To receive any questions from the public, notice of which has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 14.

Two petitions have been received, each bearing over 1,000 signatures;

Firstly a petition from Mr Alan James, Branch Secretary, Shropshire Unison, actively pursuing the ‘5.4% Campaign’ to return the lost 5.4% pay back into employee’s salaries.

Secondly a petition from Mr Peter Norman, urging Shropshire Council to continue financing services for young people provided by Ludlow Foyer at the current level during 2017/18 and subsequent financial years.

Each petitioner will be allowed 5 minutes to outline their case, after which there may be a debate of up to 15 minutes, maximum.

Petitions

The Speaker advised that two petitions, each bearing more than 1,000 signatures had been received.  Each petitioner was given 5 minutes to open the debate and outline their case, which was briefly as follows;

a)    Mr Alan James, Branch Secretary, Shropshire Unison – this petition actively pursued the ‘5.4% Campaign’ to return the lost 5.4% pay back into employee’s salaries.

Mr James stated that in June 2011 Shropshire Council staff reluctantly accepted a 5.4% pay cut which was intended to be for a short time-limited period.  In fairness, he said the reduction was actually 4% due to Unison negotiating a cut in the original figure of 1.4%.  To date, this reduction has not been re-instated and the campaign proposed two parts; firstly to get the Council to debate this and vote to honour their original decision to restore Shropshire staff’s pay grades in line with the national frameworks and secondly for Council to open negotiations with Unison as to how this pay parity could be achieved in a sensible and manageable way.  The original pay cut had been staged over two years and Unison’s view was that it would not be unreasonable for any amendment to be rectified in the same manner; staged over two years across all pay grades.

The Campaign was not about greed and avarice it was about fairness, respect and recognition.

A debate ensued with the following members speaking in full support of the petition; Mr R Evans, Mr A Mosley, Mr D Kerr and Mrs M Shineton.  In formally responding to the petition, the Leader, Mr M Pate confirmed that yes, staff were the biggest asset in Shropshire Council and were very much appreciated.  However, the reality was that the revenue budget situation was worse now than it had been in the past and this was not the right time to take such action.  This was regrettable and Mr Pate did not rule it out in the future, but in being realistic, he said the formal response he was recommending as Leader would be to ‘take no further action’. 

A recorded vote was requested and duly agreed.  The result was as follows;

FOR (39):  P Adams, J Barrow, G Butler, J Cadwallader, K Calder, D Carroll, L Chapman, S Charmley, G Dakin, S Davenport, A Davies, J Everall, A Hartley, R Hughes,V Hunt, J Hurst-Knight, S Jones, N Laurens C Lea, David Lloyd, R Macey, D Minnery, C Motley, P Mullock, P Nutting, W Parr, M Pate, J Price, K Roberts, R Tindall, D Turner, A Walpole, S West, C Wild, B Williams, L Winwood, M Wood, T Woodward and P Wynn.

AGAINST (23):  A Bannerman, A Boddington, A Chebsey, T Clarke, P Dee, R Evans, H Fraser, N Hartin, R Huffer, T Huffer, J Keeley, M Kenny, D Kerr, H Kidd, J Mackenzie, P Moseley, A Mosley, K Pardy, V Parry, M Shineton, J Tandy, D Tremellen and K Turley.

NO ABSTENTIONS.

          It was therefore agreed by the majority, to take no further action in respect of this petition.

b)    Mr Peter Norman, Ludlow - this petition urged Shropshire Council to continue financing services for young people provided by Ludlow Foyer at the current level during 2017/18 and subsequent financial years.  (On the day, Mr Mike Beazley spoke on the petition in place of Mr Norman who was unable to attend due to a clash of commitments).

Mr Beazley urged the Council to continue to fund the vital services for young people provided by the Ludlow Foyer at the current level during 2017/18 and in subsequent financial years.  He explained that the Foyer in the Old Marston’s Mill building in Ludlow provided 15 bed spaces in single rooms, communal facilities and a programme of support and training for very vulnerable young people aged 16 to 25.  Five full time members of staff and an external concierge service provided 7 day a week, 24 hour cover under a contract with the Council.  From April 2017, Ludlow Foyer would be one of only two facilities offering bed spaces to young homeless people in Shropshire. 

The Supporting People grant from the Council was £102,000 a year and was due to end in March 2017.  The grant covered the statutory requirement for preventive services for under 18's, and intensive support for vulnerable 18 to 25 year olds.  Funding came from the Adult Services budget and it was understood that cuts to this budget were currently being considered, with final decisions being made later in September.  Mr Beazley stressed that if the £102.000 grant to the Foyer was not renewed in full, the Foyer service would no longer be viable.

A debate ensued with the following members speaking strongly in support of the petition; Cllrs A Boddington, P Dee, A Moseley, A Chebsey and H Kidd.

In response the Portfolio Holder for Adults, Mr L Chapman, welcomed the petition and the opportunity it afforded everyone for a good debate on the Ludlow Foyer.  He confirmed that a partnership approach had been undertaken early on to consider all apsects of funding.  In addition the Performance Management Scrutiny Committee had looked at this and the Portfolio Holder was confident of cuts not having to be made.  The Financial Strategy 2017/18 to 2019/20 was due to be considered by Cabinet on the 28 September 2016 and subject to it’s approval he said he was confident that the proposed cuts for 2017/18 would not take place.  Therefore for those reasons, he proposed to ‘take no further action’ in respect of this petition.  This was duly agreed by the majority.

Cllr C Mellings declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in both petitions and duly left the room and took no part in the debates when the petitions were being considered.

          Public Questions

The Speaker advised that two public questions had been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 15 (a copy of the report containing the questions and the formal responses was attached to the signed minutes):

(i)    Received from Mr D Sandbach regarding support of the Enable initiative.

By way of a supplementary question Mr Sandbach asked if Council members thought the CCG had ‘stabbed service personnel in the back’ because the CCG was unable to properly account for the £4.5 million of its expenditure in the last financial year and did it think the time had now come to set up a working party to consider taking over the local management of the NHS on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health?

In response the Portfolio Holder for Health said she understood Mr Sandbach’s frustration.  There was definitely the need for a whole systems approach and she urged the Chief Executive to approach CCG colleagues to discuss a whole system approach in more detail.

(ii)   Received from Ms E Bullard regarding current mileage rates paid for staff travel by bicycle and encouraging reduced carbon emissions.

          There was no supplementary question.