Agenda and minutes

To consider any announcements by the Mayor or the Leader.

The Deputy Mayor conveyed the Mayor’s apologies for not being able to attend today’s meeting.

The Mayor had attended over one hundred engagements since the last Council Meeting and wished to convey her very best wishes to Members and officers for the forthcoming Christmas holidays.

The Deputy Mayor also reported on her own activity and the pleasure she had had in leading the first Rotherham Carnival with Ray Matthews.

She spoke further on her involvement with Shiloh, the Friends of Herringthorpe Valley Park who were seeking volunteers and her own engagements over the last six months.

The Deputy Mayor was also pleased to report on the first “Outstanding” Ofsted report received by the Council in respect of Liberty House.  A sign of the improvements being made in Children and Young People’s Services.

Members were asked to join the Deputy Mayor in showing their appreciation in recognising the achievements and efforts of officers, Darren Higgins, Richard Fisher, Debbie Hollis, Lisa Ball, Caroline Foster, Vicky Battersby, David Goldsborough, Leighann Blackett, Rachelle North, Shane Reilly and Sophie Godson.

The Deputy Mayor also confirmed the resignation of two Councillors - Councillor Ian Finnie, Ward Member for Dinnington, and Councillor Andrew Roddison, Ward Member for Brinsworth and Catcliffe. 

Members were also asked to have sensitivity and respect the confidentiality of the victim in respect of Item 15 on the agenda, the motion in respect of Councillor Conduct.

Members’ attention was also drawn to the protest earlier today outside the Town Hall by CSE survivors and victims. The Deputy Mayor and a number of other Councillors met with the protesters and heard their concerns, which have been heard and were being taken seriously by the Council and other public bodies in Rotherham.

When asked if he had any announcements to make Councillor Read, Leader, confirmed he had nothing to report.

To receive the apologies of any Member who is unable to attend the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from The Mayor (Councillor Pitchley) and Councillors Allcock, Khan, McNeely, Senior, Steele and John Turner.

To report on any petitions received by the Council.

The Deputy Mayor reported that four petitions had been submitted, but had not met the threshold for consideration by Council, and would be referred to the relevant directorate for a response to be prepared. The petitions concerned:-

·             From residents highlighting parking issues on Duncan Street, Brinsworth.    

·             From residents about speeding on Magna Lane, Dalton.

·             From residents regarding anti-social behaviour at Barratt Corner, Browning Road, Herringthorpe.

·             From residents requesting a ‘No Waiting’ restriction on the junction of Bennett Croft and Ryton Road, North Anston.

Any communication received by the Mayor or Chief Executive which relates to a recommendation of the Cabinet or a committee which was received after the relevant meeting.

No communications were received.

To invite Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or personal interests they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting, to confirm the nature of those interests and whether they intend to leave the meeting for the consideration of the item.

There were no declarations of interest at the meeting.

To receive the record of proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 19 October 2016 and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 19^th October, 2016, be approved for signature by the Mayor, subject to an amendment to Page 11, last sentence (Minute No. 74) to now read “The Council had developed provision for these extenuating circumstances and if Councillor B. Cutts wished to contact the Deputy Leader or Ian Thomas a site visit would be arranged to our very short term emergency accommodation at your earliest convenience.”

Mover:-  Councillor Read                       Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee.

The following questions were received:-

(1)  From Mr. P. Thirlwall – “Could both the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Board tell him how many times they have voted against officers’ recommendations on planning applications at Planning Board and delegated powers meetings in their present position.  If the number is fewer than twenty times each, please specify the relevant applications.”

In response, Councillor Atkin, Chairman of the Planning Board, confirmed every planning application was considered on its merits and judged on balance.  The Planning Officers would make a recommendation based on their professional judgement and the Planning Board took strong cognisance of that opinion, but on occasions there were differing views.

It was pointed out that named votes at the Planning Board were not recorded, but on clarifying the position from when he and Councillor Tweed became Chair and Vice-Chair in June, 2014 the Planning full Board had voted against recommendations of officers five times. 

From memory Councillor Atkin confirmed that both he and Councillor Tweed had voted against an application in Letwell and a house extension in Todwick. 

In terms of delegated powers meetings the Chair and Vice-Chair did not have the authority to overturn officer decisions and only considered those decisions where less than five objections had been made or for example the application in question was from someone employed by the Council or if it was felt such a decision should be referred to be made by the Planning Board. 

