To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf on Mr Airey.

To disclose any personal and prejudicial interests relating to any item on the agenda.

NB   The following is a summary of what constitutes a personal interest and a personal and prejudicial interest.  Please seek advice or refer to the Code of Conduct (paragraph 8) for full definitions.

Personal Interests

You have a personal interest if the issue being discussed in the meeting affects the well-being or finances of you, your family or your close associates more than most other people who live in the Electoral Division affected by the issue.

Personal interests are also things that relate to an interest you must register.

N.B. If the personal interest arises because of your membership of another public body, you only need to declare it if you intend to speak.

A personal interest should be declared as follows:

I have a personal interest in agenda item […] regarding the report on […] because I am […].

Personal and Prejudicial Interests

If you have a personal interest in a matter you will also have a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.  If you have a personal and prejudicial interest you must withdraw from the meeting room for that item, unless you are there to make representations and the public have the same opportunity to do so

NB You only have a prejudicial interest if the matter

• affects your financial position or that of your family, close associate, employer etc or it
• relates to a regulatory matter

A personal and prejudicial interest should be declared as follows:

I have a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item […] regarding the report on […] because I am […].

Advice on this can be sought from staff in Legal and Democratic Services.  Members are requested to seek advice, wherever possible, before the meeting starts.

Mr Fairbairn declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 19 (Appointment of Managed Service Provider for Neighbourhood Care) as an Age UK North West Board Member.

Mr Pearson declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 19 (Appointment of Managed Service Provider for Neighbourhood Care) as an Age UK Director.

To receive the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 14 June 2012 (copy enclosed)

RESOLVED,that the subject to the wording at Minute no. 40 (South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations Development Plan Document – Consultation on Proposed Submission Document (para 6) being replaced by the following:

                      ‘The report informed Cabinet Members of the content of the Land Allocation Development Plan Document Proposed Submission Document which is intended to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate (and Secretary of State) through an Examination in Public in summer 2012. This was retrospective as the response had already been sent to South Lakeland District Council and Members were asked to endorse the response. The professional opinion of Officers was that overall, the Development Plan Document was legally compliant, effective and justified in accordance with the Government’s Tests of Soundness. Members were minded to note the report.'

                  the minutes of the meeting held on 14 June 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any item on the agenda.

RESOLVED,that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of items 14 (Facilities Management Procurement Strategy for Statutory Servicing, Testing and Reactive Maintenance) and 15 (Future Provision of Food Service and Cleaning – Business Plan for the Proposed Local Authority Limited Company) by virtue of Paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as these reports contained exempt information relating to any consultations or negotiations or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority, 16 (Children’s Services – Seeking Permission to Tender), 17 (Highways Lighting Asset Management Framework Resources), 18 (Block Contracts in Residential Care for both Long and Short Term Placements) and 19 (Appointment of Managed Service Provider for Neighbourhood Care) by virtue of Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government 1972, as these reports contained exempt information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

To receive statements by the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Members.

The Leader confirmed that agenda item 8(b) – Cabinet member Response to Scrutiny Review on Attendance and Wellbeing had been circulated outside the usual time requirements and that he had agreed to admit the item as urgent business to avoid any unnecessary delay in its consideration.

The Cabinet Member for Organisation Development advised she had been pleased to recently attend the official opening of the Heysham Gardens development for supported living for elders and paid tribute to officers for bringing this project to fruition.

The Cabinet Member for Organisation Development made the following statement:

        ‘Members may be aware of yesterday’s press coverage concerning Fujitsu’s decision to withdraw from the Connecting Cumbria procurement process. The decision is disappointing; particularly as only last week they confirmed to our officers that they would be entering into formal negotiations with us.

        Their decision to withdraw leaves one supplier in the process - BT. This situation is replicated in other areas of the country and we understand that Fujitsu have also withdrawn from bidding for the North Yorkshire area.

        Although today’s news is disappointing it is important to understand Fujitsu’s reasons, particularly as these are national rather than specific to Cumbria. 

