M Davidson, Mr D Hendry, Mr H Wood, Mr A Graham, Mr A Christie, Mr P Corbett, Mr D Kerr, Mrs B McAllister, Mr N Donald, Mr D Henderson, Mr F Parr, Mr I Brown, Mr J Gray, Mr K MacLeod, Mr R Balfour, Mrs G Sinclair, Mr L Fraser, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr A S Park, Mr J Crawford, Mr R Pedersen, Mr T Prag, Mr S Black, Ms J Douglas, Mr D Fallows, Mr G Rimell, Dr M Foxley, Mr B Gormley, Mr B J Murphy

In Attendance:

Chief Executive
Depute Chief Executive/Director of Housing and Property
Director of Education, Culture and Sport Assistant Chief Executive
Director of Planning and Development
Director of TEC Services
Director of Social Work
Chief Financial Officer

Mr A S Park in the Chair

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr R Rowantree, Mr J Rosie, Mr D Bremner, Lady M Thurso, Mr W MacKay, Mr D Flear, Mr R Coghill, Mr J Ford, Mr B Wynd, Mrs P Munro, Miss J Campbell, Mr J Finnie, Mr G Marsden and Mr D Cameron.

Preliminaries

Prior to the commencement of the formal business, the Convener extended the best wishes of the Council to Mr J Rosie and Mr D Cameron who were currently unwell and wished them a speedy recovery.

The Convener also made reference to the fact that the Council Chamber had now celebrated its 25 year anniversary.

2. Declarations of Interest

The Council NOTED the following declarations of interest –

Item 2(a) – Mr M Rattray (Non Financial)
Item 11 – Mr B Gormley (Non Financial)
Item 13 – Ms J Douglas and Mr T Prag (Non Financial)
Item 26 – Mr I Ross, Mr J Laing, Mr B Fernie, Mrs J Urquhart and Mr J Gray (Non Financial)

2(a) Additional Item - Nigg Yard – Progress Report

Declaration of Interest

Mr M Rattray declared a non financial interest in this item as an employee of Port Services (Invergordon) Ltd but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude him from taking part in the discussion.

There had been tabled Report No. HC-57-11 (26kb pdf) dated 26 October 2011 by the Director of Planning and Development which confirmed that Global Energy (Holdings) Ltd had announced, on 20 October 2011, that they had successfully concluded their negotiations with KBR and the Wakelyn Trust to purchase and lease the Nigg site to pave the way for the development of the former Nigg Fabrication Yard to service the oil, gas and renewables sectors.

The Leader of the Opposition had subsequently requested that the Convener allow an emergency item to be considered at the Highland Council meeting to discuss the potential which the Yard had to address the employment challenges faced in the Highlands at the current time, notably for young people.

The report therefore provided the context to the change of ownership at Nigg, set out the scale of the opportunity that Nigg presented and outlined actions which the Highland Council would take forward with Global Energy Group, the Scottish Government and other public agencies to unlock this potential.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

this announcement was a key element in terms of the future prosperity of the area;
in terms of economic development, and in concluding a deal to take over the former Nigg Fabrication Yard, tribute was paid to the vision of the Global Energy team who had achieved something which many had hoped for but had feared would never happen;
the work of the Highland Council had helped to create the environment in which the deal had been concluded;
recognition needed to be given to the work undertaken by the Convener, Provost of Inverness, Chief Executive, Director of Planning and Development and other Officers on this issue as well as the support of all Members of the Council, including Ian Ross, Maxine Smith, Richard Durham and the late Alan Torrance;
the creation of Nigg Energy Park, which would lead to 2000 high quality jobs for the area and the potential for a further 1500 jobs if manufacturing partners could be found, was warmly welcomed, not least in terms of the massive impact for employment, apprenticeship and retraining opportunities within the Highlands;
this was a unique opportunity and there was a need to send out a clear message that the Highland Council would do everything possible to provide support to this strategically vital development;
this was a demonstration of what strong and effective partnership working could achieve and the value of the multi-track approach which maintained a focus on what could be achieved and contributed to the eventual positive outcome;
there was now a need to maximise and fully realise the immense opportunity and to ensure that an appropriate balance was struck with the needs of other sectors and other employers in the Highlands; and
there was a need to continue to promote opportunities at other sites within the Highlands, including the Kishorn Yard, and to engage with other agencies wherever possible in this regard.

Decision

The Council AGREED:

(a)to write to the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism expressing the
   Council’s aim to work with the Scottish Government and its agencies to
   enable Nigg Energy Park to realise its full potential as a source of
   employment generation in the Highlands;

(b)to provide support to Global Energy Group, Highlands and Islands Enterprise
and Scottish Development International to attract inward investment to
Nigg Energy Park;

(c)to work with Global Energy Group and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to
promote the local supply chain to enable local companies to build on the
opportunities arising from Nigg Energy Park;

(d)to work with Global Energy Group, Skills Development Scotland, Highlands
   and Islands Enterprise and the University of the Highlands and Islands to
   address skills issues particularly facing young people to enable them to
   benefit from new employment opportunities;

(e)to complete the necessary due diligence to enable Highland Council to
invest Vacant and Derelict Land Fund monies into the redevelopment of
Nigg; and

(f)to consider future reports on progress at Nigg Energy Park at the Planning,
Environment and Development Committee.

3. Confirmation of Minutes

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 8 September 2011 as contained in the Volume which had been circulated separately - which were APPROVED – subject to the following:-

Page 442: Item 8(ii): Question Time

AGREED that the Minute should be amended to confirm that the Budget
Leader’s actual response to the Question had been “Yes”.