In a supplementary comment Mr. Thirlwall pointed out that at most since being Chairman Councillor Atkin had only voted against officer recommendations on five occasions, or possibly less, which was far less than the Planning Board itself.

He referred to his own attendance experience where Councillor Atkin had voted in favour of the officer recommendation and other Members of the Planning Board had voted against, which was proven incorrect when the application went to appeal.

Mr. Thirlwall regarded delegated powers meetings as pointless if the recommendations by officers were agreed to.  Planning applications were not to be pre-determined and judged on their own merits, but he believed minds were probably made up coming to Planning Board.  He suggested the Council give consideration to electing a more objective Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning.

Councillor Atkin thanked Mr. Thirlwall for his vote of confidence and confirmed he probably did vote less against officer recommendations, but he was never pre-disposed to a decision.  However, he believed Mr. Thirlwall’s view of delegated powers meetings to be inaccurate and again reiterated his comments as he had above on delegated powers meetings with regards to officer decisions.  He gave an example of the process of an application for a site in Todwick.

He agreed that Mr. Thirlwall was probably correct in his recollection of where he had voted against an application which went to appeal, but the decision letter of the Inspector did indicate he agreed with the Council’s decision, but on taking into account the views of the Secretary of State regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

To receive and consider the reports, minutes and recommendations of the Cabinet and Commissioners’ Decision Making Meetings held on 10 October and 14 November, 2016.

Resolved:-  That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet/Commissioners’ Decision Making Meeting held on 10^th October, 2016 be received and Minute Nos. 88 (Capital Programme) and 89 (Forge Island) be approved and reports and minutes of the 14^th November, 2016, be received.

Councillor Jepson referred to Minute No. 99 (Discretional Signing Policies) and offered his full support to the review of this policy having experienced difficulties for signs in his own Ward and found the whole process onerous.

He also referred to Minute No. 119 (School Crossing Patrol Consultation Update) where he had found out from local media that a school in his own Ward was to lose its crossing patrol.  As Ward Member he had not been consulted, but would have liked to have been.  He found it strange that one school, which was on the same road as another, was to keep its school crossing patrol when the other was to lose theirs.  He, therefore, welcomed the sight of and some clarification as to the criteria and the consultation carried out. 

The Leader referred back to the budget setting process last year where it was recommended to make cuts to school crossing patrols and following safety assessments where crossing patrols did not meet indicator standards to withdraw funding.  Schools expressed concern at the short notice, which resulted in one year funding to allow for consultation with schools to take place.  The majority of schools where school cross patrols were in place chose or indicated to continue to fund themselves, which could explain the discrepancy about the two in Councillor Jepson’s Ward.

The Leader confirmed he was happy to pick up this matter and talk through the criteria with Councillor Jepson on which schools had been chosen.  Members did not favour making cuts to services such as this, but due to the austerity measures in place and the sensitivity of decisions taken to keep school crossing patrols in place he was more than happy to pick up individual instances if necessary.

Councillor Jepson had not realised consultation had taken place given that he had three schools in his Ward who were potentially to lose school crossing patrols.  However, it would appear that Anston Park had been reprieved and Anston Brook was to lose their school crossing patrol.  He was pleased if schools were picking up the funding, but still found it strange that of the two schools on the same road the school crossing patrol was to continue at one, which it was deemed the safer of the two.  He was more than happy to pick this up with the Leader after meeting.

Councillor B. Cutts referred Members to the Council agenda, which was more than 250 pages, and commented that the time to consider the contents was insufficient.  With this in mind he asked if consideration could be given to the Council meeting more frequently if the number of pages could not be reduced.

Mover:-  Councillor Read                           Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To consider approval of recommendations in respect of the Capital Programme.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the following projects be supported for inclusion in the Approved Capital Programme 2016/17:-

·             Area Assembly – Neighbourhood Investment - £140,000 (already approved ‘in principle’ by Council on 2^nd March 2016).

·             Swinton Civic Hall Refurbishment - £44,868

·             Replacement of Damaged Waste Bins - £150,775

·             Capitalisation of Cleansing Equipment - £40,000

·             Capitalisation of GIS Transport Software - £25,000

(2)  That the changes to budgets identified in Appendix 6 for projects which are already included in the Approved Capital Programme be approved.

