Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Highland Council held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 8 September 2016 at 10.35am.

1. Calling of the Roll and Apologies for Absence
A’ Gairm a’ Chlàir agus Leisgeulan

Present:
Dr D Alston, Mr R Balfour, Mrs J Barclay, Mr A Baxter, Mr D Bremner, Mr I Brown, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs I Campbell, Miss J Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr A Christie, Mr B Clark, Dr I Cockburn, Mrs G Coghill, Mrs M Davidson, Dr J Davis, Mr N Donald, Ms J Douglas, Mr A Duffy, Mr D Fallows, Mr G Farlow, Mr B Fernie, Mr C Fraser, Mr H Fraser, Mr L Fraser, Mr S Fuller, Mr B Gormley, Mr K Gowans, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr R Greene, Mr A Henderson, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr J McGillivray, Mr D Mackay, Mr W MacKay, Mr G MacKenzie, Mr A Mackinnon, Ms A MacLean, Mr T Maclennan, Mr K MacLeod, Mrs B McAllister, Mrs I McCallum, Mr D Millar, Mr H Morrison, Ms L Munro, Mr B Murphy, Mr F Parr, Mrs M Paterson, Mr G Phillips, Mr T Prag, Mr M Rattray, Mr M Reiss, Mr I Renwick, Mr A Rhind, Mr G Rimell, Mrs F Robertson, Mr G Ross, Mr R Saxon, Dr A Sinclair, Mrs G Sinclair, Mrs J Slater, Ms M Smith, Ms K Stephen, Mr J Stone, Mrs C Wilson, Mr H Wood

In Attendance:    
Chief Executive
Depute Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Development
Director of Development & Infrastructure
Director of Care & Learning
Director of Finance
Director of Community Services

Mrs I McCallum in the Chair

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr J Crawford, Mr M Finlayson, Mr J Gordon, Mr N MacDonald, Mrs D MacKay, Mr J Rosie, Ms G Ross and Mr B Thompson.   

Preliminaries

Prior to the commencement of the formal business, the Convener, on behalf of the Council, welcomed Mr Calum MacLennan, the new Youth Convener, to his first meeting of the Council. 

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

The Council NOTED the following declarations of interest:-

Item 3 – Mr A Baxter (non-financial)
Item 9ii – Mr G Farlow (non-financial)
Item 13 – Ms J Douglas, Mr M Green, Mr K Gowans and Ms M Smith (all non-financial) and Mr B Murphy, Ms J Douglas and Mr K Gowans (all financial) 
Item 16 – Dr D Alston and Mrs M Davidson (both non-financial) and Mr I Brown and Ms J Douglas (both financial)
Additional Urgent Item 22 – Mrs C Caddick, Mrs H Carmichael and Mr T Prag (all non-financial)

Mr D Kerr and Mr G Farlow declared financial interests in relation to any items which might arise during discussing in regard to Council housing on the grounds of being Council house tenants but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, would remain to participate in the discussion.

Mr B Gormley declared a financial interest in relation to any items which might arise during discussion in regard to the Care and Learning Service on the grounds that his wife was an employee of that Service and would leave the Chamber if necessary.

3. Presentation – Northern Lighthouse Board 
Taisbeanadh – Bòrd nan Taighean-solais a Tuath

Declaration of Interest - Mr A Baxter declared a non-financial interest in this item as a Board Member of the Ardnamurchan Lighthouse Trust 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.

Mr Mike Bullock, Chief Executive of the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB), was in attendance at the meeting and undertook a presentation in relation to the work of the Board during which he outlined the funding for General Lighthouse Authorities and provided an overview of the NLB, including details of the various stakeholders, the area which it covered and its responsibilities. Specific information was also provided on work undertaken within the Highlands and the importance of the heritage of Lighthouses and examples of the work of the Northern Lighthouse Heritage Trust to help conserve and promote awareness of this was emphasised. 

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• it was important to recognise the Council’s responsibility as a Local Lighthouse Authority to maintain the navigation lights within the local port area as opposed to the responsibilities of General Lighthouse Authorities for the navigational aids beyond the local port area;
• the two ships, NLV Pharos and NLV Pole Star, currently operated by the NLB were state of the art vessels;
• the Ardnamuchan Trust had a very good relationship with the NLB who allowed the Trust to operate the Lighthouse as a heritage centre. This was an example of how resources in remote and fragile communities could be used to develop heritage and tourist facilities and provide local jobs. In this regard, information was sought and received on how the NLB engaged with local communities to utilise the available resources;
• information was sought and received regarding the apprenticeships and career opportunities available within the NLB for young people and school leavers;
• part of the difficulty of raising awareness of the NLB was that they were ‘a victim of their own success’ in the sense that they had no difficulties in providing a service and did not rely on the taxpayer. It was suggested that this highly successful model could be considered to fund the emergency towing vessels;
• Fanad Head Lighthouse in County Donegal was an example of a very lucrative tourist attraction in a remote area which could be replicated in the Highlands;
• information was sought and received on the timescale for Lighthouses to be de-commissioned and what was involved;
• Cape Wrath brought a lot of visitors to the area and the Council could have asked for support for road improvements from the NLB had they not used helicopters for transport instead;
• it should be recognised that a team of volunteers had re-built the Lighthouse in the Wick Heritage Centre;
• Lighthouses were becoming tourist enterprises and this was welcomed but  they were and always would be of most importance to mariners;
• the public should be encouraged to visit nearby public access Lighthouses whenever possible; and
• it should be noted there were difficulties with access to Rua Reidh Lighthouse which had been built by David Stevenson (family of Robert Louis Stevenson) who had made a major contribution to Lighthouse construction throughout the United Kingdom.

