Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Highland Council held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 10.35am.

1. Calling of the Roll and Apologies for Absence
A’ Gairm a’ Chlàir agus Leisgeulan

Present: 

Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner (V/C), Mr I Brown, Mr J Bruce, Mrs C Caddick, Miss J Campbell, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr A Christie, Dr I Cockburn, Mrs M Cockburn, Mr G Cruickshank, Ms K Currie, Mrs M Davidson, Mr J Finlayson, Mr M Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr L Fraser, Mr R Gale, Mr J Gordon, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Ms P Hadley, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Henderson, Mr A Jarvie , Ms E Knox, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr R MacDonald (V/C), Mrs D Mackay, Mr D Mackay, Mr W MacKay (V/C), Mr G MacKenzie, Mrs I MacKenzie, Mr S Mackie, Mrs A MacLean, Mr C MacLeod, Mr D MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mrs B McAllister, Mr J McGillivray (V/C) (am only), Mr N McLean  (V/C), Ms L Munro, Mrs P Munro, Mrs M Paterson, Mr I Ramon, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mrs F Robertson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr K Rosie, Mr G Ross, Mr P Saggers, Mr A Sinclair, Ms N Sinclair (V/C), Mr C Smith, Ms M Smith, Mr B Thompson

In Attendance: 

Chief Executive
Chief Executive Designate
Depute Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Resources
Director of Development & Infrastructure
Director of Care & Learning
Director of Community Services

Mr B Lobban in the Chair

1. Calling the Roll and Apologies for Absence
A’ Gairm a’ Chlàir agus Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mr B Allan, Mrs J Barclay, Mrs G Campbell-Sinclair, Mr K Gowans, Mr R Laird, Mr A Mackinnon, Mr R MacWilliam, Mr H Morrison, Mr A Rhind and Ms C Wilson.

2. Declarations of Interest
Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

The Council NOTED the following declarations of interest:-

Item 13.b – Mr A Christie, Mr A Jarvie and Ms E Knox (all Non-Financial)

Prior to the commencement of formal business the Convener thanked Mr S Barron, Chief Executive, for his service to the Highland Council, this being his last full Council meeting prior to retirement.  The Leader of the Council and other Members also paid tribute to his outstanding work, referring to his wise counsel, approachable manner and his approach to maximising the Capital Programme whilst also bringing efficiencies from his experience in the private sector.  The Convener then presented him with a token of the Council’s gratitude on behalf of Elected Members.  Mr Barron responded in suitable terms.

Congratulations were also expressed to the Highland Council staff who had lifted the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation Benefits and Welfare Reform Team of the Year Award.  Their entry had described their customer-focussed model which provided local services at the point of need and single access to Council entitlements. Through collaboration with partners, they had increased benefit take-up by £6M for customers and delivering service cost savings over £1.3M.

Appreciation was also expressed to Highland Council from the Camanachd Association for its on-going support for the sport of shinty, demonstrated at the international shinty-hurling match held on 20 October 2018 and the after-match reception hosted at the Town House.  2018 was the 125th Anniversary of the Camanachd Association and Members wished the Association well in meeting its strategic objectives of fostering, encouraging, promoting, developing and growing the sport.  Calls were made for the Council to continue to support shinty in both the rural and urban areas, whilst also strengthening the links with the language and culture of the Highlands, and to acknowledge the contribution made by all those involved in the sport.

3. Membership of the Council
Ballrachd na Comhairle

Members were advised that Ms Kate Stephen had confirmed her resignation as a Member of the Council with effect from 1 October 2018.

On that basis, a By-Election for Ward 5 (Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh) had now been arranged and would be held on Thursday, 6 December 2018.

4. Confirmation of Minutes 
Daingneachadh a’ Gheàrr-chunntais

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record the Minutes of Meeting of the Council held on 6 September 2018 as contained in the Volume which had been circulated separately - which were APPROVED.

5. Minutes of Meetings of Committees
Geàrr-chunntasan Choinneamhan Chomataidhean

There had been submitted for confirmation as correct records, for information as regards delegated business and for approval as appropriate, the Minutes of Meetings of Committees contained in Volume circulated separately as undernoted:-

Nairnshire Committee, 12 September 2018
Audit and Scrutiny Committee, 20 September 2018
Care, Learning and Housing Committee, 18 October 2018

The Minutes, having been moved and seconded were, except as undernoted, APPROVED – matters arising having been dealt with as follows:-

Starred Item: Item 15: PP.14: Review of Statutory Consultation Exercise on the Establishment of a Catchment Area for Bun-sgoil Ghàidhlig Loch Abar

The Council AGREED the creation of a catchment area for Bun-sgoil Ghàidhlig Loch Abar on the basis shown at Appendix 4 of the consultation report.