        At our previous Cabinet meeting, it was reported that Fujitsu were struggling to meet our requirements largely due to the challenges faced in attempting to enter a regulated and largely monopolistic market.

        The letter from Fujitsu informing us of their decision stated they

·        believe state aid approval for the use of fixed wired technology would not be resolved nationally in time for our process

·        felt the probable result of other contract awards in the other areas means the size of the available market makes them unable to attract Retail Service Providers. In short, there aren’t enough potential customers in Cumbria alone for them to attract and contract with internet service providers

        In their letter Fujitsu thanked the council for it professional engagement and management of the process so far. Fujitsu now intend to concentrate their resources to influence policy at a national level.

        We will now focus our resources to complete the process in order to secure an outcome which meets the needs of Cumbria and its communities and a full report will be presented, as planned, to Cabinet in September. Cabinet can be assured that the procurement process is robust, complies with relevant legislation and will continue to be applied to the remaining bidder.’

The Deputy Leader acknowledged the statement and re-iterated that Fujitsu’s decision to withdraw from the process had been prompted by concerns over national issues.  He confirmed that the Council would continue to work with the remaining bidder to deliver the objective of superfast broadband for Cumbria.

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Highways confirmed that there would be a ministerial visit to MoD Longtown next month and that no decision would be taken by government on its future prior to the visit taking place.  The General Secretary of the Prospect Trades Union would also be visiting along with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

None at this stage

Cabinet received the following question from Mr Drury who whilst not present had indicated that he wished Cabinet to consider the issue raised:

        ‘Does the Cabinet still endorse/support the claims made by CCC Transport Dept and the imposition of a charge, which is over twice and possibly three times the real cost of replacing a bus pass, and that it will act as some form of deterrent when there is no evidence to support such a claim and Nowcard have in place a procedure stopping such an occurrence?’

The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment gave the following response:

        ‘There is a cost to the County Council for issuing concessionary bus passes which is not just about producing the card, it needs to cover other related costs.  The Cabinet are satisfied that £10 is a fair and reasonable cost for replacing a pass which entitles the user to free transport.

        The government provide funding to the County Council to administer the scheme and reimburse bus operators.  This funding is not sufficient to cover the cost of the scheme and clearly there is considerable administration cost in relation to the issue of all the cards which are issued free initially.  The Department for Transport requires the County Council to provide the initial concessionary bus passes free but it accepts it is reasonable to charge for any further cards which are issued.’

Councillor K Lancaster to present a report from the Adult Scrutiny Board (copy enclosed)

Mr Lancaster presented a report from the Adult Scrutiny Board that updated members of the work of the Access to Archives Task and Finish Group and outlined their findings and recommendations for consideration.

To consider a response from the Cabinet Members (copy enclosed)

The Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Local Services welcomed the report of the Task and Finish Group that undertook a review of the modernisation of the Archive Service in Cumbria.  He particularly welcomed the work which illustrated the further opportunities available to the service in terms of responding to changing customer needs eg. Digitisation and sale of services.

RESOLVED,that recommendations 1 to 8 contained in the report be agreed and responded to as detailed in the Cabinet Member response.

Councillor F Morgan to present the Scrutiny Review (copy enclosed)

Mr Morgan presented a paper that updated members of the work of the Attendance and Wellbeing Task and Finish Group and outlined their findings and recommendations for consideration.  In summary he pointed out that absence rates had increased and that in order to successfully reverse the trend managers had to assume responsibility for tackling the issue.