Having thanked Mr M Bullock for his attendance at the meeting, the Council otherwise NOTED the terms of the presentation as detailed.

4. Membership of the Council
Ballrachd na Comhairle

Tribute was paid at the meeting to the late Mr John Ford during which his extensive experience and dedication to his role as a Councillor was highlighted. He had been very highly regarded by all who had known and worked with him and it was agreed that condolences should be conveyed to his family on behalf of the whole Council.    

In this regard, it was NOTED that a By-Election for Ward 18 (Culloden & Ardersier) had now been arranged and would be held on Thursday, 6 October 2016. 

5. Recess Powers
Cumhachdan Fosaidh

It was NOTED that the recess powers granted by the Council at the meeting on 29 June 2016 had been used as follows – Arrangement of date for Special Meeting of the Community Services Committee to be held on Wednesday, 14 September 2016

In this regard, it was also NOTED that this meeting had now been cancelled and instead it was intended to hold a Members’ Briefing (on the ongoing work being undertaken in relation to re-tendering of the School Transport contract) on the same date on the basis that a Committee meeting would be arranged for a future date. 

6. Confirmation of Minutes
Daingneachadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 29 June 2016 as contained in the Volume which had been circulated separately – which were APPROVED - subject to the inclusion of Mr W Mackay within the list of those present at the meeting (via video-conference).

7. Minutes of Meetings of Committees
Geàrr-chunntasan Choinneamhan Chomataidhean

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 Volume circulated separately as undernoted:-

City of Inverness Area Committee (Special Meeting), 1 July 
Ross & Cromarty Committee, 3 August
Gaelic Implementation Group, 11 August
Planning, Development & Infrastructure Committee, 17 August
Community Services Committee, 18 August
Lochaber Committee, 23 August
Resources Committee, 24 August
Education, Children & Adult Services Committee, 25 August
Sutherland County Committee, 30 August
Caithness Committee, 31 August
City of Inverness Area Committee, 1 September

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

Lochaber Committee, 23 August

*Starred Item: Item 5: PP. 315: Making the Best Use of Digital Tools 

The Council AGREED that consideration be given to the production of a Lochaber ‘app’ as a pilot project with the purpose of increasing Highland Council’s engagement with and accountability to the Lochaber community.  

Resources Committee, 24 August

*Starred Item: Item 13(b): PP. 327: Annual Treasury Management Report 2015/16

The Council APPROVED the Annual Treasury Report for 2015/16.

Education, Children & Adult Services Committee, 25 August

*Starred Item: Item 11: PP. 346: Statutory Consultation – Strontian Primary School

The Council AGREED the re-location of Strontian Primary School to a new build on land close to Ardnamurchan High School, with the re-location dependent on the community proposal to own, fund and develop the facility as outlined in the report.

*Starred Item: Item 12: PP.345-346: Statutory Consultation – Closure of Dalwhinnie Primary School

The Council AGREED to recommend closure on the basis of reassigning the catchment area to that of Newtonmore Primary School.

Caithness Committee, 31 August

*Starred Item: Item 4: P.10 (Supplementary Papers) - Caithness & North Sutherland Fund

The Council AGREED to appoint Mrs G Coghill to the Caithness & North Sutherland Fund. (Item 17 also refers).

8. Membership of Committees, Sub Committees, etc
Ballrachd air Comataidhean, msaa

It was NOTED that Mr A Duffy had now re-joined the SNP Group. On that basis, the political make-up of the Council was now as follows:- 

Independent – 32/SNP – 19/Liberal Democrat – 12 /Labour – 7
Highland Alliance – 6/Non Aligned - 3

It was also NOTED that the formula in respect of the number of places on Strategic Committees remained as 9/5/4/2/2.

It was AGREED to appoint Mr D Fallows to the Pensions Committee and in this regard revised Committee memberships were tabled at the meeting which were NOTED.

9. Question Time 
Àm Ceiste

The following Questions had been received by the Depute Chief Executive/
Director of Corporate Development in terms of Standing Order 42 – 

(i) Mr A Baxter

To the Chair of the Planning, Development & Infrastructure Committee

“Can I have an update on your discussion about an A830 extension at the most recent joint meeting between Highland Council and Transport Scotland?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Baxter queried as to what were the main advantages of an A830 extension for Lochaber and the West Coast which would be advocated to Transport Scotland and Scottish Ministers and when the Chair, along with Officers, would meet with Lochaber Members to agree a lobbying strategy on this issue.

In response, the Chair explained that an A830 extension would improve transport and the economy and suggested that a Special Meeting be arranged with Transport Scotland and all Lochaber Members so that they could communicate their own aspirations directly. 

(ii) Mr G Farlow

Declaration of Interest - Mr G Farlow declared a non-financial interest in this item as Chair of the North West Highland Geopark Board 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.

To the Leader of the Council 

“How will the Council support UNESCO currently designated and other aspiring territories and how will the Council seek to achieve the United Nations 17 goals for sustainability?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Farlow emphasised that the UNESCO territories were made up of very small communities across the North and West Highlands which had both sparsity of population and sparsity of resources. In this regard, he queried as to whether the Administration would help those communities to work in partnership with all territories and protect the sparsely populated area groups which were in the process of being set up.

In response, the Leader suggested that Mr G Farlow meet with her, the Chair of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and the Director of Development and Infrastructure to discuss this issue further.