Mover:-  Councillor Alam                        Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To consider recommendations in respect of amending the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the proposed budget adjustment for 2016/17 summarised in section 2.6 of this report be approved.

(2)  That the updating of the Medium Term Financial Strategy as set out in this report, be approved.

Councillor Watson drew attention to the Sustainability Strategy for Children and Young People’s Services and the pressures on funding, not just in Rotherham, but across the country, caused by the increased demand in Children and Young People’s Services.

Adoption of this recommendation would enable the Council to assist and help families maintain children in their care, rather than picking up the pieces afterwards.

Mover:-  Councillor Alam                        Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To consider the adoption of the Rotherham Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Rotherham CIL Charging Schedule be approved with a provisional implementation date of 6th April, 2017.

(2)  That the Rotherham CIL Instalments Policy be approved.

(3)  That the procurement of appropriate software to implement and monitor the CIL charge be approved, subject to the Council’s normal procurement policies.

Councillor Jepson offered his full support to the Levy, but had been disappointed with the time taken to bring the Levy into effect.  He, therefore, urged the Council to bring forward the Levy by the proposed implementation date.

Councillor Lelliott confirmed adoption of such proposals did take time, but confirmed she would do everything in her power to have this Levy in place by April, 2017.

Mover:-  Councillor Lelliott                      Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Working Party to amend the Constitution in respect of the recording and publication of officer decisions

Consideration was given to a report where it detailed the Constitution Working Group had considered the arrangements for the recording and publication of decisions made by officers.  The report set out the recommendations of the Working Group and formalised the value of decision making and would ensure this was publically recorded by officers. 

The Constitution Working Group agreed decisions were required in a proper structured forward plan so that all forthcoming officer decisions could be seen and where appropriate, or of public interest or political concern, these would be referred to the Cabinet for accountable decision making.

This recording system would be taken on board to enable officer decision to be recorded and reviewed properly by scrutiny, thus strengethening the role of Members.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the amendments to the Constitution in respect of the recording and publication of officer decisions as set out in Appendices 1 to 4 of this report be approved.

(2)  That the proposed amendments to the Constitution take effect from 2nd January, 2017.

Mover:-  Councillor Read                       Seconder:-  Councillor Yasseen

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Working Party to amend the Constitution in respect of the financial limit for spending decisions by officers and the definition of a Key Decision.

Consideration was given to a report which detailed how the Constitution Working Group has considered the Scheme of Delegation and in particular the appropriate financial limit for spending decisions by officers and the implications for the definition of a Key Decision and this report set out the Constitution Working Group’s recommendations to Council.

It was suggested that the limit of spending taken by officers should reduce from £500,000 to £400,000 and because of the way decisions were being taken in Cabinet  it was suggested that £400,000 form the mark of key decision.

The tightening of decisions outside of the political domain of £400,000 was lower than Barnsley and Sheffield, but higher than Doncaster.

It was hoped Members would embrace this new system with a proper forward plan of officer decisions, which could be pulled into the political domain, thus making this a more accountable responsibility.   This would be alongside the system of pre-scrutiny, where non-executive Members could make recommendations before Cabinet made decisions and that decisions recommended by Cabinet to full Council could be scrutinised and the informed decision made with the inclusion of the full report for consideration.

This new suite of measures maximised accountability and allowed for decision making in an effective way.  However, these processes would be subject to review in twelve months’ time, but were certainly an important step in the right direction.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the amendments to the Constitution in respect of the definition of a “Key Decision” and the financial limits for officer decision making as set out in Appendices 1 to 3 of this report be approved.

(2)  That the proposed amendments to the Constitution take effect from 1^st February, 2017.

Mover:-  Councillor Read                       Seconder:-  Councillor Yasseen

This Council notes:-

1.     That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

2.     That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

3.     That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

4.     That polling by We Own It found that a  majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This Council believes:-

1.           Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2.            If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services 

3.           Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4.           Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

This Council resolves:-

1.     To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

2.     To write to Sarah Champion MP, John Healey MP and Sir Kevin Barron MP to ask them to oppose clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and to ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21. In addition, we call on them to support Amendment 97, made by the House of Lords, which designates certain bus routes as assets of community value because this provision is important to isolated rural areas as it recognises that there are some areas where the local bus route is a lifeline for the local community particularly the elderly and the low paid.