To consider a report from the Cabinet Member – Organisational Development (copy not yet available)

The Cabinet Member for Organisational Development thanked the task   group for their work and confirmed that of the 9 recommendations 6 were supported, 2 were partially supported with 1 not being supported.  Since the report had been received further analysis of the statistics had been undertaken which had resulted in the full year figure for 2011/12 improving to 12.12 days absence per FTE from the 15.23 originally reported.  Recommendation 5 was partially accepted as it was not agreed that targets were the most appropriate means of managing the numbers downwards.  It was felt that performance management using reference to national and in some cases service specific benchmarks would deliver the improvements required.  Recommendation 7 was partially accepted as few Council retained in-house adults social care provision and there was evidence of over reporting of sickness in the service which amplified the position.  The policies with regard to infection control also needed to be considered as these could inflate absence rates but with good reason.  Recommendation 4 was not accepted as the issue related to data quality and accuracy which would be picked up as part of the response to recommendation 3.

RESOLVED,that the report and the responses detailed therein be noted and that a further update on progress be made to Cabinet in 6 months time.

Councillor R Wilson to present the Scrutiny Review  (copy enclosed)

Mr Wilson, a member of the panel, reported to Cabinet the findings and recommendations of a review into Quality Care of Older People in Hospital.  Cabinet was invited to respond to the recommendations in the report.  In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care the Corporate Director responded on his behalf and welcomed the report and its findings.  Whilst the overwhelming majority of the ten recommendations were directed at the NHS they would be picked up and monitored by the Health and Wellbeing Board.  Recommendation 8 which related to discharge protocols including how and where people took major life choices would be investigated to establish how the Council could help to ensure that wherever possible such choices were taken by people in their own homes.

Members agreed that in future the Council would need to be robust in its challenge to health to help deliver the best outcomes for people and that perhaps meetings between the respective Leaders and Deputies should be reinstated to make this a reality.

RESOLVED, that the report, its findings and recommendations be agreed. 

To consider a report from the Leader and the Chief Executive and Corporate Director – Resources (copy enclosed)

The Cabinet considered a report that had been prepared after consultation with both the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council which invited Cabinet to approve certain changes in member working groups and representation on outside bodies. The report took forward Cabinet’s response to the review of Outside Bodies undertaken by the Scrutiny Management Board Task Group and considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 10 May 2012.

Corporate Directors had as requested further reviewed recommendation 2 of the scrutiny review in relation to continuing or ceasing involvement in particular bodies and provided a strategic response.

Information had been provided to Local Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs on the appointments made by Local Committees in order that an examination could be made of those appointments to outside bodies.  Once detailed responses were received a further report would be made as Chairs/Local Committees were approaching the exercise in a number of ways and not all responses were be available by the time Cabinet met.

A minor change was proposed to the name of the Working Group known as Member Steering Group for Minerals and Waste Development Framework and suggested that it should be known as Member Steering Group for Minerals and Waste Local Plan with a consequent change to the purpose due to a change in the statutory development framework system.  This body was shown in the appendix at Part A item 9.

Members noted some minor corrections to the tables listed at pages 123 – 126 of the paper including the correction of the title of the body ‘Cumbria Countryside Access Board’ to ‘Cumbria Countryside Partnership Board’ noting this as an Environment responsibility and the deletion of Cumbria Waste Management Ltd from the list.

RESOLVED, that

                  (1)    the proposed membership of Cabinet sub-groups and other bodies and the amendments detailed at para 1.4 as set out in appendix 1 to the report be approved;

                  (2)    the list of Outside Bodies proposed to which the County Council appoint representatives on outside bodies as set out in paragraph 4.10 of the report be approved.  The detail of the individual appointments to those bodies be agreed by the Corporate Director – Resources following consultation with the Group Leaders;

                  (3)    the Corporate Director – Resources be authorised to make any subsequent changes to the approved list of appointments to Outside Bodies in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Local Services and the Corporate Director – Safer and Stronger (copy enclosed)

Cabinet received a report to update them on a number of strategic health and safety issues.  Members were reminded of the Council’s and their individual responsibilities under the Health & Safety at Work Etc Act 1974.  The report advised of a review of the Council’s health and safety policy statement, and production of the annual health safety report.  Members were asked to make a commitment to attend the health and safety training available to them.  The Leader asked that a copy of the report be circulated to all members electronically.