(iii) Mr A Christie

To the Chair of the Education, Children & Adult Services Committee

“Could you detail and explain - in reference to the projected underspend in 2016/17 on the following areas – the staff numbers as a full time equivalent, the post title, the reason why the post has not been filled (e.g. hard to recruit to, vacancy management, etc), the geographic spread of the underspend, the annual number of client cases normally carried by a full time worker if applicable and the impact upon our service users (adults and children) of not filling the position including any detriment to care plans or service users outcomes. If the projected underspend does not relate to salaries, please detail the reason for the underspend – 

Education Services – Primary Schools - £198k
Adult Services – Other Leisure Services - £58k
Children’s Services – Family Teams - £643k
Children’s Services – Other Services for Children - £150k

(These figures cover the period from 1 April 2016 to 30 June 2016)

In 2015/16, the budget line ‘Children’s Services – Childcare and Early Learning’ showed an underspend of £1,391k. In 2016/17, it is being projected as fully spent, even with an increase of budget of £330k to a total budget of £15,363k. What factors indicate that this will be the case and not an underspend as in the previous year?”      

The response had been circulated.

At this point in the meeting, Mr A Christie, seconded by Mr T Prag, MOVED the suspension of Standing Order 42.4 in order to allow debate on this issue.

Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr A Rhind, moved as an AMENDMENT that there should be no suspension of Standing Order 42.4.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 35 votes and the AMENDMENT received 31 votes, with no abstentions. 

However, the Motion had not received the required support of two-thirds of those present and voting and was therefore not carried.

For the Motion: 
Dr D Alston, Mr A Baxter, Mr D Bremner, Mr I Brown, Mrs C Caddick, Mr A Christie, Mr B Clark, Dr I Cockburn, Dr J Davis, Mr A Duffy, Mr D Fallows, Mr G Farlow, Mr C Fraser, Mr S Fuller, Mr B Gormley, Mr K Gowans, Mr A Graham, Mr D Kerr, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr D Mackay, Mr G Mackenzie, Ms A MacLean, Mrs L Munro, Mr G Phillips, Mr T Prag, Mr M Rattray, Mr I Renwick, Mr G Rimell, Mrs G Sinclair, Mrs J Slater, Ms M Smith, Mr J Stone, Mr H Wood

For the Amendment: 
Mr R Balfour, Mrs J Barclay, Miss J Campbell, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mrs G Coghill, Mrs M Davidson, Mr N Donald, Ms J Douglas, Mr B Fernie, Mr H Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr R Greene, Mr A Henderson, Mr W MacKay, Mr A Mackinnon, Mr T MacLennan, Mrs B McAllister, Mrs I McCallum, Mr J McGillivray, Mr D Millar, Mr H Morrison, Mr B Murphy, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Reiss, Mr A Rhind, Mr G Ross, Mr R Saxon, Dr A Sinclair, Mrs C Wilson

Thereafter, in terms of a supplementary question, and in relation to the answer (which stated that the vacancies were likely to impact on the capacity to meet needs and could be exacerbated by staff sickness and inexperienced staff), Mr Christie queried as to what assurances could be given to families awaiting the services they needed to improve their life outcomes and whether an update report on this issue would be presented to the next meeting of the Education, Children and Adult Services Committee.

In response, the Chair confirmed that an update report would be presented to the meeting of the Education, Children and Adult Services Committee in October. Furthermore, he recognised the concerns raised and re-assured Members and the public that the Service was managing the risks that may have arisen from current vacancies, that vacancies were filled promptly and when this was not possible other measures were taken, which included providing additional support, employing locum staff and re-deploying other staff on a temporary basis.

(iv) Mr A Christie

To the Chair of the Resources Committee

“Can you advise how the projected savings regarding the Council’s budget in 2017/18 with regard to Sickness Absence - managing sickness returns (£500,000) and Schools Energy (£531,221) were arrived at and can you state today what the financial performance against these target savings have been financial year to date?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Christie referred to reports to the Planning Development and Infrastructure Committee on 11 May (which stated that the saving was challenging but through a combination of procurement, cultural change and efficiency measures could result in targets being met) and to the Resources Committee on 24 August (which given the uncertainties showed the saving as a budget pressure) and queried as to which report was correct.

In response, the Chair confirmed that the position was being monitored and reports would be presented to future Committee meetings. It was early in the year and there was still time for these savings to be met.

(v) Mr T Prag

To the Chair of the Planning, Development & Infrastructure Committee

“Do you agree with me that a growing and vibrant economy in the Highlands is even more important to the wellbeing of the people who live here in times of uncertainty and reducing public funding. Since becoming the lead member for Economic Development and Regeneration, have you formed a view on what are the key issues for economic growth development in our area which you will be championing in the next 8 months?”

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Prag reminded the Chair of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee of the continuing commitment to the previous Council Programme “Working Together for the Highlands” and in particularly sought her view on the strength of the commitment to the economy and the commitment to partnerships e.g. Highland Economic Forum.  

In response, the Chair acknowledged the continuing commitment to the previous Council Programme and confirmed that the Highland Economic Forum was still in existence, meeting 2-3 times per year, and was very useful in terms of businesses and various other organisations coming together and in particular in relation to the development of the City-Region Deal as it was one of the consultees as part of the structure built into the City-Region Deal. 

(vi) Mr A Graham

To the Leader of the Council

“Inverness & Highland City-Region Deal: how much City-Region Deal funding has been received by the Council to date, how much has been spent to date, please provide details of the expenditure to date and how much funding is expected to be received in the 2016-17 financial year?”

The response is circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, and in noting the need for transparency and accountability, Mr Graham asked for the date by which full reports on the City-Region Deal would begin to be submitted to Members and queried as to whether full information on the City-Region Deal would be put on the internet so that the public could follow progress.

