Agenda and minutes

There were no Declarations of Interest to report.

There were no questions from members of the public or the press.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Dave Richmond, Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods, which captured information to support the consultation relating to potential changes in governance structures of Area Assemblies and to give more clarity of purpose for the Neighbourhood Partnership Teams. The report focused on changes relating to:-

·              The role and terms of reference of the Co-ordinating Groups.

·              A more strategic approach to the Area Plan.

·              Developing Ward Plans.

·              A change of culture in staff and partners.

·              Service delivery through service improvement.

·              Actions designed to transform some of our most deprived Neighbourhoods.

·              Reinforcing and promoting  the Elected Member as Community Leaders.

·              Increasing the confidence of the public in the democratic process.

·              Ultimately making a difference to people’s lives and their communities.

The report also set out six proposals for change, but emphasis was placed on the Co-ordinating Groups becoming more strategic with clearer governance, enhancing the role of Elected Members and promoting democratic accountability with more focus on tackling localised need.

A question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and subsequently clarified:-

-                 Accountability of Elected Members and their roles in determining local need.

-                 Timescales for change.

-                 Support for Proposal 4.

-                 Elements of Proposal 4 already being incorporated by some Area Assemblies.

-                 Need for definitive roles for the Area Assembly and the Co-ordinating Group.

-                 Need for specific consultation processes on the proposals being put forward.

-                 Timetabling and flexibility of specific meetings of the Area Assemblies.

-                 Proposed improved management structures and the safeguards that would be put in place.

-                 Constitutional requirements and clarification of executive arrangements.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be received and the contents noted.

(2)  That a further raft of consultation be initiated and include ADF Chairs, Area Assemblies, Scrutiny Panels, the Cabinet Member with responsibility, the Cabinet, Service Departments, Legal and Democratic Services and partners from other agencies, the voluntary and community sector and Parish Councils.

(3)  That following this consultation a further report be prepared and presented to this Scrutiny Panel.

Consideration was given to a report presented by Anne Charlesworth, Head of Alcohol and Drug Strategy Team at NHS Rotherham, which set out how Rotherham had considerable issues and problems in relation to alcohol misuse, some of the indicators pointing to the fact that even amongst other areas in the Yorkshire and Humber region, Rotherham’s population were excessive consumers of alcohol.

The patterns and trends of Rotherham’s drug using population have remained static for some years characterised predominantly by opiate (heroin) use, but with increasing amounts of crack and cocaine use.  Young Peoples Substance Misuse featured alcohol predominantly, but with increasing numbers experiencing difficulties with their use of cannabis and a range of other “recreational” drugs. 

The Safer Rotherham Partnership also acted as a Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) to which the Alcohol and Drug Strategy Team reported.

Good progress was being made against the local Alcohol Strategy, but more sustained effort would be required in order to make the necessary impact on excessive alcohol consumption in the borough.

Good progress was being made to engage with drug users and access them into treatment, although there needed to be more sustained effort to ensure that more drug users left the treatment system in a planned and sustainable way. 

Further information was provided on the issues associated with teenage drinking, treatment services and long term educational plans for young people experiencing drug and alcohol addiction.

A discussion and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and subsequently clarified:-

·              How widespread the problem with alcohol was.

·              Use of cannabis and its classification.

·              Methadone treatments and the drive to use it to assist in the reduction of crime in the borough.

·              Access to drugs whilst in prison.

·              Health profile and the designation of problem areas by ward.

·              Complacency and normalised view of alcohol use by young people.

·              Educational involvement into the dangers of alcohol and drug misuse in schools.

·              The placing of “clean” users back in areas of the borough where they may be at risk of temptation.

·              Voluntary and community sector support and how this could be promoted through Area Assemblies.

·              The Parenting Strategy and how entrenched family problems could be dealt with.

·              Problems being encountered within minority groups and how treatment could be accessed.

·              Awareness raising of the risks associated with drug and alcohol use in the BME community.

Resolved:-  (1)  That Anne Charlesworth be thanked for her informative report.