6. Highland and Western Isles Valuation Joint Board 
Co-Bhòrd Luachaidh na Gàidhealtachd is nan Eilean Siar

There had been circulated for information Minutes of Meeting of the Valuation Joint Board held on 21 June 2018 (approved by the Board on 13 September 2018) which were NOTED.

7. Community Planning Board 
Bòrd Dealbhadh Coimhearsnachd

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Community Planning Board held on 21 June 2018 (approved by the Board on 4 October 2018) which were NOTED.

8. Recruitment Panel  
Pannal Fastaidh

There had been circulated for information Minutes of Meeting of the Recruitment Panel held on 14 September 2018 which were NOTED.

9. Health and Social Care Working Group                                                
Buidheann-obrach Slàinte agus Cùraim Shòisealta

There had been circulated Minutes of Meeting of the Health and Social Care Working Group held on 19 September 2018 which were APPROVED.                                                                  

10. Membership of Committees, etc
Ballarachd Chomataidhean, msaa

The Council was advised that, following the resignation of Ms K Stephen, nominations were being sought at the meeting for the position as Vice Chair of the Care, Learning and Housing Committee.

In this regard, having been duly proposed and seconded, nominations were received for the appointment of Vice Chair of the Care, Learning and Housing Committee as follows:-

Ms L Munro
Mr A Jarvie

On a vote being taken, Ms Munro received 46 votes and Mr Jarvie received 10 votes, with 6 abstentions, the votes having been cast as follows:-

Votes for Ms L Munro
Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr B Boyd, Mrs C Caddick, Miss J Campbell, Mrs M Cockburn, Ms K Currie, Mr L Fraser, Mr J Gordon, Ms P Hadley, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Baxter, Mrs B Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr A Christie, Dr I Cockburn, Mrs M Davidson, Mr J Finlayson, Mr M Finlayson, Mr R Gale, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Ms E Knox, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Louden, Mrs B McAllister, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr R MacDonald, Mrs D Mackay, Mr W Mackay, Mr G Mackenzie, Ms A MacLean, Mr C MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mrs L Munro, Mrs P Munro, Mrs M Paterson, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mrs F Robertson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr K Rosie, Mr G Ross, Ms N Sinclair, Ms M Smith and Mr B Thompson

Votes for Mr A Jarvie
Mr J Bruce, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr A Jarvie, Mr D Mackay, Mr S Mackie, Mr D MacLeod, Mr I Ramon, Mr P Saggers, Mr A Sinclair and Mr C Smith.

Abstentions

Mr R Bremner, Mr I Brown, Mr C Fraser, Mr J McGillivray, Mrs I MacKenzie and Mr N McLean.

It was therefore AGREED that Ms L Munro should be appointed as Vice Chair of the Care, Learning and Housing Committee.

The Council AGREED the following:-

Audit and Scrutiny Committee – Mr A Graham replace Ms K Stephen

Care, Learning and Housing Committee – Mr D Rixson to replace Ms K Stephen

Redesign Board – Mrs H Carmichael to replace Mr M Reiss

11. Question Time                                                                                         
Am Ceiste

The following Questions had been received by the Head of Corporate Governance in terms of Standing Order 11–.

(i)    Mr A Jarvie

To the Leader of the Council

‘Was any information forthcoming on the support available from the Scottish Government for the provision of toilet facilities on your 20 August meeting with Kevin Stewart MSP?’

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Jarvie queried whether any further meetings were planned with the Scottish Government to raise the issue.

In response, the Leader responded that, although no meetings were planned specifically on the issue of public toilets, discussions had taken place with Fiona Hyslop MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs who had encouraged Highland Council to apply to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund for the strategic network of public toilets along the NC500.

(ii)   Mr J Bruce

To the Leader of the Council

‘Given that HIE awarded an £8.5m funding package to Macdonald Hotels to develop the Aviemore Resort, including the construction of the leisure arena in the early 2000s, should Macdonald Hotels not allow Highlife card members to use the swimming pool facility in view of the public funds they enjoyed and has this point been raised in negotiations?’