In response, the Leader confirmed that update reports would be presented to the next meeting of the City of Inverness Area Committee and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee and that these reports, as well as the Minutes of the Meetings, would be accessible to the public on the Council’s website.

10. Notices of Motion  
Brathan Gluasaid

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

(i) “This Council calls upon the Government to make fair transitional state pension arrangements for all women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age with lack of appropriate notification. Hundreds of thousands of women had significant pension changes imposed upon them by the Pensions Act of 1995 and 2011 with little or no personal notification of the changes. Some women had only 2 years of notice of a 6 year increase to their state pension age.

Many women born in the 1950s are living in hardship. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences. Many of these women are already out of the labour market - caring for elderly relatives, providing childcare for grandchildren or struggling to find employment after having suffered discrimination in the workplace.

Women born in this decade are suffering financially. These women have worked hard, raised families and paid their tax and national insurance with the expectation they would be financially secure when reaching 60. It is not the pension age itself that is in dispute, it is widely accepted that women and men should retire at the same age.

The issue is that the rise in the women’s state pension age has been too rapid and has happened without sufficient notice being given to those affected. This has left women with no time to make alternative arrangements.”

Signed: Mrs D MacKay, Mrs B McAllister 

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• many women in the Highlands and Islands and across the UK would struggle to make alternative arrangements as a result of their pensions being deferred without sufficient notice. In this regard, representations should be made to the UK Government to re-consider the position and to offer the fair transitional arrangements which were promised for these women to avoid them being faced with impoverished retirements;
• there was unanimous support for this motion which it was felt should be a cross party motion because all Members represented someone in need;
• the age group which were affected had already experienced inequalities in life, such as lower wages resulting in lower pensions;
• women were losing up to £40k of their pension which the UK Government had said that they would get back and this was not acceptable;
• this change mainly affected women who had given up careers to care for family and as such relied on the state pension;
• the background to this motion concerned the changes which had been made since the Pensions Act of 1995 and the lack of notice in this respect;
• consideration should also be given to the impact on the NHS of women working longer in life as the majority of carers were female and carrying out manual moving and handling tasks would become much more difficult with age; and
• everyone was urged to join the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign which was a UK wide group which fought against the issues which had been raised.

Decision
 
The Council AGREED the Notice of Motion as detailed on the basis that representations would be made to the UK Government as proposed at the meeting. 

(ii) “That, from 1 January 2017, Highland Council meetings include a 20 minute time allocation for questions from members of the public.

That the Chief Executive drafts the necessary changes to Standing Orders to accommodate the following intentions – each member of the public is permitted to ask one oral question per Council which must be notified in writing no later than noon on the Friday preceding the meeting. Each question must be delivered at the meeting exactly as submitted. One supplementary question will be allowed.

Below are the criteria for questions:

No question will exceed 1 minute
The question must refer to an issue which affects the Highland Council area or falls within the Council’s responsibilities
The question must not be substantially the same as a question which has been put at a meeting of the Council in the past 6 months
The question must not be defamatory, frivolous, vexatious or offensive
The question must not require the disclosure of confidential or exempt information
The question must not refer to individual planning or licensing matters or any matter of a personal nature.”

Signed: Mr A Christie, Mr A Graham, Mrs C Caddick         

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• public question time was not a new concept and was currently working well in different Local Authorities across the UK;
• the purpose was to increase public engagement and scrutiny which would support the localisation agenda and possibly lead to more people standing for Council and more young people becoming involved;
• this represented a simple adjustment which could be piloted from January 2017  and could be further refined once in operation;
• this would help to address the current ‘disconnect’ between the public and local government and aligned with the work being undertaken in relation to the re-design of the Council and the Commission on Highland Democracy, specifically being open to challenge and new ideas and allowing people to participate and feel empowered;
• all forums, such as Council meetings, Community Councils, Ward Business Meetings and District Partnerships, should allow people to ask questions;
• concerns were expressed in relation to security which would need to be reviewed if the public were to be invited to ask questions at meetings;
• this would disadvantage remote rural communities who did not have easy access to Inverness and would not provide a solution for the need to connect with communities; 
• public questions could be misused by political parties or campaign groups but this was not a reason to not consider the proposal;
• the proposal should be considered alongside other issues including the need to allow the public to ask their supplementary question via video-conference or whether it was more appropriate that the questions be asked at area level and that the deadline for Members submitting questions to Council should be set closer to the date of the agenda being issued;
• some Community Planning Partners left public participation to the end of their meetings and they should be encouraged to adopt a different approach;
• considering the proposal as part of the work of the Redesign Board would allow for concerns to be addressed and further details to be considered in relation to its effectiveness and how it would affect limited resources;
• within the current proposal there was not enough opportunity for people to become involved and to ask a question and it was therefore suggested that a webpage should be developed where the public could ask questions, online and in writing, which would be screened for appropriate content and published on the website. This would not disadvantage people living in remote communities, who lacked confidence, were disabled or could not attend meetings during the day;
• it was felt the Community Planning Partnerships, being regionally based, were  an ideal venue for the public to start engaging with the Council and other bodies;
• the Chamber was one of the safest forums for Members to engage with the public compared to, for example, holding surgeries and although consideration should be taken for Members’ personal safety it was not a reason to ignore this proposal; and
• there were different methods of improving public access to the Council, including digital platforms and apps, and this should be a priority for the work of the Commission on Highland Democracy.

Thereafter, Mr A Christie, seconded by Mr A Graham, MOVED the Notice of Motion as detailed.