4. Minutes of Meetings of Committees

There had been submitted for confirmation as correct records, for information as regards delegated business, and for approval as appropriate, the Minutes of Meetings of Committees contained in the Volume circulated separately as undernoted:-

|Link to Minutes Index|

Housing and Social Work Committee, 14 September
Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 15 September
Planning, Environment and Development Committee, 21 September
Transport, Environmental and Community Services Committee, 22 September
Audit and Scrutiny Committee, 22 September
Joint Committee on Children and Young People, 23 September
Resources Committee, 5 October
Gaelic Committee, 6 October
Inverness City Committee, 10 October

The Minutes, having been moved and seconded, were, except as undernoted, APPROVED - matters arising having been dealt with as follows:-

Education, Culture and Sport Committee – 15 September

Page 471: Item 10: SQA Performance

AGREED that the Minute should be amended to include references to issues raised at the meeting in regard to the tragic death of Dr Costello and injuries to Miss Wheeler at Wick High School and also in relation to the Chemistry Higher.

Audit and Scrutiny Committee – 22 September

Page 505: Sederunt/Apologies

AGREED that the Minute should be corrected to confirm that Mrs Jean Urquhart had not in fact been present and had submitted apologies.

5. Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group held on 7 October 2011 - which were APPROVED.

6. Climate Change Working Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Climate Change Working Group held on 26 September 2011 - which were APPROVED.

Proposed Accelerated Capital Investment in Renewables

There had also been circulated Report No. HC-44-11 (62kb pdf) dated 19 October 2011 by the Depute Chief Executive/Director of Housing and Property which, in the context of a forecast under spend on the 2011/12 Capital Programme, sought approval for the acceleration of capital renewables projects which had already been approved for the 2012/13 and/or 2013/14 Programmes and which would reduce costs, reduce carbon emissions and generate income for the Council.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

the proposals within the report represented a very good deal for the Council and had been unanimously supported by the Climate Change Working Group;
the 5 Year Capital Plan had been agreed earlier in the year and, in view of current slippage and the need to ensure that spend was achieved, not least in terms of the importance for the Highland economy, the proposals represented a sensible way forward; and
in regard to investment in road surfacing work, and specifically whether opportunities existed for the commitment of further revenue funding, there was an expectation that the Revenue Budget for 2012/13 would be balanced and there could therefore be some flexibility in this regard which would allow serious consideration to be given to additional expenditure on road surfacing works.

Decision

The Council AGREED that capital expenditure totalling £2m which had already been approved for the 2012/13 and/or 2013/14 Programmes should be brought forward into the 2011/12 Programme as follows:-

Procurement of biomass boilers for delivery direct to sites to be agreed at Committee;
Energy efficient lamp changes to street lighting; and
Replacement of light bulbs and heating controls in schools and offices.

7. Equalities Working Group

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Equalities Working Group held on 16 September 2011 (47kb pdf) - which were APPROVED – subject to the following:-

AGREED that the Minute should be corrected to confirm that there had been a change in membership of the Group and Mrs L Munro should have been included in the sederunt as a full Member and Mrs A MacLean as a non Member.

8. Governance Review Group

There had been circulated Report No. HC-45-11 (94kb pdf) dated 19 October 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive which brought forward recommendations from the Governance Review Group in relation to Planning Application Committees and the Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group, Climate Change Working Group and Community Benefit Working Group for consideration.

In this regard, there had also been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Governance Review Group held on 14 Oct 2011 (39kb pdf).

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

the key issues for the Governance Review Group had been to review performance, look for efficiencies and to bring forward recommendations for consideration by the full Council and implicit in this approach had been the need to ensure fitness for purpose, the maintenance of standards and to ensure that practices stood up to internal and external scrutiny;
it was considered that the establishment of a new Rural Affairs and Climate Change Strategy Group would allow the Council to take forward its significant commitment to an important area of work and provide a source of guidance to both the Council and Strategic Committees;
the membership of the new Strategy Group should comprise of 15 Members on political balance, non Members should able to attend meetings if they wished and webcasting of meetings should be promoted where appropriate;
in terms of the proposed remit for the new Strategy Group, there would be benefit in re-ordering the items which had been listed - with the current Items 5 – 7 becoming Items 1 – 3 and the current Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 becoming Items 4, 5, 6 and 7;
in relation to the proposals in regard to the Planning Application Committees, there was a strong and compelling case for reduction of the current 3 Committees to 2 Committees, comprising of a North Planning Application Committee and a South Planning Application Committee, with representation from Council Wards on each Committee and the provision of webcasting for monthly meetings;
the new Planning Application Committees should comprise of 1 Member from each 3 Member Ward and 2 Members from each 4 Member Ward with the retention of the Local Member Vote;
although it was noted that there were concerns that the perception might be that planning decisions would no longer be taken locally, the Council was faced with having to move towards more efficient and effective delivery of planning and the proposal for 2 Planning Application Committees with the provision of webcasting was considered to meet this objective;
there was a need for Officers to ensure that in future arrangements were in place for community groups to access webcasting where necessary in relation to planning items in specific areas;
there was a view that planning and licensing issues should be devolved to local areas with the proviso that individual areas could opt out if they so chose; and
there was a need to improve the current technology where possible and to consider whether it was financially feasible to extend webcasting facilities to the Dingwall Chamber in future.

Thereafter, Mr I Ross, seconded by Mrs I McCallum, MOVED that, with effect from January 2012, the current 3 Planning Application Committees should be reduced to 2 Planning Application Committees to align with the two new management areas for the Planning Service on the basis that they would comprise of a North Planning Application Committee and a South Planning Application with 1 Member from each 3 Member Ward and 2 Members from each 4 Member Ward and with the retention of the Local Member Vote.

As a FIRST AMENDMENT, Mr B Clark, seconded by Mr E Hunter, moved that there should be 2 Members from each Ward on both the North and South Planning Application Committees.

As a SECOND AMENDMENT, Mr G Smith, seconded by Mr R Balfour moved the retention of the status quo.