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mr Bruce queried what conditions were attached to the funds from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to MacDonald Hotels.

In response, the Leader responded that details of the conditions would be investigated and shared with Mr Bruce.

(iii)  Mrs M Cockburn

To the Leader of the Council

‘What progress has been made in the review process that the Administration were undertaking with regard to NHS integrated health care partnership?’

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Mrs Cockburn queried if the Leader was confident in the transparency of the accounting and engagement with NHS colleagues.

In response, the Leader confirmed that  new governance arrangements had been agreed but more detailed discussions were now required as to how the financial governance arrangements would operate.

(iv)   Ms M Smith

To the Budget Leader

‘Would you provide a detailed list of all expenses incurred in the financial year 2017-18 by Officers and Members with regard to attendance at conferences and seminars outwith Highland, giving the conference title?’

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Ms Smith queried what other areas of expenditure within the Council lacked similar levels of detail.

In response, the Depute Budget Leader confirmed that there were very few but if there were specific areas required these would be investigated.

(v)    Dr I Cockburn

To the Leader of the Council

‘What information did the Brexit meeting you attended in Edinburgh with other Council Leaders on 28 September 2018 provide you with?’

The response had been circulated.

In terms of a supplementary question, Dr Cockburn queried if the Leader would give a full briefing of the meeting held on 28 September and the meeting on 22 October, given the importance of Brexit.

In response, the Leader confirmed that the minutes of the Highlands and Islands Leaders Group and, when ready, the Convention of the Highlands and Islands could be shared with Dr Cockburn.

12. Notices of Motion 
Brathan Gluasaid

The following Notices of Motion have been received in accordance with Standing Order 12:-

(i) ‘Council believes that although good quality pupil assessment is an essential component of the drive to raise educational standards in Scotland’s schools it is simply not necessary in Primary 1 and places additional workload on to teachers with no real improvement in educational outcomes for these children.

Larry Flanagan, General Secretary of the EIS said in August this year, “We are sceptical about the worth of standardised assessments generally, but we’re particularly opposed to their introduction for P1 pupils.  They bring a rigid formality to assessment at a stage where the judgements of teachers, based on observation of child centred learning, are all that’s needed”.

With so many frontline teaching staff opposed to these tests, this Council calls on the Scottish Government to respect the Parliamentary vote to scrap these tests and for the Leader to write to John Swinney to represent this Council’s view’.

Signed: Mrs I MacKenzie     Mr A Christie

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• concern was expressed at the methodology and that the data collected was unreliable.  Consequently, there was little value in the tests but, unfortunately, it was teachers and pupils who were the ones affected;
• tests could take 40 minutes or more and, in a class of 25 pupils, this could take a teacher two weeks to complete.  Furthermore, testing at such a young age could mean some pupils would tire of being tested and would rush through the test simply to complete it;
• children developed at varying stages and were influenced by a variety of factors such as environment etc.  Rather than testing, pupils should be allowed to grow and explore at their own rate;
• P1 pupils were still often “feeling their way”.  Also, learning was very much based around human relationships and building trust and, while the intentions of testing were undoubtedly admirable, these were based solely on factual evidence;
• pupil confidence took time to build but could easily be knocked by testing.  While everyone wanted the best for pupils these tests added pressure and many were intimidated by the process;
• testing interrupted the time that should be devoted to learning;
• the curriculum in P1 was centred around play and testing was consequently unlikely to achieve anything;
• although it was the common perception that we lived in an inclusive society, some P1 pupils might never have used IT equipment and would therefore be placed at a disadvantage;
• teachers could assess pupils through their experience and training and these tests therefore deskilled them.  Formal assessment could take place much later;
• profiles of pupils were carried out in Pre-school and it was questioned what additional information P1 tests could bring;
• there were instances in Highland where pupils were being tested up to three times in P1;
• although it was argued that P1 tests were unpopular with parents, some Members pointed out this issue had rarely been raised either with them, the Director of Care and Learning or the Chair of the Care, Learning and Housing Committee and this lack of representation was mirrored in other local authorities;
• there was a historical culture of assessment in Highland and it was perhaps society’s attitude towards them that was the issue;
• John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills was due to make an announcement on this matter imminently and it was inappropriate for the Council to take any action meantime.  However, it was understood the Cabinet Secretary felt testing still had merits, albeit that he would ask Education Scotland to independently assess the process and to report back.  Until that point no action should be taken;
• caution was urged at interfering with operational matters which were best left for educational professionals to consider;
• these tests had homogenised the various previous practises which had existed throughout Scotland; and
• there was merit in both formal and informal approaches.