As a FIRST AMENDMENT, Mrs M Davidson, seconded by Mr A Rhind, moved the following statement – Highland Council is strongly committed to both representative and participatory democracy. Phase 4 of the work of the Redesign Board of the Council is called ‘Localism and Public Participation’ and it is intended that the Commission on Highland Democracy works alongside the Redesign Board to consult, discuss and make recommendations to the Council on public participation and democracy. We will ask the Board to take particular account of the opportunities for the public to directly question the Council at strategic and area level, to take a view on the effectiveness of current practice, to examine practice elsewhere and report back to the Council. 

As a SECOND AMENDMENT, Ms M Smith, seconded by Mr R Laird, moved that the Council should create a website project as soon as possible to publish questions from the public and the answers to further engage them in an open and transparent fashion. Further, the Council should explore with its community partners how it could incorporate a public question and answer forum into its district partnership meetings.

On a vote being taken between the FIRST AMENDMENT and the SECOND AMENDMENT, the FIRST AMENDMENT received 35 votes and the SECOND AMENDMENT received 32 votes, with 1 abstention – the votes having been cast as follows – 

For the First Amendment:
Mrs J Barclay, Miss J Campbell, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mrs G Coghill, Mrs M Davidson, Mr N Donald, Ms J Douglas, Mr D Fallows, Mr B Fernie, Mr H Fraser, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr R Greene, Mr A Henderson, Mr D Kerr, Mr W MacKay, Mr A Mackinnon, Mrs B McAllister, Mrs I McCallum, Mr J McGillivray, Mr D Millar, Mr H Morrison, Mr B Murphy, Mr F Parr, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Rattray, Mr M Reiss, Mr A Rhind, Mrs F Robertson, Mr G Ross, Mr R Saxon, Dr A Sinclair, Ms K Stephen

For the Second Amendment:
Dr D Alston, Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr I Brown, Mrs C Caddick, Mr A Christie, Mr B Clark, Dr I Cockburn, Dr J Davis, Mr A Duffy, Mr G Farlow, Mr C Fraser, Mr S Fuller, Mr B Gormley, Mr K Gowans, Mr A Graham, Mr R Laird, Mr B Lobban, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr D Mackay, Mr G Mackenzie, Ms A MacLean, Mr T MacLennan, Mr G Phillips, Mr T Prag, Mr I Renwick, Mr G Rimell, Mrs G Sinclair, Mrs J Slater, Ms M Smith, Mr J Stone, Mr H Wood

Abstention:
Mrs L Munro

On a subsequent vote being taken between the MOTION and the FIRST AMENDMENT, the MOTION received 12 votes and the FIRST AMENDMENT received 36 votes, with 19 abstentions, and the FIRST AMENDMENT was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows – 

For the Motion:
Dr D Alston, Mr A Baxter, Mrs C Caddick, Mr A Christie, Dr J Davis, Mr A Graham, Mr D Mackay, Ms A MacLean, Mr T Prag, Mr G Rimell, Mr J Stone, Mr H Wood

For the First Amendment:
Mr R Balfour, Mrs J Barclay, Miss J Campbell, Mrs I Campbell,  Mrs H Carmichael, Mrs G Coghill, Mrs M Davidson, Mr N Donald, Ms J Douglas, Mr D Fallows, Mr B Fernie, Mr H Fraser, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mr M Green, Mr R Greene, Mr A Henderson, Mr D Kerr, Mr W MacKay, Mr A Mackinnon, Mr T MacLennan, Mrs B McAllister, Mrs I McCallum, Mr J McGillivray, Mr D Millar, Mr H Morrison, Mr B Murphy, Mr F Parr, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Rattray, Mr A Rhind, Mrs F Robertson, Mr M Reiss, Mr G Ross, Mr R Saxon, Dr A Sinclair

Abstentions:
Mr I Brown, Dr I Cockburn, Mr A Duffy, Mr G Farlow, Mr C Fraser, Mr S Fuller, Mr B Gormley, Mr K Gowans, Mr R Laird Mr B Lobban, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr G Mackenzie, Mrs L Munro, Mr G Phillips, Mr I Renwick, Mrs G Sinclair, Mrs J Slater, Ms M Smith, Ms K Stephen

Decision 

Members agreed the following statement - Highland Council is strongly committed to both representative and participatory democracy. Phase 4 of the work of the Redesign Board of the Council is called ‘Localism and Public Participation’ and it is intended that the Commission on Highland Democracy works alongside the Redesign Board to consult, discuss and make recommendations to the Council on public participation and democracy. We will ask the Board to take particular account of the opportunities for the public to directly question the Council at strategic and area level, to take a view on the effectiveness of current practice, to examine practice elsewhere and report back to the Council.       

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.10 pm and resumed at 2.15 pm.

22. Additional Urgent Item: Fort George Military Barracks

Declarations of Interest - Mrs C Caddick, Mrs H Carmichael and Mr T Prag declared non-financial interests in this item as Board Members of the Highlanders Museum 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.

Mrs C Caddick also declared a non-financial interest in this item as the Honorary Colonel of the Army Cadet Force in the Highlands but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that her interest did not preclude her from taking part in the discussion.

Members were advised that there was speculation over the future of Fort George as an active Military Barracks as a result of the UK Government defence estate “foot print” review which aimed to reduce the size of the built estate by 30%.  

In this regard, there had been circulated Report No HC/40/16 dated 6 September 2016 by the Director of Development and Infrastructure which provided a briefing on the importance of Fort George remaining an active military barracks and summarised the lobbying activity which was currently underway.  