On a vote being taken, the FIRST AMENDMENT received 22 votes and the SECOND AMENDMENT received 11 votes with 26 abstentions, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the First Amendment

Alston, D, Barclay, B, Brown, I, Chisholm, D, Clark, B, Donald, N, Durham, R, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Finlayson, M, Foxley, M, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Henderson, A, Hendry, D, Hunter, E, Kerr, D, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Robertson, F, Sinclair, G, Smith, M.

For the Second Amendment

Balfour, R, Campbell, I, Crawford, J, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, MacDonald, L, Mackay, D (W2), McGillivray, J, Munro, L, Rattray, M, Smith, G.

Abstentions

Black, S, Cairns, P, Carmichael, H, Christie, A, Davidson, M, Douglas, J, Fernie, B, Greene, R, Henderson, D, Laing, J, Mackay, D (W5), MacLean, A, MacLeod, K, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Paterson, M, Prag, T, Rimell, G, Ross, I, Sinclair, A, Urquhart, J , Wilson, C, Wood, H.

On a further vote being taken between the MOTION and the FIRST AMENDMENT, the Motion received 39 votes and the First Amendment received 21 votes, with 1 abstention, and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the Motion

Alston, D, Barclay, B, Black, S, Cairns, P, Campbell, I, Carmichael, H, Christie, A, Corbett, P, Davidson, M, Donald, N, Douglas, J, Fernie, B, Finlayson, M, Foxley, M, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, Greene, R, Henderson, D, Laing, J, Mackay, D(W5), MacLean, A, Macleod, K, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, McGillivray, J, Millar, D, Munro, L, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Paterson, M, Prag, T, Rattray, M, Rimell, G, Ross, I, Sinclair, A, Urquhart, J, Wilson, C, Wood, H.

For the First Amendment

Balfour, R, Brown, I, Chisholm, D, Clark, B, Crawford, J, Durham, R, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Henderson, A, Hendry, D, Hunter, E, Kerr, D, MacDonald, L, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Robertson, F, Sinclair, G, Smith, G, Smith, M.

Abstention

Mackay, D(W2)

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

(i) that, with effect from January 2012, the current 3 Planning Application
   Committees should be reduced to 2 Committees to align with the two new
   management areas for the Planning Service on the basis that they would
   comprise of a ‘North Planning Application Committee’ (Wards 1-11) and a
   ‘South Planning Application Committee’ (Wards 12-22) with membership as
   follows – 2 Members from each 4 Member Ward and 1 Member from each 3
   Member Ward – and the retention of the Local Member Vote;
(ii) that arrangements for the 2 new Committees should be monitored and
   reviewed within a 12 month period;
(iii)that the Land, Environment and Sustainability Strategy Group, Climate
   Change Working Group and Community Benefits Working Group should be
   replaced by a new ‘Rural Affairs and Climate Change Strategy Group’ with
   effect from January 2012 comprising of 15 Members (on political balance) on
   the basis that non Members could attend meetings if they wished and the
   use of webcasting would be promoted where appropriate;
(iv)the remit of the new ‘Rural Affairs and Climate Change Strategy Group’ as
   detailed in Appendix 1 to the report – with the proviso that the order of
   the issues listed in the remit should be amended; and
(v)that the memberships of the new Planning Application Committees and
   Rural Affairs and Climate Change Strategy Group, and appointment of the
   Chair of the Strategy Group, should be agreed at the December meeting of
   the Council.

The Council also AGREED the Minutes of Meeting of the Governance Review Group held on 14 October 2011 as circulated.

It was NOTED that, in relation to the Inverness City Committee and its associated Working Groups, a further report would be submitted to a future Council meeting as detailed in Paragraph 4.1 of the report.

9. Membership of Strategic Committees, etc

The Council AGREED as follows:-

(i) Highland Licensing Committee - Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

Mr J Rosie to replace Mrs L Munro

(ii) Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Applications Committee

Mr T Prag to fill the current vacancy in relation to Ward 20 (Inverness South)

10. Question Time

The following Questions had been received in accordance with Standing Order 42 -

(i) Mr Allan Henderson (16kb pdf)

To the Leader of the Council’s Administration

“What is being done by Highland Council to bridge the huge gap left in Community Transport services with the transfer of care for the elderly to the NHS other than meetings of Heads of Services?”

The response had been circulated.

There was no supplementary question.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

(ii) Mr Drew Hendry (15kb pdf)

To the Budget Leader

“At the Highland Council meeting on 8 September 2011, in relation to the issue of the Highlands having over £140 million housing debt, Councillor David Alston, as Budget Leader, was asked ‘Can the Budget Leader confirm what official Council meetings and representations have been made to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury since December and can he provide minutes of those meetings?’. The response was ‘Yes’. Upon direct request for a copy of these minutes, the Budget Leader has been unable to provide them. Can he explain why his letter of 28 September 2011 contradicts his answer to Council on 8 September 2011?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Hendry made reference to the response from the Budget Leader to his question at the last Council meeting in relation to the fact that the Council across the Chamber had stated the importance of getting rid of the burden of the housing debt and continuing to lobby the Chief Secretary to the Treasury over the matter. However, it had now been confirmed that to date no official note of responses had been made available to Members and he queried whether the Budget Leader would agree to make further representations to his Party colleague over the matter and detail the response of that representation to the Council.

In response, the Budget Leader confirmed that representations would continue to be made but that not everything in terms of the detail of these discussions would be reported back to the Council. In this regard, reference was made to two meetings which had been held between the First Minister and the former Secretary of State for Defence over equally important issues on 11 January and 26 May 2011 in London and Glasgow respectively and which had not been minuted.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

(iii) Ms Maxine Smith (15kb pdf)

To the Leader of the Council’s Administration

“Can you please outline the full costs to the Highland Council of the Community Council review, including full costs of the election process?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Ms Smith queried as to whether, in light of the fact that this was still a big issue for many people in the Highlands and that there were now 16 less Community Councils because of the new Constitution (to which many had signed up under duress in order to still be able to receive grants), the Leader of the Council’s Administration could name one Community Council which had expressed happiness and satisfaction with the new Constitution.