Thereafter, Mrs I MacKenzie, seconded by Mr A Christie, MOVED the terms of the Notice of Motion as detailed.

As an AMENDMENT, Ms K Currie, seconded by Ms M Smith, moved that ‘the assessment to inform professional teaching and support for children and young people in the Highlands is vital to ensure that the child centered learning and teaching occurs and that the attainment gap that exists is reduced for learners in Highlands.  Council supports the teachers and managers of schools to deliver assessments and teaching that nurtures and encourages children and their parents and carers to be active, happy and confident learners and awaits the response from the HMIe investigation into the matter’.

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 39 votes and the AMENDMENT received 21 votes, with 2 abstentions, and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the Motion:
Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr J Bruce, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs B Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr A Christie, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson, Mr J Finlayson, Mr M Finlayson, Mr R Gale, Mr J Gordon, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mrs P Hadley, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Jarvie, Mr B Lobban, Mr R MacDonald, Mr D Mackay, Mrs D Mackay, Mr W MacKay, Mrs I MacKenzie, Mr S Mackie, Mrs A MacLean, Mr D MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mrs B McAllister, Ms L Munro, Mr I Ramon, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr P Saggers, Mr A Sinclair, Ms N Sinclair, Mr C Smith and Mr B Thomson.

For the Amendment:
Mr A Baxter, Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner, Mr I Brown, Miss J Campbell, Dr I Cockburn, Mrs M Cockburn, Ms K Currie, Mr C Fraser, Mr L Fraser, Ms E Knox, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr G MacKenzie, Mr C MacLeod, Mr N McLean, Ms P Munro, Mrs M Paterson, Mr K Rosie, Mr G Ross, and Ms M Smith.

Abstentions:
Mr A Henderson and Mrs F Robertson.

Decision

The Council AGREED the terms of the Notice of Motion as detailed.

(ii) ‘The Highland Council welcomes the interest taken by Scottish Ministers in the Council’s extensive school estate, as demonstrated during recent visits, but is disappointed that this is for political purposes.

The Council has a significant number of schools with condition, suitability and capacity issues.  Regrettably, the Scottish Government continues to ignore our strong case for a different approach to capital investment in our schools.  It fails to recognise the unique challenges of having responsibility for over 200 schools spread across a vast area.

The Council is disappointed that the Scottish Government has delayed any announcement of further schools programme funding, through the Scottish Future Trust, or a successor programme.  This continues to hinder the improvement of our school network.  The Council urges the Scottish Government to work in partnership with the Council to provide a better future for our pupils and staff’.’

Signed: Mr A Baxter    Mr J Finlayson    Ms A MacLean   Ms L Munro   Mr A Christie

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• there was a perception that the lack of progress in moving forward with the school estate was the fault of the Highland Council;
• the Council’s decision to cut its Capital Programme by 50% had caused upset, especially to those Members who had campaigned for new schools or school improvements;
• the Council had identified priority projects which could be considered as viable as bids to the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT).  Previous indications had suggested that the next round of funding from the SFT would have taken place in June 2018 but it now appeared that there would not be another funding round until 2021.  Given the current situation, it was vital the Scottish Government found funding for Capital Projects;
• representations had been made to Highland MSPs and the Scottish Government highlighting the challenges Highland Council was facing.  However, the response was that Highland had received funding which, it was suggested, should have been sufficient and, in terms of the Education (Scotland) Act, that it was the Council’s responsibility to maintain its estate.  Nevertheless, without funding Highland Council could not upgrade and build those projects identified as priorities.  Highland needed to be treated fairly;
• Highland Council had more schools than any other authority, spread over a huge land mass, covering both rural and urban areas, and this presented unique challenges.  Examples were provided of ASGs covering large geographical areas whilst having relatively few feeder primaries and other areas, where considerable amount of house building had taken place, where there was no capacity for more pupils and who had to be transported to other schools;
• there was a duty to provide schools which were watertight, safe and provided an environment for a 21st century education;
• St Clements School was in desperate need of improvement and, despite visits by local MSPs, little had been accomplished.  A call was made for MSPs Marie Todd and Kate Forbes to meet with the Local Members, the Chair of Care, Learning and Housing Committee and the Leader to determine a collective way forward to providing a new school;
• all Members had schools which could be viewed as priorities, Tain Royal Academy and Craighill and Broadford primaries cited amongst the examples.  Situations were reaching critical points and could not be allowed to continue;
• reference was made to the SFT Business Plan 2018/19 where it was suggested the replacement of funding would be known as the Learning Estate Investment Plan and that an announcement would be made by the end of the year;
• it was pointed out that Highland was the second highest funded Council in Scotland in terms of Capital funding for schools;
• it was not solely the fault of Scottish Government.  It was also the fault of successive Council Administrations and decades of neglect now had to be addressed;
• reference was made to a meeting between the SFT and the Council’s Group Leaders where, it was understood, a standardised model was to have been prepared rather than what was perceived as high spec bids.  Assurances were sought, and provided, that this could be incorporated into the Notice of Motion; and
• acknowledging the poor state of schools, some Members had prepared a report looking at alternative ways to build.  It was disappointing that this report had received little interest from fellow Members and officers.   However, this alternative proposal could be used when asking the Scottish Government for funding.