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• there was a need to convey thanks to the Director and his team for the compilation of the report within a very short timescale;
• this was the second occasion within a four year period that a review by the UK Government had included Fort George and it was suggested that after the current review there was a need for a long term plan to be established for Barracks in the North of Scotland in order to provide certainty for all those involved;
• there was a need for Fort George to be modernised as opposed to being the subject of review;
• the Highland area had a reputation for enabling a high level of recruitment to the Army and as such it was essential that discussions were undertaken with the Ministry of Defence in order to try and identify solutions to any problems;
• any decision to hand over Fort George to Historic Scotland would be both extremely expensive and also highly impractical;
• the damage to the local economy in the event of closure of Fort George would be extensive and far reaching;
• Fort George was part of the fabric of the Highlands and its closure would mean the loss of a first class training ground for the Army;
• meeting with the Minister and the Ministry of Defence was imperative and in this regard thanks were conveyed to Drew Hendry MP for his assistance and also to the Press & Journal for its sustained and high profile campaign;
• it should be recognised that Fort George was also vital to the Army Cadet Force;
• there was no other working Barracks in the United Kingdom which was as accessible to tourists and this made Fort George unique. As such, the very real challenges which would arise from closure had to be highlighted to the Ministry of Defence;
• it was highly likely that similar reviews would be undertaken in the future so it was necessary for consideration to be given as to how the facility was currently used and other potential uses which could perhaps be explored; and
• it was vital that a contingency plan was in place for Fort George and ancillary facilities should a decision be taken in favour of closure.           

Decision

The Council NOTED the contents of the report and AGREED that every opportunity should be used to lobby the UK Government on this matter.

11. Redesign of the Highland Council    
Ath-dhealbhadh Chomhairle na Gàidhealtachd

There had been circulated Report No HC/33/16 dated 30 August 2016 by the Chief Executive which described the process undertaken by the Redesign Board to conclude Phase 2 of its work and set out proposals to take forward Phase 3. In this regard, the Board had recommended a long list of around 120 functions to review as well as the approach to undertaking the reviews. 

The report also described further action to ensure redesign was an inclusive process for staff, communities and partners and sought authority to decide the reviews to be undertaken in 2016/17 so that the timescales set by the Council for the Board were met.

In this respect, Booklet A and Booklet B had been circulated separately.

There had also been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Redesign Board held on 21 June which had been approved by the Board.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• good progress had been made but the next phase to prioritise and review 120 Council functions and services involving staff, partners, community bodies, Community Councils, the wider public and Members would be tougher and could not be completed without the valued input and support of staff and Trade Union representatives;
• it was imperative that all Members of the Council worked together to achieve outcomes for the benefit of all concerned;
• thanks were expressed to the Head of Policy and Reform for her outstanding report, including the ‘Plain English’ version of the statement of Council purpose, values and outcomes which had been previously requested;
• the study visit to Wigan Council had highlighted the importance of involving staff throughout the redesign process and it was essential that this was incorporated into the proposals;
• in relation to studying other Councils, it was important to acknowledge that the Highland area was significantly different from other areas in terms of geographical sparsity and the fragility of certain communities and organisations and therefore a ‘Highland solution’ needed to be sought;
• in terms of community involvement, the meeting of representatives from active community groups at the Archive Centre had been helpful as the start of further consultation;
• in relation to outcomes, such as any proposed reduction in service, and it was imperative that safeguards were in place to ensure that there were no gaps in provision for vulnerable people;
• final decisions would be made by Members and it should be highlighted that this was likely to be very difficult in some circumstances;
• new digital tools should be used throughout the process as much as possible;
• there was a need for all Members to focus on the risk implications which had been detailed within the report;
• it was important that all staff were fully aware of what was involved in the process and how it would be undertaken;
• the categorisation of ‘Democratic Services and Support for Local Committees’ in Appendix B should be changed from ‘Desirable’ to ‘Essential’;
• consideration should be given to the ongoing strategic business review of the Harbours Estate by the Harbours Management Board which was being undertaken independently from the redesign process; and
• attendance should be encouraged wherever and whenever possible at both Board meetings and Workshops.

Decision

The Council NOTED:-

i. that, by meeting through the Summer Recess, the Board was on target with Phase 2 of its work concluding and Phase 3 ready to progress;
ii. that the approach to Phase 3 would demonstrate the values of challenging, open to ideas, participating and empowering;
iii. the wide range of Council functions identified and the extent to which they were statutory or discretionary as shown in Booklet A;
iv. that a communications plan was in use for staff on concluding Phase 2 and getting Phase 3 underway and that the Board would continue with the ways to engage staff as listed in Paragraph 4.17;
v. the positive feedback from community planning partners to engage with redesign as described in Appendix 3 with further opportunities to engage as set out in Paragraph 4.23;
vi. that the Board would agree how to engage with the public on redesign, including with the public in general, with representative groups across communities and with those using the services in scope for review in 2016/17;
vii. that the Board would continue to meet fortnightly through October and to cover the topics set out in Paragraph 5.1; 
viii. the implications set out in Section 6 of the report; and
ix. that a progress report would be provided for the Council in October 2016.

The Council also AGREED:-

i. the long list of functions recommended for review as set out in Booklet B, noting that they covered both statutory and discretionary functions and were spread across all Council services – on the basis that, under Outcome 4 (Functions Supporting Representative Democracy), the statutory function of ‘Democratic Services and Support for Local Committees’ should be re-classified as ‘Essential’;
ii. that the long list of reviews should be prioritised by the Board during September taking into account the factors listed in Paragraph 4.5 and for the Board to decide the functions for review in 2016/17;
iii. that reviews should include the range of options for service delivery included in Paragraph 4.9, other than for those identified by the Board to have a narrower focus e.g. on charges and income;
iv. that reviews should be carried out internally through to 2017/18 and beyond and internally through challenge and review teams identified by the Chief Executive, with scope for external support where appropriate as described in Paragraph 4.13; 
v. that, while reviews would be scrutinised by the Redesign Board for proposals to be made to Council, given the pace of work required some reviews might benefit from decisions to be made elsewhere e.g. delegated to a Committee, to the Board or to Officers and if so this would be recommended to Council; and
vi. to host an event in the autumn involving community bodies, partners and Government to agree new action to support community bodies to do more in and with their communities.  