3.     To work with any organisations such as We Own It to publicise our opposition to clause 21 in the local media.

Buses are really important. Many people rely on them to get to work, go shopping or meet family and friends. Private bus companies took over in the 1980s. Since then, bus fares have gone up, services have got worse and fewer people are using the buses except in London. Privatisation and deregulation (lack of control) have made things worse.

Research shows that public ownership of buses would save us £506 million a year

(TFQL Community Interest Company) which could be invested in better services. In some cities and countries buses are already run for people not profit so we know it can be done.

Proposer:-  Councillor Cooksey            Seconder:-  Councillor Price

Moved by Councillor Cooksey and seconded by Councillor Price

This Council notes:-

1.      That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.

2.      That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

3.      That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

4.      That polling by We Own It found that a  majority of the public (57%) oppose Clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This Council believes:-

1.         Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2.          If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services 

3.         Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4.         Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

This Council resolves:-

1.      To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

2.      To write to Sarah Champion MP, John Healey MP and Sir Kevin Barron MP to ask them to oppose Clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and to ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21. In addition, we call on them to support Amendment 97, made by the House of Lords, which designates certain bus routes as assets of community value because this provision is important to isolated rural areas as it recognises that there are some areas where the local bus route is a lifeline for the local community particularly the elderly and the low paid.

3.      To work with any organisations such as We Own It to publicise our opposition to Clause 21 in the local media.

Buses are really important. Many people rely on them to get to work, go shopping or meet family and friends. Private bus companies took over in the 1980s. Since then, bus fares have gone up, services have got worse and fewer people are using the buses except in London. Privatisation and deregulation (lack of control) have made things worse.

Research shows that public ownership of buses would save us £506 million a year (TFQL Community Interest Company) which could be invested in better services. In some cities and countries buses are already run for people not profit so we know it can be done.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously by the Council.

This Council notes that:

Councillor Roddison, by his conduct in:

·         continuing to take public money without making any attempt to participate in his council duties; and

·         by his grubby action in sneaking in the side entrance to the last council meeting in order to comply with council rules on attendance to enable him to continue to take public money

has brought this council into disrepute in the eyes of the public.

This Council therefore resolves that Councillor Roddison be censured for his conduct.

Moved by Councillor Cowles and seconded by Councillor Julie Turner

This Council notes that:-

Councillor Roddison, by his conduct in:

·                continuing to take public money without making any attempt to participate in his Council duties; and

·                by his grubby action in sneaking in the side entrance to the last Council meeting in order to comply with Council rules on attendance to enable him to continue to take public money

has brought this Council into disrepute in the eyes of the public.

This Council, therefore, resolves that Councillor Roddison be censured for his conduct.

An amendment to the original motion was proposed by Councillor Read and seconded by Councillor Watson to be amended as follows:-

To insert, after “….conduct in:” to read;

•        Breaking the law by committing a sexual  assault

To insert after “…in the eyes of the public.” to read;

Council further notes the current legal limitations with regards to enforcement of Councils’ standards regimes, meaning that Councillors cannot be expelled from office unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment [whether suspended or not] of three months or longer without the option of a fine.

To insert after “…conduct” to read;

“…and requests that the Chief Executive raise the concerns of this Council about the limitations of the current national Standards regime with the government, as illustrated by this case.”

So the amended motion would read in full:-

This Council notes that:-

Councillor Roddison, by his conduct in:-

·                Breaking the law by committing a sexual assault

·                continuing to take public money without making any attempt to participate in his Council duties; and

·                by his grubby action in sneaking in the side entrance to the last council meeting in order to comply with council rules on attendance to enable him to continue to take public money

has brought this council into disrepute in the eyes of the public.

Council further notes the current legal limitations with regards to enforcement of Councils’ standards regimes, meaning that Councillors cannot be expelled from office unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment [whether suspended or not] of three months or longer without the option of a fine.

This Council therefore resolves that Councillor Roddison be censured for his conduct and requests that the Chief Executive raise the concerns of this Council about the limitations of the current national Standards regime with the Government, as illustrated by this case.

The amendment to the motion was put and carried and became part of the substantive motion.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously by the Council.

