Agenda and minutes

Minute of the meeting of 26 November 2015 to be approved and signed by the Chairman. (Copy attached).

There had been circulated copies of the Minute of 26 November 2015. 

DECISION

NOTED for signature by the Chairman.

With reference to paragraph 2(c) of the Minute of 26 November 2015, the Clerk to the Council advised that Councillor Garvie had resigned from the Working Group.    Councillor Cockburn, seconded by Councillor Logan, moved that Councillor Mountford be appointed to the Scrutiny Working Group as a replacement Member.

Councillor Torrance, seconded by Councillor Gillespie, moved as an amendment that there been no replacement for Councillor Garvie on the Working Group.

On a show of hands Members voted as follows

Motion-                       3 votes.

Amendment    -           3 votes.

The Chairman had the casting vote and voted in favour of the motion.  The motion was accordingly carried.

DECISION

DECIDED to appoint Councillor S Mountford to the Scrutiny Working Group. The Working Group would be: Councillors Cockburn,  Gillespie, Mountford and Campbell (Co-opted).

Consider report by Service Director Neighbourhood Services and Service Director Commercial Services. (Copy attached).

With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 26 November 2015, there had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Neighbourhood Services and Service Director Commercial Services which was in response to a question submitted to the Scrutiny Committee by Ettrick and Yarrow Community Council: To review the extent to which the Scottish Borders Council’s (SBC) budget for road repairs and maintenance was sufficient to meet need and the not unreasonable expectation that roads would be maintained in a safe condition. Within this context, to particularly examine how the allocation of budget for rural roads was arrived at and whether more should be allocated. 

The Chairman welcomed Mr Drummond-Hunt, Service Director Neighbourhood Services, to the meeting.   Mr Drummond-Hunt began by giving the background to the allocation of resources nationally and the competing interests for limited funding, and how the standards and level of service were determined across the Scottish Borders.  He advised that the Council faced significant budget pressures, with a very constrained roads budget which officers tried to maximise to get the most of out it and prioritise what was best for the roads network.  The Roads Asset Management Plan (RAMP) was a key document in delivering road services, providing technical detail and operation standards.   The RAMP gave a list of works required but the budget was not sufficient to cover all that was required.  Mr Drummond-Hunt advised that the Council’s carriageway assets totalled 2,968 km and these lengths of roads were classified into A, B, C and U in rural and urban areas.  He explained that allocation of funds was not based on road length, but on need.  Priority was given to A and B class roads which carried the bulk of traffic and were generally high speed, covering large topographical areas which could be the subject of serious accident sites.  Classification C and U were lower priority and generally lower speed, so the standard of repair did not require to be as high but the roads were still safe.  He went on to explain the Road Condition Indicator (RCI), a survey which collected condition measures including longitudinal profile, lane rutting, texture of surface and cracking.  The results from the RCI were used to prioritise SBC’s road repair programme.   The RCI Results Table 2014-16, detailed in the report, showed that 46.3% of the Council’s roads required repairs at the moment.  Best practice suggested that this should be around 30%, which would probably be achievable in an urban authority as they would have a much smaller road network.  It was anticipated that there would be a gradual increase in road repair requirement over the next five years should current funding levels continue.  In 2015/16, there was £3m in the capital budget for roads, with approximately £2.5m allocated to the rural road network and £0.5m to the urban road network.  To recover the position to best practice level, would require significant investment of £80-£90m over the next five years.  A review of Roads Services was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Consider a proposal to  amend the Council’s Scheme of Administration to allow the addition of three non-voting external members on the Scrutiny Committee and that these additional members will also be eligible to be non-voting members of a Scrutiny Working Group.

With reference to paragraph 15 of the Scottish Borders Council meeting of 17 December 2015, the Clerk to the Council advised that Council had decided to take no further action in respect of Councillor Logan’s motion until the matter had been discussed in full by Scrutiny Committee. 

Councillor Logan, seconded by Councillor Cockburn, had moved the Motion in the following terms:

“That Scrutiny Committee agree to recommend amendment of the Council’s Scheme of Administration to allow the addition of three non-voting external members on the Scrutiny Committee and that these additional members will also be eligible to be non-voting members of a Scrutiny Working Group”

Councillor Logan spoke to his Motion, explaining that he considered it would be beneficial to Scrutiny to receive external members’ views when carrying out reviews.  He considered there would be demand from those who were interested in Scrutiny and they would bring a different set of skills to the Committee.  Councillor Cockburn added that while Scrutiny was a good, strong Committee, having external members would bring an alternative perspective which would help inform debate, and make the Committee stronger still.  

Councillor Nicol advised that, whilst it was beneficial to have independent members on Committees, Scrutiny Committee dealt with many different subjects, so it would therefore be beneficial to ask specific experts to attend Scrutiny Committees and working group meetings, when appropriate.  Councillor Nicol, seconded by Councillor Gillespie, moved as an amendment that there be no additional non-voting members on Scrutiny Committee.

            VOTE

On a show of hands Members voted as follows

Motion             -           2 votes

Amendment     -           4 votes.

The amendment was accordingly carried. 

            DECISION

*        DECIDED to RECOMMEND that there be no additional non-voting members appointed to the Scrutiny Committee.

Update on Subjects included in the Future Scrutiny Review Programme. (Copy attached).

With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of 26 November 2015, there had been circulated an updated list of subjects which Scrutiny Committee had been asked to review and which included the source of the request, the stage the process had reached and the date, if identified, of the Scrutiny meeting at which the information would be presented.  In addition, Members were also asked to consider further subjects for inclusion on this list for presentation at future meetings of the Committee.  When deciding whether subjects would be reviewed by the Scrutiny Committee, Members required a clear indication from the initiator of the request as to which aspects of the subject they wished to be reviewed.  This would enable the Committee to determine whether they subject was appropriate for consideration.  Councillor Gillespie asked that following the recent news of the tragic death of a young boy who had been Home Schooled, that Scrutiny Committee review Home Schooling further - in particular, to consider a change in the law to ensure that health assessments for home schooled children were carried out. The review should also assess parents to ensure that they were adequate educators for primary and secondary education.  Members unanimously agreed that Home Schooling be reviewed.  Councillor Torrance also requested an update on the previous recommendation to the Executive Committee on Home Schooling.

Members also discussed whether the Scrutiny Committee should look at the current ICT review.  The Chief Executive, who had joined the meeting at this point, clarified that a full Members’ seminar on the ICT review was planned prior to a report being considered by full Council.  Meetings were being held with CGI and details were still being finalised.  A report on the ICT Review was due to be considered at Corporate Management Team’s meeting the following week, after which a full seminar for all Members was planned, with individual briefings for political groups also arranged if required.  As well as this seminar, prior to that there would also be a development workshop for all Members on understanding technology, to ensure that they were conversant with the various IT aspects and issues facing the Council.  Following discussion, Members agreed not to look at the ICT review at this time.  Officers were also delegated to manage the timetable for reviews as appropriate.  

DECISION

AGREED:

(a)       To note the proposed list of subject for review by Scrutiny Committee;

(b)       that the Clerk to the Council provide an update at the next meeting on the previous recommendation to the Executive Committee on Home Schooling;

(c)       not to look at the ICT Review at this time; and

(d)       to note that the Chief Executive was arranging a seminar and development workshop for Members prior to the report on the ICT Review being considered by full Council.

The next meeting of Scrutiny Committee will be held on Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 10.00 am.

The next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee would take place on Thursday, 18 February  2016.

The Committee noted the private section of the Minute of 26 November 2016.