In response, the Leader of the Council’s Administration confirmed that a number of Community Councils in Ward 22 (South Lochaber) had absolutely no issue with the elections. It had been the Scottish Government who had asked the Council to review the Constitutions and there had been at least two progress reports on this issue to the Council since that time and a record was being kept of all the cost involved. The current information was that 25 Community Councils had gone to postal ballot with another 19 Community Councils which had not been formed. Pressure would be continued in terms of the formation of these 19 Community Councils because they were statutory and an important part of local democracy. It was expected that information on full costs would be available by the end of the year or the start of the following year and that would be made available to the Resources Committee.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

(iv) Mr Dave Fallows (16kb pdf)

To the Leader of the Council’s Administration

“Could the Administration state clearly who will be responsible for setting policy and how policy will be formulated in regard to those aspects of adult care that are the statutory responsibility of the Council to provide, once NHS Highland become the lead agency for delivery, after the integration process is complete?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Fallows queried as to how many Elected Members there would be on which Committees and how would they be nominated. In particular, how would Local Members be able to take a full part in local partnerships and how and when would they be nominated, given that local implementation groups had already started work.

In response, the Leader of the Council’s Administration confirmed that there would be full information on the governance models at both strategic and local levels at the Council meeting in December. The intention was to have major strategic governance from the Highland Council to cover both adult and elderly services and children’s services and a local partnership would be in place which would involve local memberships with Councillors, NHS Board members and frontline staff. If further information was available before the December meeting, this would be provided.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

(v) Mr Dave Fallows (15kb pdf)

To the Chair of the Housing and Social Work Committee

“The Council currently owns and operates and operates a number of Care Homes which will either be operated under the auspices of NHS Highland under a ‘licence to occupy’ or may at some point be transferred to the ownership of NHS Highland under the new integrated process. How would the Administration deal with any future wish of the Council to build a Care Home or Homes to meet need that cannot be provided by the private sector, both under a ‘licence to occupy’ and post transfer of ownership?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Fallows queried as to what the position would be if the Council’s partners wished in the future to see additional public residential care provided.

In response, the Chair of the Housing and Social Work Committee confirmed that future Administrations of the Council would have to come to a mutual agreement on this issue.

Decision

The Council NOTED the position.

11. Notice of Motion

Declaration of Interest

Mr B Gormley declared a non financial interest in this item on the grounds that a family member was in receipt of benefits but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude him from taking part in the discussion.

The following Notice of Motion had been received in accordance with Standing Order 10.1 –

“The Scottish Parliament will shortly consider a Legislative Consent Motion on the Welfare Reform Bill currently passing through the Westminster Parliament.

We, the undernoted Members, would request that the Council write to the Scottish Government and ask them to refuse the Legislative Consent Motion on the Welfare Reform Bill due to the enormously negative impact on Local Authorities and the vulnerable in our communities.

In addition, that we highlight our concerns to the other 31 Local Authorities in Scotland and request that they take a similar stance on this issue”.

Signed

Mr D Chisholm, Mr B Barclay

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

in addition to the wording in the Notice of Motion, there was a need to also engage with the UK and Scottish Governments on this issue;
there were many concerns in the Third Sector in relation to the implications and most particularly the negative impact which this issue would have on the most vulnerable members of the community;
there would be severe implications for the Highland area, including in relation to housing and for those persons aged under 35 who were also disabled;
there were a number of errors and misinformation in the public domain, specifically in terms of statistics, and this had led to a misleading assessment of the current situation;
there should be a strategy in place to lift people out of poverty and also to respect their dignity and their rights and awareness to have the help and support they needed;
there was little in the Welfare Reform Bill to reflect the variations in Scotland;
the most vulnerable members of society would be hurt the most as a result of this legislation;
the whole logic behind the Welfare Reform Bill had not been clearly set out or defined;
there was a need to call for the immediate devolution of the Welfare budget in Scotland;
there was nothing in the Bill to reflect fairness and justice for the most vulnerable in society;
Local Authorities would be asked to deal with the implications arising from this legislation at a time of rising demand and increasingly constrained resources; and
there was a need to work with other Local Authorities in Scotland and the Scottish Government to make strong representations and to try to influence the decisions being taken on this issue in Westminster.

Thereafter, Mr D Chisholm, seconded by Mr B Barclay, MOVED the terms of the Notice of Motion as detailed and also that engagement should be undertaken with the UK and Scottish Governments on the details of the Council’s concerns.

As an AMENDMENT, Mr D Fallows, seconded by Mr B Gormley, moved that, in addition to the terms of the Notice of Motion, the Council should also call for immediate devolution of the Welfare Reform budget to the Scottish Government

On a vote being taken, the Motion received 44 votes and the Amendment received 15 votes with 1 abstention and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the Motion

Alston, D, Barclay, B, Black, S, Campbell, I, Carmichael, H, Chisholm, D, Christie, A, Clark, B, Corbett, P, Crawford, J, Davidson, M, Donald, N, Douglas, J, Durham, R, Fernie, B, Finlayson, M, Foxley, M, Fraser, H, Fraser, L, Greene, R, Henderson, A, Henderson, D, Hunter, E, Laing, J, Mackay, D(W2), Mackay, D(W5), MacLean, A, MacLeod, K, McAllister, E, McCallum, I, McGillivray, J, Murphy, B, Park, S, Parr, F, Paterson, M, Prag, T, Rattray, M, Rimell, G, Robertson, F, Ross, I, Sinclair, A, Smith, G, Wilson, C, Wood, H.