RESOLVED,that

                  (1)    the continued use of the 2010 health and safety policy statement, as appended, and the 2011 / 12 Annual Health & Safety Report be endorsed;

                  (2)    all Members be recommended to attend one day (IOSH) Institution of Occupational Health and Safety accredited training for senior management.

To consider a report by the Leader and Deputy Leader and the Chief Executive and Corporate Director – Organisational Development (copy enclosed)

The Leader presented a report which set out the requirements placed on the Council as a result of the implementation of the Community Right to Challenge through provisions in the Localism Act 2011 and subsequent regulations.

The report asked Cabinet members to agree that the Council put in place an approach to manage the receipt, acknowledgement, filtering and evaluation of any Expressions of Interest submitted to the Council from groups or organisations interested in running a service on behalf of the Council. The recommended approach included the Council setting a specific period of time during which the Council would consider Expressions of Interest in providing or assisting in providing a service on behalf of the authority, other than for excluded services identified in paragraph 4.10. It was recommended that this time period be 1^st May 2013 to 31^st July to align with the Council’s strategic planning process, and to allow sufficient time for the relevant decision-making processes.

The report also recommended that the maximum amount of time that the Council would take between receipt of an Expression of Interest and notification of a decision would be 90 days, and that this was published on the Council’s website to meet the requirements placed on the Council through the legislation.

Appendix 1 of the report outlined a process map for the managing of Expressions of Interest, and Appendix 2 was a draft generic standard form for Expressions of Interest to be submitted.

RESOLVED,that

                  (1)    the Council would put in place a process to manage and respond to the receipt of Expressions of Interest under the Community Right to Challenge as outlined in paragraphs 4.21 – 4.28, and in Appendix 1;

                  (2)    the Council would only consider Expressions of Interest submitted between 1 May 2013 and 31 July 2013, and in the same months in subsequent years, in line with the Council’s strategic planning process;

                  (3)    the Council would publish the maximum amount of time between receipt of an Expression of Interest and notification of a decision as 90 days;

                  (4)    the Chief Executive would make final adjustments to the paperwork attached at Appendix 2, to ensure it met national regulations and reflected local circumstances, prior to publication.

To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment and the Corporate Director – Resources (copy enclosed)

The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment reported on the plans of NuGeneration Limited to develop a new generation nuclear power station of up to 3.2GW on land adjacent to the existing Sellafield Site.  The promoters had asked National Grid to provide them with connections to the national electricity network. The current Electricity North West Transmission System serving West Cumbria had insufficient capacity to support Nuclear New Build. Therefore National Grid need to reinforce the existing electricity transmission network to provide the necessary connections, otherwise it would not be possible for the Moorside Project to go ahead.

Cumbria County Council would not be the determining Planning Authority for the North West Coast Connections Project.  The Planning Inspectorate would handle the planning submission, with substantial involvement from affected Local Authorities.   

On 11^th May 2012, National Grid launched a ten week consultation on their Preliminary Strategic Options Report (PSOR), which informed statutory consultees and other stakeholders of the range of technically feasible reinforcement options (the Strategic Options) that would form the basis for a more detailed study of possible route corridors and sites for the reinforcement works.  This was an informal consultation by National Grid and would not form part of the formal planning process.

Officers from Cumbria County Council had reviewed National Grid’s appraisal of the six Strategic Route Options considered within the PSOR and subsequently produced a response to the consultation, which was included in Appendix 1 for Cabinet’s endorsement.  Cabinet Members also noted that the Council’s Nuclear Issues Working Group had considered the matter closely and their views had been incorporated into the officer response.  Members noted that the Constitution Review Group were to examine the respective roles of Development Control & Regulation Committee and Cabinet in relation to local impact reports.  

RESOLVED,that Cabinet acknowledge the contribution of the Nuclear Issues Working Group and endorse the Officers’ response to the consultation on the PSOR report, included as Appendix 1 to the report.

PART 2 - ITEMS CONSIDERED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE

PRESS AND PUBLIC