12. Commission on Highland Democracy – Update 
Coimisean air Deamocrasaidh Gàidhealach

There had been circulated Report No HC/34/16 dated 24 August 2016 by the Acting Head of Policy which provided an update on progress to establish an independent Commission on Highland Democracy which would be launched in mid-September, allowing the findings and final recommendations to be published in May 2017. 

In this regard, Mr Rory Mair, Independent Chair of the Commission, undertook a presentation during which he updated Members on the current position in relation to the Commission’s membership which would comprise representatives of the Council, the wider public sector and those in a position of, or with experience of, directly supporting community empowerment. Consideration would also be given as to how best to involve community representatives with the process in order to properly reflect community interests. The methodology and role of the Commissioners was still being refined to ensure that the Commission reached those people not regularly engaged with the Council and other public bodies so that democracy could be strengthened.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• it was vital that young people were involved in the process and one way of achieving this would be for the Commission to attend Highland Youth Voice Local Conferences;
• the independence of the Commission was welcomed;
• although it was not the role of the Commission to consider if it was appropriate for the Highland Council to be broken down into smaller local authority areas, if this was an issue raised by communities it would need to be considered;
• it would be imperative for Commissioners to have the appropriate skills to enable them to accurately understand and interpret the wishes of people across the Highlands; and
• it would be important to also take into account issues such as geography and gender balance on the Commission.

Decision

Members NOTED:-

i. the progress being made with the establishment of an independent Commission on Highland Democracy;
ii. the proposed launch of the Commission in mid-September; 
iii. that six Members representing all groups within the Council would be invited to take part; 
iv. that an interim report was expected in early 2017, with final recommendations expected following the Local Government Elections in May 2017; and
v. that the Council could continue to support the Commission by providing the secretariat and a small budget which would be met from existing budgets to enable community and stakeholder engagement as agreed in March 2016.

13. Corporate Performance Report 2015-16
Aithisg Coileanaidh Corporra 2015-16

Declarations of Interest 

Ms J Douglas, Mr M Green and Mr K Gowans 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.

Mr K Gowans also declared a financial interest in this item on the basis that his wife was an employee 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 his interests did not preclude him from taking part in the discussion.

Ms J Douglas also declared a financial interest in this item as a Board Member of NHS Highland but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, would remain to participate in the discussion.

Ms M Smith declared a non-financial interest in this item as the Secretary of Albyn Housing Society but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that her interest did not preclude her from taking part in the discussion.

Mr B Murphy declared a financial interest in this item as a provider of temporary accommodation and left the room.

There had been circulated Report No HC/35/16 dated 30 August 2016 by the Chief Executive which provided an assessment of Council performance against the Corporate Plan which was the performance framework for the Council’s Programme and covered the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016.   

In this regard, the Corporate Performance Report had been circulated separately.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• thanks should be conveyed to all concerned (including Members and staff) for their efforts in taking forward the commitments contained in the Council Programme;
• the standard of scrutiny in the Council was improving and this was welcomed, along with the strengthening of local democracy and the development of localism;
• the delivery of broadband infrastructure was progressing and it was hoped that applications for more masts from mobile suppliers would soon be forthcoming;  
• good progress had been made with Corporate Parenting and the Family Firm initiative was now working well. In this regard, it was noted that the Community Planning Partnership had made a commitment to employ every Looked After Child after they left care. However, disappointment was expressed that the commitment to reduce the Attainment Gap had not performed particularly well and that the relatively high number of Looked After Children excluded from school had risen for the fourth consecutive year and information was sought as to how both of these issues would be addressed; 
• information was also sought on what proportion of pupils from deprived areas were achieving National 5 and Highers at school;
• many of the commitments which were reported as having had a “mixed” performance involved partnership working and this highlighted the difficulties of partnership working (particularly in shifting the balance of care and building and providing services in communities) and discussions needed to take place with NHS Highland and High Life Highland in this respect;
• although there had been a reported “mixed” performance on roads, and despite the tight budget constraints faced by the Council, the roads maintenance budget had been maintained, with an increase in capital to provide road surfacing helping to avoid further deterioration;   
• the introduction of 20 mph speed limits had proved problematic and clarity was sought as to what the issues were and how they could be resolved;
• in terms of the aim to build social and cultural capital throughout communities by promoting an innovative and progressive Library Service, it was suggested that further use could be made of libraries in relation to outreach, information services, adult and community education; 
• information was required on the progress being made towards the Council’s five year target for the construction of housing and affordable housing;
• in terms of performance in relation to the recently published Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (and specifically the commitment to reduce the proportion of Highland Council areas included in the bottom 15%), further information was required to enable an assessment to be made as to how communities were performing or if the situation was deteriorating; 
• in regard to regeneration investment monies, there should be a re-examination of what was effective in terms of delivering outcomes;
• further progress was needed in relation to housing vulnerable (or close to becoming vulnerable) ex-armed forces personnel;
• the review of arrangements for bridge inspections, along with their maintenance and investment programmes, appeared to conflict with what had been reported to the Community Services Committee in November 2015 and it was therefore suggested that progress on this commitment should be considered as “mixed”;
• in terms of the implementation of the waste strategy, it was suggested that little progress had been made and further information was needed in this regard;
• it was noted that the delay in the time taken between a child being accommodated and a permanency decision being reached had reduced to 9.7 months. However, progress had been hampered in some areas by a shortage of experienced Social Workers and information was sought as to the measures being employed to recruit to these posts and the type of contracts being offered;
• greater emphasis was needed on income generation, the possible commercial operation of the viewing platform at Inverness Castle being cited as a particular example; 
• it should be noted that savings which arose as a result of the holding of vacancies invariably affected service delivery;
• more thought need to be given as to the measurable outcomes and innovative solutions available in relation to the Positive Mental Health and Stigma commitment;
• a report on the potential implications for the Highlands as a result of the  outcome of the EU Referendum was required, particularly in relation to LEADER funding. In this respect, a response to the consultation by the Scottish Parliamentary Committee on Europe had been submitted on behalf of the Highland and Islands European Partnership and the Leader of the Council confirmed that this would be circulated to all Members;
• there was concern in relation to the ‘Fairer Highland’ section of the report in which 40% of the commitments were either not progressing well or meeting their target and it was suggested that the performance assessment perhaps needed to weighted differently so that progress or otherwise could be better gauged; 
• in terms of the allocation of land for affordable housing, there should be further consultation on the potential for a change in the planning legislation to enable land to be exclusively allocated for this purpose;
• information was sought and provided on the current position regarding the lobbying of the UK and Scottish Governments on the reduction of grid access charges which impacted negatively on renewable energy production in the Highlands; and
• it was noted that discussions were continuing in terms of the possibilities of the Council’s historic housing debt being written off and a further update would be provided if and when available.