For the Amendment

Brown, I, Cairns, P, Fallows, D, Farlow, G, Fraser, C, Gormley, B, Hendry, D, MacDonald, L, Munro, L, Pedersen, R, Renwick, I, Ross, G, Sinclair, G, Smith, M, Urquhart, J.

Abstention

Kerr, D

Decision

The Council AGREED the Notice of Motion as detailed.

It was also AGREED to engage with the UK and Scottish Governments on the details of the Council’s concerns.

12. Single Outcome Agreement – Annual Performance Report 2010/11

There had been circulated Report No. HC-46-11 (86kb pdf) dated 11 October 2011 by the Chief Executive which confirmed that the Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) Annual Performance Report for 2010/11 had been considered by the Highland Public Services Partnership on 7 October and submitted to the Scottish Government.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that an overview of progress had shown that 89% of indicators showed improvement or sustained performance across the Partnership where data had been reported. In this regard, notable areas of achievement and decline were highlighted as well as improvements in the process of measuring Single Outcome Agreement performance.

It was also confirmed that work was in progress to refresh the Single Outcome Agreement with partners based on the new information which had been received from the Scottish Government and a detailed review of Community Planning Partnerships and Single Outcome Agreements was to be conducted with Local Government to support the Scottish Government’s approach to public service reform.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

congratulations should be conveyed to the Council staff for this remarkable achievement at a time of financial restraint;
there was a need to look at the areas where there had been a decline in performance as well as the successes;
there was a need to pay particular attention to areas of deprivation across the Highlands;
this was a very accurate outline of the current situation in the Highlands and highlighted the need for reform in certain areas;
the successful issues which had been identified in the report were particularly relevant in terms of their impact for communities in remote and rural areas;
the successes which had been identified represented excellent joint working arrangements with partners throughout the Highland area; and
there was a need to focus on quality of life issues within the Highlands and also on communities who were taking control themselves.

Decision

The Council NOTED the Annual Report and AGREED that SOA performance should be included in the Council’s newspaper supplement with partner input.

It was also NOTED that work was in progress to refresh the Single Outcome Agreement with partners based on the new information which had been received from the Scottish Government and that a detailed review of Community Planning Partnerships and Single Outcome Agreements was to be conducted with Local Government to support the Scottish Government’s approach to public service reform.

It was further NOTED that additional reports would be brought back to the Council on these matters in due course.

13. Response to Audit Scotland National Report

Arms Length External Organisations – Are You Getting It Right?

Declarations of Interest

Ms J Douglas and Mr T Prag declared non financial interests in this item as Directors of High Life Highland but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that their interests did not preclude them from taking part in the discussion.

There had been circulated Joint Report No.HC-47-11 (32kb pdf) dated 7 October 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive and Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management which provided a summary of the key issues highlighted within the Audit Scotland report entitled “Arms Length External Organisations – Are You Getting It Right?” which was part of an improvement series for Members and Officers.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that Audit Scotland had recognised that Arms Length External Organisations (ALEOs) were now an established part of Local Government in Scotland and played an increasing role in service delivery. In this regard, the main drivers for using ALEOs were to reduce costs or to improve services and within the report it had been confirmed that the key issues included following the public pound principles which provided the basis for sound governance, decisions to use ALEOs should be based on an options appraisal and a sound business case, sound governance was required from the outset, conditions attached to the use of public funds should be clear, Councils should set a clear policy for any payments to Board members, clarity on roles and responsibilities was vital, performance monitoring should be clear from the start and also risk based and proportionate, the principles of best value should apply equally and be maintained and that Councillors and Officers should be provided with ongoing advice and training.

In relation to Highland Council, it was confirmed that the Internal Audit report on Caithness Heat and Power had been presented at a Special Meeting on 12 January 2010 following which a detailed Action Plan with 39 separate actions had been submitted to a further meeting on 4 March 2010 in order to highlight the various actions which had been and which were to be taken in order to improve the governance of ALEOs. In this regard, subsequent updates of progress had been provided to the Council on 9 September and 28 October 2010 and on 10 March 2011.

Decision

The Council NOTED:-

(i) the key findings and points for action arising from the Audit Scotland report;
(ii) that actions had been taken following Internal and External Audit reports
   on the governance of Caithness Heat and Power; and
(iii)that Internal Audit would undertake a review of the governance
   arrangements of all Highland Council Arms Length External Organisations and
   report on this to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee.

14. Reform of Police Service and Fire and Rescue Service in Scotland

There had been circulated Report No.HC-48-11 (100kb pdf) dated 18 October 2011 by the Chief Executive which provided details of a response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on Reform of the Police Service and the Fire and Rescue Service in Scotland which drew on input from the Northern Joint Police Board, CoSLA’s Community Safety and Executive Group and discussions with the Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands colleagues.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Council had considered an initial position report at its meeting on 8 September 2011 which had highlighted the concerns and vulnerabilities which existed in the shift towards a single Police Service and single Fire and Rescue Service for Scotland. At that time, Members had agreed to actively engage with the Scottish Government to address these concerns in the detailed development of the new policing model in order to underpin the importance of improved policing outcomes, local accountability and decision taking and the protection of services for rural areas. It had also been agreed that Members would engage with Highlands and Islands Local Authority colleagues in the preparation of detailed submissions in this respect.