Decision
The Council AGREED the following amended Notice of Motion:-

‘The Highland Council welcomes the interest taken by Scottish Ministers in the Council’s extensive school estate, as demonstrated during recent visits, but is disappointed that this is for political purposes.
The Council has a significant number of schools with condition, suitability and capacity issues.  Regrettably, the Scottish Government continues to ignore our strong case for a different approach to capital investment in our schools.  It fails to recognise the unique challenges of having responsibility for over 200 schools spread across a vast area.

The Council is disappointed that the Scottish Government has delayed any announcement of further schools programme funding, through the Scottish Future Trust, or a successor programme.  This continues to hinder the improvement of our school network.  The Council urges the Scottish Government to work in partnership with the Council to provide a better future for our pupils and staff.

The Council produces some examples of standardised designs to Highland schools, that can be sent along with a letter to Scottish Government showing the Council’s willingness to achieve best value for money in terms of its school building programme.’

(iii) ‘That Highland Council believes that the interests of the people of the Highlands would be best served by a referendum on the terms of leaving the European Union with the option of remaining in the European Union.

We wish to formally add our voice to those calling for a People’s Vote.

We agree to write to our MPs and MSPs expressing our view and asking them to support a People’s Vote and ask Highland Council to make representations to this effect.’

Signed:  Mrs D Mackay     Mr A Christie       Mr J Finlayson

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• although it had been argued that there would be benefits outside the EU, after 2 years of negotiations there was still confusion and uncertainty and what was likely to be delivered was considerably different from what was proposed in 2016.  Consequently, that the public should be able to make an informed choice, once they were furnished with the full facts and figures, and to consider how it would affect the Highlands, Scotland and the UK;
• the key difference between a People’s Vote and the 2016 vote was that the referendum was based on little factual information;
• Brexit would have an impact on future generations and it therefore needed to be ratified by a People’s Vote;
• leaving the EU could have a detrimental impact on tourism in the Highlands;
• it was important that the UK remained in the Single Market and Customs Union;
• the Brexit referendum had been divisive but the decision to leave the EU had been made and Parliament had been given a clear instruction to negotiate how best to do this;
• this was not a single party issue as constituencies from other political parties had voted to leave the EU;
• it was inconceivable not to accept the outcome of one Referendum whilst suggesting that Brexit should be voted on a second time.  If a second vote was to take place, why should it be any more binding that the first one;
• the methods of some associated with the campaign for a People’s vote was questionable and the Council should not be associate this;
• it was questioned if it was the role of the Council to commit itself to a campaign;
• with the country due to leave the EU in March 2019, a People’s Vote would have a shorter lead-in time than the EU Referendum and it would be difficult to see how the public would therefore be better informed this time;
• a leaflet had been sent to every household setting what the 2016 Referendum was about, as well as stating that the Government’s position was to remain.  The Government had however also given a commitment to implement whatever the outcome of the vote was; and
• it was argued that there had been no confusion as the choice had been clear.  Opinions from both sides had been made allowing individuals to make an informed decision.