(2)  That it be noted that a summary of the current assessment of need and strategic objections in relation to tackling Rotherham’s adult drug using population was available in the Strategic Summary of the 2010/11 Treatment Plan.

(3)  That the Young Peoples Substance Misuse Plan equally undertake a needs assessment and set out some key issues for the coming year.

(4)  That it be noted that in relation to alcohol a report was presented to the Safer Rotherham Partnership earlier today outlining progress against the local Alcohol Strategy and highlighting areas that needed improvement.

(5)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

This item was deferred to the next meeting to be held on 11^th March, 2010.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Head of Scrutiny and Member Support, which advised this Scrutiny Panel of progress made to date by the Members’ Working Group to develop and introduce a detailed Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Scrutiny Protocol agreeing mutual roles and practical arrangements for scrutiny.

The Democratic Renewal Scrutiny Panel (designated the ‘Crime and Disorder Committee’) was asked to consider and agree the Protocol prior to its circulation to members of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership for endorsement.

The Scrutiny Panel were in support of the Protocol and welcomed its progress.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be received and contents noted.

(2)  That the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Scrutiny Protocol be supported.

(3)  That the Scrutiny Protocol be referred to the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee.

(4)  That the Protocol be submitted to the next meeting of the Safer Rotherham Partnership for approval.

(5)  That the development of a protocol for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in respect of South Yorkshire be supported.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Head of Scrutiny and Member Support, which sought approval to undertake a scrutiny review of the public perception of Rotherham in co-operation with the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel.

At its meeting on 17th September, 2009 the Panel agreed to undertake two reviews, the first being a review of Devolved Budgets and the second a review of  Perception Indicators to commence during 2010.

The Panel identified the perception of Rotherham as an area of concern following the publication of the 2008 Place Survey and recognised the need to develop actions to improve Rotherham’s position against National Indicators.

The Panel was, therefore, asked if it still wished to undertake this review. If so, it might consider undertaking a joint review with the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel. The Regeneration Scrutiny Panel agreed to undertake a review following a themed meeting on 9th May, 2009, which gave Members information on a number of related issues regarding image and perception of the borough.

It was suggested that a small steering group be set up to determine the scope of the review, identify witnesses and undertake background research.

Resolved:-  (1)  That a Scrutiny Review of Perception be undertaken in conjunction with the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel.

(2)  That Councillors Austen, J. Hamilton and Mannion, along with co-optee, Taiba Yaseen, form part of a small steering group to scope the review and determine who the panel wished to interview.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of the Democratic Renewal Scrutiny Panel held on 10^th December, 2009 be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet Member for Community Development and Engagement held on 11^th December, 2009 and 11^th January, 2010.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee held on 4^th December, 2009.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meetings of the Members’ Training and Development Panel held on 17^th December, 2009.

Reference was made to Minute No. 32 (A Day in the Life of a Councillor DVD) and questions raised about highlighting the balances for those Councillors who were also in employment.  It was reported that this DVD was to be used as part of the induction process for newly elected Councillors and did indeed interview some Councillors who were in employment.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.

The following item is likely to be considered in the absence of the press and public as being exempt under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended March 2006) (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular individual (including the Council)):-

Resolved, that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act (information relates to finance and business affairs).

Consideration was given to a presentation by Pete Hudson, Director of Service Finance, which focused on the budget 2010/11 and beyond. 

The presentation drew attention to savings and investment proposal developments having regard to:-

·        The Budget Gap.

·        Current spend in Service areas compared to similar Councils.

·        Service performance compared to similar Councils.

·        Current Service spending pressures.

·        Proposals to bridge the budget gap.

·        Directorate-specific saving proposals

It was noted that detailed proposals would be considered by the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee at its meeting on 12^th February, 2010.

Discussion ensued on the information presented and queries raised and answered relating to the impact of any saving proposals on the voluntary and community sector and the relationship of value for money goods procured by RBT.

Resolved:-  (1) That Pete Hudson be thanked for his informative presentation.

(2)  That the information presented be noted.