Decision

Members NOTED the good progress being made with delivery of the Council’s Programme and that a further report on Statutory Performance Indicators and the Local Government Benchmarking Framework would be submitted to a future meeting no later than March 2017.

14. Social Impact Pledge 
Gealltanas Buaidh Shòisealta

There had been circulated Report No HC/36/16 dated 26 August 2016 by the Chief Executive which outlined a request from the Scottish Government for Local Authorities to sign up to the Social Impact Pledge.

In this regard, it was noted that the potential commitments within the Pledge included addressing issues such as employment of care leavers, recruitment/retention of retained fire fighters and social isolation and loneliness.  

During discussion, it was suggested that the Council was already undertaking the commitments which had been listed and as such signing up to the Pledge would just represent an additional level of bureaucracy for Officers with very little additional benefit for the Council. 

Decision

The Council AGREED that no further action should be taken in regard to the Social Impact Pledge as detailed. 

15. Dementia Friendly Highland Working Group: Action Plan 
Buidheann Gnìomh Dàimheil na Gàidhealtachd airson Seargadh Inntinn: Plana Gnìomha

There had been circulated Report No HC/37/16 dated 24 August 2016 by the Acting Head of Policy which provided recommendations on how the Council could work towards becoming a dementia friendly organisation and help to promote dementia friendly communities in Highland.

During discussion, thanks were conveyed to Ms J Douglas in particular for the considerable work which had been undertaken in support of such a worthwhile cause and which represented an excellent example of partnership working in the Highlands.

It was also suggested that further contact should be made with Stagecoach in relation to the use of support dogs on buses which was an issue which was causing problems for many people across the area.
Decision

The Council NOTED the progress made by the Dementia Friendly Working Group, the actions taken to date and the commitment to engage with all Council Services, partner agencies and organisations.

The Council also AGREED the attached Action Plan for 2016-17 and the proposal for the Working Group to continue and report annually to the Communities and Partnerships Committee.

It was further AGREED that contact should be made with Stagecoach in relation to the use of support dogs on buses as detailed.

16. Application to Capital Discretionary Fund 2016/17     
Maoin Calpa Fo Ùghdarras 2016/17

Declarations of Interest 

Dr D Alston declared a non-financial interest in this item as the Chair of the Board of NHS Highland and left the room during discussion.

Mrs M Davidson declared a non-financial interest in this item on the grounds of having spoken to the applicants but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that her interest did not preclude her from taking part in the discussion.

Mr I Brown declared a financial interest in this item as an employee of NHS Highland and left the room during discussion.

Ms J Douglas declared a financial interest in this item as a Board Member of NHS Highland but, in terms of the dispensation granted by the Standards Commission, remained to participate in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No HC/38/16 dated 29 August 2016 by the Director of Finance which sought consideration of an application for funding of £50,000 from the Capital Discretionary Fund from the Fort Augustus and Glenmoriston Community Company towards the cost of rebuilding the Medical Centre in Fort Augustus.

In this regard, it was confirmed that funding of £730,420 had already been secured towards a total estimated project cost of £780,420 and the bid for £50,000 sought to close the residual funding gap.

Decision

The Council AGREED the application for funding of £50,000 from the Capital Discretionary Fund as detailed.

17. Caithness & North Sutherland Fund 
Maoin Ghallaibh & Chataibh a Tuath

It was confirmed that the Caithness & North Sutherland Fund had been established by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd to distribute funding to community organisations for projects that would increase the attractiveness of Caithness and North Sutherland as a place to live, work and invest with particular emphasis on achieving environment, social, culture and infrastructure improvements. Three Members had been appointed to the Fund by the Council in 2012 (two Members from Caithness Wards and one Member from the North West & Central Sutherland Ward) and in this regard Ms Gail Ross had now intimated that she wished to step down.

The Council was therefore asked to appoint 1 Member from one of the Caithness Wards as detailed. 

Decision

The Council AGREED to appoint Mrs Gillian Coghill to the Caithness & North Sutherland Fund as detailed.