(The Deputy Mayor (Councillor Keenan), Councillors Allen, Andrews, Atkin, Beaumont, Beck, Bird, Brookes, Buckley, Clark, Cooksey, Cowles, Cusworth, B. Cutts, D. Cutts, Elliot, M. Elliott, R. Elliott, Ellis, Evans, Fenwick-Green, Hague, Hoddinott, Ireland, Jarvis, Jepson, Jones, Lelliott, Mallinder, Marriott, Napper, Price, Read, Reeder, Roche, Rushforth, Russell, Sansome, Sheppard, Short, Simpson, Taylor, Julie Turner, Tweed, Walsh, Watson,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Audit Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Wyatt                      Seconder:-  Councillor Walsh

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Planning Board.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Atkin                        Seconder:-  Councillor Tweed

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Staffing Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:-  That the reports, recommendation and minutes of the meetings of the Staffing Committee be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Alam              Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To put questions, if any, to the designated Members on the discharge of functions of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority and South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, in accordance with Standing Order No. 7(5).

Councillor Brookes asked the Spokesperson for South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue at this time of year when people were more likely to use candles and additional electrical appliances, were we ensuring that people were taking advantage of all the help offered, such as free alarm installation? Was the message going out to all our residents on staying safe and preventing risks?

Councillor Atkin responded by confirming a great deal of work had been undertaken by the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service and the Section 41 briefing paper had been circulated to Members yesterday, which highlighted the number of partnership awards won by the Service.

The Service had fitted 1,064 smoke alarms in vulnerable people’s properties in Rotherham alone this year.  Earlier this year a campaign had been delivered to reduce the number of electrical related house fires in people’s homes and this had seen vans advertising the safer message to all areas of South Yorkshire at risk of house fires along with radio adverts about the most common cause of electrical blazes.  Officers also encouraged visitors to check the safety of their home through the completion of a short online checklist.  All of this activity resulted in a 27% fall in the number of electrical fires during the campaign period.

Currently the Service was focusing on kitchen fires promoting cooking safely messages online and through community events.  The campaign was launched in October and would be measured by the objective of reducing the cooking related fires by 5% during October to December, 2016.

This information had been provided by the Service’s Communications three man team who had recently won a national award for the small team of the year.

To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or their representatives) under Standing Order No. 7(1) and 7(3).

(1)  Councillor Brookes asked could an update be provided on progress since this Council resolved to oppose the re-route of HS2? Residents in her Ward were further concerned about the re-route since the Government updated the Sustainability Statements in November, highlighting detrimental noise and visual impacts on the villages of Thurcroft and Brampton-en-le-Morthen.

The Leader confirmed that the residents’ concerns of Councillor Brookes’ Ward echoed those in other Wards and further to the motion passed by full Council the Leader wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport setting out the support of this Chamber for that position.

On 15th November, 2016 the Secretary of State for Transport confirmed the majority of the route of phase 2, which was the line the Government believed the new high speed railway should take. However, this did not include the railway through South Yorkshire. In making the announcement the Secretary of State for Transport said that he was minded to accept the proposals for the route through South Yorkshire, as set out in July this year and which included a station at Sheffield Midland, as the Government’s preferred option, subject to seeking views in the Route Refinement Consultation. This was also launched on the 15th November and would run for sixteen weeks, the results of which would be used to inform a decision on HS2 in South Yorkshire in 2017.

As part of this consultation HS2 Ltd. have already written to residents living in areas that HS2 passed through and a series of  information events were also planned, details of which were to be announced in the near future. To date HS2 Ltd. have not sought the views of the Council as part of the Route Refinement Consultation.  When they did the Council would respond in accordance with the Council’s position which was to oppose the new eastern route and support the original route through Meadowhall.

Separately, if the route was to follow the M18 corridor Sheffield City Region Combined Authority would commission a study which looked at how to maximise the benefits and minimise the disruption for local communities as part of the process.  The intention was to have the work completed and considered by the Combined Authority so that it could feed into the Route Refinement Consultation.  This Council continued to support the original route through Meadowhall and would endeavour to press this to the Government.

Councillor Ellis made a point of information and confirmed that a public meeting on HS2 was to take place in Bramley on 11^th January, 2017 at 7.00 p.m.

(2)   Councillor Simpson asked could the Council congratulate the Rotherham NHS early move towards more care in the home, but also stand against the failed privatisation of NHS services by Labour, Conservatives and Lib-Dems by the front door and back doors especially mergers and A & E cut backs of STP.

Councillor Roche, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, agreed with the point about congratulating the NHS in providing care in the home thus promoting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.