In relation to the Scottish Government’s consultation, it was confirmed that this set out what was proposed in relation to the Police Service and the Fire and Rescue Service in separate sections of the consultation document and then asked a series of detailed questions which had been separated into two distinct areas. There was also a section at the end of the document to allow the inclusion of any other issues to be taken into consideration. In this regard, a proposed response had been detailed within the appendix to the report and this had been prefaced by a general position statement which reflected the concerns and principles previously agreed by the Council.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

there was a need for constructive engagement with the Scottish Government in order to influence the development process and the way that the new Force would be structured, particularly in terms of how it would operate in the Highlands;
local accountability and representation were key issues;
the Cabinet Secretary had given some very important reassurances in relation to resources, Police numbers and pay and conditions, as well as indicating a willingness to look at the decentralisation of support services, and this was welcomed;
in terms of policing outcomes and models, it should be recognised that ‘one size did not fill all’ and there was a need to reinforce the message that the most appropriate policing models should be continued in the Highlands, not least in terms of community policing;
there was a need to ensure that there were opportunities for the Council to be able to continue to make comments on future proposals as they came forward, both in terms of formal and informal contact;
there should be consideration of a regional structure in future;
there was a need for consideration of a local complaints scrutiny process based on Local Authority areas;
it was imperative that as part of the whole process the skills and expertise of Local Members should not be lost, particularly in the initial transitional stages;
it was imperative that there were clear and effective lines of communication and that local needs and concerns could be addressed in an open and transparent manner;
there should be no detriment in terms of the current levels of service delivery to the public;
future numbers on the Board should mirror the current arrangements for Police and Fire Boards across Scotland i.e. 22 or 24 members;
there was a need for strong links between local and national governance in future; and
there should be an emphasis on the importance of retained status.

Decision

The Council AGREED the suggested response to the Scottish Government’s consultation as detailed in the report for onward submission to the Justice Secretary – subject to the following inclusions:-

an emphasis on the importance of retained status;
that future numbers on the Board should mirror the current arrangements for Police and Fire Boards across Scotland i.e. approximately 22 or 24 members;
no strong views from Highland Council about the oath; and
the need for a strong link between local and national governance in any future arrangements.

15. Planning for Integration of Services for Adults and Children

There had been circulated Report No.HC-49-11 (56kb pdf) dated 18 October 2011 by the Chief Executive which provided an update on the planning for integration of services for adults and children, indicated the timetable for further decision making and sought agreement for some key aspects to support the transition to the lead agency model.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Planning for Integration Board had met regularly and was now progressing a number of issues across a range of work streams, including Service Outcomes, Functions, Self Directed Support, Communications, Human Resources, Finance, Information Management and Technology, Property and Commissioning Documentation.

In addition, both Chief Executives were now working to confirm the detail of management and governance structures and it was intended that these would be presented to the Council and NHS Highland in December.

It was also confirmed that it was intended to establish Local Partnerships which would consider issues relevant to each local district and that the Scottish Government continued to support the development of the lead agency model in Highland.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

it was important that the complexity of the new arrangements was not underestimated, particularly in terms of the financial and information technology issues;
the proposals in the report in terms of staffing were welcome;
there was a need for arrangements to be in place in terms of the transition arrangements from children’s services to adult services for young people;
it was important to ensure that both staff and clients were fully aware of the detail of the new arrangements and what they would mean for them;
there was a need for further information on how the local partnerships and forums would operate in the future;
the proposals in relation to the rationalisation of buildings were welcome;
it was vital that appropriate arrangements were in place from the outset in terms of delivering better services more efficiently;
the support which had been received from the Scottish Government for the proposed new arrangements was welcome; and
there was a need for further work to be undertaken in relation to strategic regional governance arrangements.

Decision

The Council NOTED the work being undertaken on the planning for integration of services for adults and children and that further reports would be presented including, in December 2011, the commissions and proposed management and governance arrangements.

The Council also AGREED:-

(i) that staff would transfer between organisations on the basis of the Transfer
   of Undertakings and Protection of Employment (TUPE) Regulations which
   would allow them to transfer on their existing pay and conditions of service;
(ii) that property issues would be resolved for the initial outset of the Lead
   Agency arrangements by means of Licences to Occupy and Shared
   Occupancy Agreements on terms and conditions to be agreed by the
   Depute Chief Executive/Director of Housing and Property and Director of
   Social Work; and
(iii)that the Acting Head of Legal Services and Director of Social Work should
   progress the drafting and negotiation of the required legal agreement with
   a final draft being the subject of a further report.

16. Corporate Parenting and the Family Firm

There had been circulated Report No.HC-50-11 (40kb pdf) dated 18 October 2011 by the Director of Social Work which provided an update on recent developments about the role of the Council as Corporate Parent of Looked After Children and sought endorsement of the Family Firm scheme which was intended to become operational in January 2012.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the role of corporate parent had been described by the Scottish Government as the formal partnership needed between all Local Authority departments and services and associated agencies which were responsible for working together to meet the needs of looked after children and young people. In this regard, the concept of corporate parent transcended the roles of social workers or class teachers, both of whom had specific duties, and applied equally to Senior Managers and Elected Members with the aim of engaging all key professionals and decision makers in improving the outcomes for looked after children, including taking on the role of a parent in helping young people to move towards and achieve independence.

In this regard, Highland’s Children’s Champions had been working with Officers to develop a ‘Family Firm’ approach in Highland which sought to respond to the needs of looked after children and young people as they moved towards the end of their schooling and to ensure that the considerable resources of the Council and partners provided a positive learning environment for the transition to young adulthood. This involved work placements with public agencies which were intended to be more supportive, flexible and of longer duration than traditional work experience and which were tailored to meet the needs and interests of individual young people.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

there were currently 500 looked after children in the Highland area and as such there was a need to reduce this number as much as possible;
joint working arrangements should be put in place with colleagues in all other appropriate public agencies in order to make progress on this issue;
it was important that all Members of the Council focused on their role as Corporate Parents;
there was a need to convey thanks to all staff who had brought forward the proposals in relation to the ‘Family Firm’ approach which represented the best opportunity possible for young people to fulfil their potential; and
it was important that future reports to the Council included the views and experiences of both staff and young people wherever possible.

Decision

The Council NOTED the success of the local ‘Who Cares? Scotland’ training events and that a report on the monitoring of corporate parenting performance would be progressed through the Working Group to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee.

The Council also AGREED to endorse the ‘Family Firm’ approach in Highland, the proposed launch of the scheme in January 2012 and future approaches to partner agencies and contractors to seek wider engagement in the scheme.

17. Inverness Trunk Link Road – West Link – Formation of Working Group

There had been circulated Joint Report No HC-51-11 (51kb pdf) dated 18 October 2011 by the Directors of Transport, Environmental and Community Services and Planning and Development which sought approval for the formation of a Working Group to consider the outcome of the Options Appraisal in relation to the Inverness Trunk Link Road (West Link) and to make recommendations on the preferred route(s) prior to further public consultation.

It was also proposed that the Working Group should consider the outcome of the further public consultation and make recommendations to the Council on the preferred route(s).

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that this was a very complex project in relation to engineering construction, flooding, the Caledonian Canal (as a Scheduled Ancient Monument) and environmental impacts. In order to give detailed consideration to these complex issues, a Stakeholder Group had been set up which had identified five potential routes for resolving transport problems as well as opening up land for development to the south and west of Inverness. These five routes had been presented for public consultation and, following this consultation, a further three routes had been added and taken forward to the Options Appraisal stage of the project.

It was now proposed that the outcome of the Options Appraisal should be considered in four stages as follows – Stage 1 (formation of a Member Working Group to consider the outcome of the Options Appraisal and to make recommendations in relation to the preferred route(s) prior to further public consultation, Stage 2 (the outcome of the Options Appraisal, including the recommendations from the Working Group, to be presented to the public), Stage 3 (the Working Group to consider the feedback from the public and make recommendations to the Council on the preferred route or routes) and Stage 4 (the Council to be invited to select the preferred route which would then be submitted for Planning Consent).

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

the size of the Working Group should be increased from the proposed 11 Members to 15 Members;
there was a need to make real progress on this issue and to reach a final agreement;
the new Member to be elected for the Inverness South Ward would have a specific interest in this issue in terms of the impact on their area so it was perhaps premature to be deciding on the membership of the proposed Working Group prior to their election;
the proposed timescale was very short in terms of the first meeting being held in the week beginning 7 November;
the public had already been well consulted and there was a need to now maintain momentum in terms of the proposals within the report;
it was vital that the process was open and transparent and that a final decision was taken within the timescale proposed in the report;
another option for composition of the Working Group could have been the inclusion of Members of the Inverness City Committee as opposed to inclusion of Members on the basis of political balance as proposed in the report; and
it was important to ensure that the east end of the road, which would have to link in with the Scottish Transport A9/A96 link, had been taken account of in the proposals.

Decision

The Council AGREED the formation of a Member Working Group – comprising of 15 Members (on political balance) - to consider the outcome of the Options Appraisal and to make recommendations on the preferred route(s) prior to further public consultation.

The Council also AGREED the process set out in Paragraph 4.2 of the report.

The Council NOTED the timetable as set out in Appendix A to the report.

18. Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Act 2011:
Sixth Review of UK Parliamentary Constituencies

There had been circulated Report No.HC-52-11 (41kb pdf) dated 19 October 2011 by the Chief Executive which advised of the publication of the Boundary Commission for Scotland’s Initial Proposals for the review of UK Parliamentary Constituencies.

In this regard, copies of maps showing the geographical extent of the Constituencies detailed in the report had been circulated separately.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the Boundary Commission had indicated that, on the basis of the UK Constituency electoral quota being 76,641.2, the Highland Council area was entitled to 2.25 MPs as against the current 3 MPs. Also, it had grouped Highland, Moray and Argyll and Bute Councils together and determined that 4 UK Parliamentary Constituencies, namely ‘Argyll, Bute and Lochaber’, ‘Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty’, ‘Inverness and Skye’ and ‘Moray and Strathspey’, should cover these areas. In this regard, specific details of the electorate and area (sq.km) of each proposed Constituency were provided in the report.

It was also confirmed that the Hearing to consider representations in support of, or against, the Commission’s proposals for Constituencies in the Highland Council area would be held on 24 November 2011 in Inverness and would also involve the Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire and Moray Council areas.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

in regard to the proposed constituency of Moray and Strathspey, it would be appropriate for this constituency to also include Nairn and that the name should be amended to reflect Nairn’s inclusion;
the overall view of Community Councils in the area was that Nairn should be included in a constituency with Moray;
it was important that as many members of the public as possible made representations in relation to the Boundary Commission’s proposals;
the proposed Constituency areas appeared to take account solely of ‘numbers’ and not the geography of the Highlands;
the proposed names for the Constituencies were not representative of the areas concerned in every case there should be flexibility in this regard; and
there needed to be more consideration given to the proposals in relation to the Kiltarlity and Beauly areas, the Lochaber area and the Applecross peninsula

Decision

The Council NOTED the Boundary Commission for Scotland’s Initial Proposals as outlined in Section 2 and the other possibilities outlined in the Commentary in Section 3 of the report.

It was AGREED that, in terms of the proposed 4 Constituency areas, the Chief Executive should work with Local Members to finalise representations in relation to the Kiltarlity and Beauly areas, the Lochaber area, the Applecross peninsula and Nairn.

It was also AGREED that the Council should be represented at the Hearing on 24 November 2011 by the Chief Executive and the Elections Manager and that representations should be made at that time that the proposed Constituency areas appeared to take account solely of ‘numbers’ (as opposed to the specific geography of the Highlands) and that the proposed names for the Constituencies were not representative of the areas concerned in every case.

It was further AGREED that a final response to the Initial Proposals should be considered at the next Council meeting on 15 December 2011.

19. Public Sector Equality Duty: Scottish Government Consultation on Revised Regulations

There had been circulated Report No.HC-53-11 (91kb pdf) dated 19 October 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive which provided a draft response to the Scottish Government’s Consultation on Public Sector Equality Duty Revised Draft Regulations.

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that the new Public Sector Equality Duty had come into force in April 2011 as part of the UK Government’s Equality Act 2010 and brought together the previous three duties on race, gender and disability as well as extending coverage to sexual orientation, age, religion or belief, pregnancy and maternity and gender reassignment. In addition, there was provision for Scottish Ministers to introduce specific duties on Scottish public authorities through regulations.

In this regard, Scottish Ministers were now consulting on the revised regulations to introduce specific duties but only on the changes to the previous draft. The revised proposals sought to strengthen the six key elements of the previous draft regulations and to seek views specifically on Equality Outcomes, Impact Assessment, Employment Monitoring and Reporting and Procurement. In this respect, a proposed draft response had been circulated as Appendix 1 to the report.

Decision

The Council AGREED the draft response to the consultation as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report.

20. Local Government Pension Fund Governance Arrangements

There had been circulated Joint Report No. HC-54-11 (46kb pdf) dated 19 October 2011 by the Assistant Chief Executive and the Head of Accounting and Budgeting which sought approval to take forward revised governance arrangements for the management of the Highland Council Pension Fund (the Fund).

During a summary of the report, it was confirmed that, at the Investment Advisory Group meeting on 20 May 2011, Hymans Robertson (Advisers to the Fund) had given a presentation on Local Government Pension Fund Governance Issues and in particular had highlighted the need to ensure appropriate supervision and decision making in relation to matters beyond investments and clarity between the decision making of the administering Authority (responsible for managing the Fund) and Employer Authorities (participating in the Fund).

Thereafter, it had been agreed that a Pensions Committee should be established without future reference to the Resources Committee and the Investment Advisory Group should be deleted and replaced with an Investment Sub Committee. In this regard, it was confirmed that the Council’s responsibilities as an employer participating in the Fund would continue to be dealt with by the Resources Committee

Specific details of the proposed composition and terms of reference for both the Pensions Committee and Investment Sub Committee had been detailed in the report.

Decision

The Council AGREED – from 1 January 2012 –

(i) the establishment of a Pension Committee with the membership and voting
   rights as outlined in Section 3.1 of the report and the terms of reference as
   outlined in the Appendix;
(ii) the establishment of an Investment Sub Committee with membership and
   voting rights as outlined in Section 3.2 of the report and the terms of
   reference as outlined in the Appendix; and
(iii)the deletion of the existing Investment Advisory Group.

21. Elections to the Crofting Commission – Response to the Consultation Paper on Draft Regulations

There had been circulated Report No. HC-55-11 - Amendment (18kb pdf)dated 19 October 2011 by the Chief Executive which confirmed that, at the meeting of the Council on 8 September 2011, Members had considered a response to the Scottish Government Consultation on the Crofting Commission (Elections)(Scotland) Regulations 2011.

The purpose of the report was to seek homologation of a decision made, after the Council meeting, to amend the response further to consideration of the terms of the legislation.

It was confirmed that the Chief Executive had consulted the Leader of the Council’s Administration and the Chairman of the Transport, Environmental and Community Services Committee and it had been agreed to amend the submission to comply with the provisions of the Act. The principal difference was that 4 constituencies were now proposed (as opposed to the 5 constituencies previously proposed by the Council) which required 6 elected persons on the Crofting Commission.

The option submitted to the Scottish Government had been detailed in the report and addressed the issue of numbers of elected persons whilst still maintaining the principles agreed by the Council that constituencies should be more closely aligned to local government boundaries, Shetland and Orkney should be in different constituencies, representation should be equalised and Badenoch and Strathspey included in Constituency 2.

In this regard, a correction was tabled at the meeting in order to confirm that Constituency 3 – Western Isles – should have 2 Members (and not 1 Member as had been stated in the report).

Decision

The Council AGREED to homologate the amendment of the previously agreed response as detailed.

22. Timetable of Meetings – Proposed Amendments

Members were advised that, following consultation with the respective Chairs, it was now proposed that the meeting of the Highland and Islands Fire Board (originally scheduled for 25 November) should now be held on 24 November and the meeting of the Planning Review Body (originally scheduled for 24 November) should now be held on 8 December 2011.

It was also proposed that, in relation to the Timetable of Meetings for 2012, a further meeting of the Planning Review Body should be scheduled for 21 June 2012 in order to deal with any notices which might be pending at that time.

Decision

The Council AGREED the proposed amendments to the Timetable of Meetings as detailed.

23. Membership – South East Community Health Partnership (CHP)

Members were asked to agree that Mrs Bet McAllister should be appointed to the South East Community Health Partnership to fill the current vacancy.

Decision

The Council AGREED the appointment of Mrs Bet McAllister as detailed.

24. Deeds Executed

It was NOTED that the list of Deeds (26kb pdf) and other documents which had been executed on behalf of the Council since the meeting held on 8 September 2011 were available in the Members’ Library and on the Council’s Website.

25. Exclusion of the Public

The Council AGREED to resolve that, under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the public should be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following item on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 6, 8, 9 and 12 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Act.

26. Caithness Heat and Power

Declarations of Interest

Mr I Ross, Mr J Laing, Mr B Fernie, Mrs J Urquhart and Mr J Gray declared non financial interests in this item as Directors of Caithness Heat and Power but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3, concluded that their interests did not preclude their involvement in the discussion.

There had been circulated to Members only Joint Report No. HC/56/11 dated 20 October 2011 by the Chief Executive and Depute Chief Executive/Director of Housing and Property.

Decision

The Council AGREED the recommendations as detailed in the report.

The meeting ended at 4.15pm