Thereafter, Ms D MacKay, seconded by Mr A Christie, MOVED the terms of the Notice of Motion as detailed with the first paragraph being amended as follows:-

“That Highland Council believes that the interests of the people of the Highlands would be best served in the Brexit Negotiations by remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union.  If this is not agreed then a referendum on the terms of leaving the European Union with the option of remaining in the European Union should take place”.
As an AMENDMENT, Mr A Jarvie, seconded by Mr S Mackie, moved that the Notice of Motion was disregarded.
 
On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 34 votes and the AMENDMENT received 22 votes, with 2 abstentions, and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the Motion:
Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner, Mr I Brown, Mr A Christie, Dr I Cockburn, Mrs M Cockburn, Ms K Currie, Mr J Finlayson, Mr C Fraser, Mr J Gray, Mrs P Hadley, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Henderson, Ms E Knox, Mr B Lobban, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr R MacDonald, Mrs D Mackay, Mr G MacKenzie, Mrs A MacLean, Mr C MacLeod, Mrs B McAllister, Mr N McLean, Ms L Munro, Ms P Munro, Mrs M Paterson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr K Rosie, Ms N Sinclair, Ms M Smith and Mr B Thomson.

For the Amendment:
Mr A Baxter, Mr J Bruce, Mrs B Campbell, Mrs J Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr G Cruickshank, Mr M Finlayson, Mr J Gordon, Mr A Graham, Mr A Jarvie, Mr D Mackay, Mr W MacKay, Mrs I MacKenzie, Mr S Mackie, Mr D MacLeod, Mr D Macpherson, Mr I Ramon, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mr G Ross, Mr P Saggers and Mr C Smith.

Abstentions:
Mrs C Caddick and Mr R Gale.

Decision
It was AGREED “That Highland Council believes that the interests of the people of the Highlands would be best served in the Brexit Negotiations by remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union.  If this is not agreed then a referendum on the terms of leaving the European Union with the option of remaining in the European Union should take place.
We wish to formally add our voice to those calling for a People’s Vote.

We agree to write to our MPs and MSPs expressing our view and asking them to support a People’s Vote and ask Highland Council to make representations to this effect”.

(iv) ‘This Council recognises the improvement in road safety and reduction in harmful emissions that the 50mph HGV trial has delivered on the A9 between Perth and Inverness and nationwide in England and Wales since 2015.  By reducing speed differences between vehicles, the number of serious injuries from HGV incidents has decreased by 67%.  HGVs travelling at 50mph also produce up to 15% less CO2 than at 40mph.

This Council calls on the Scottish Government to reflect on the success of this trial and make the A9 trial permanent.  But also to further rollout the 50mph limit to other appropriate single carriageway roads.’

Signed:  Mr A Jarvie      Mr M Reiss

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• the significant reduction in collisions was welcomed;
• a consequence of the trial was a reduced need to overtake and speeds were now more consistent;
• the increase in speed from 40mph cut 30 mins off the journey between Inverness and Perth and there was therefore also an economic benefit;
• it was important to drive according to road conditions and professional HGV drivers were well aware of this;
• the average speed cameras on the A9 had improved safety and had undoubtedly changed driver behaviour; and
• a commitment had been given by the Scottish Government that once the A9 pilot report was produced, as was the UK Government’s report on the uplift of speed limits, that full consideration would be given to making the trial permanent. 

Decision

The Council AGREED the terms of the Notice of Motion as detailed.

(v) ‘Council resolves to invite Wipro representatives to a future committee to give information on what processes they have put in place to prevent the serious and severely hampering faults with the remote direct access, which resulted in Council employees and Councillors being unable to access emails for days on end, as well as schools having to cancel in service training days due to having no web access to their materials.’

Signed: Ms M Smith     Ms G Campbell Sinclair    Dr I Cockburn

Given the widespread impact, it was important for this issue to be fully scrutinised at a Corporate Resources Committee.

Decision

The Council AGREED the terms of the Notice of Motion as detailed.

13. Redesign of Highland Council   
Ath-dhealbhadh Chomhairle na Gaidhealtachd

a)     Progress Report 
        Aithisg Adhartais

 There had been circulated Report No. HC/39/18 dated 12 October 2018 by the Chief Executive.

 During discussion of part (a), Members raised the following issues:-

• Councillor M Smith pointed out that she had expressed an interest in being involved with the peer reviews relating to In-house Catering Services.  This was a matter for the Redesign Board to decide;
• in relation to the two new posts in Procured Legal Services, recruitment for one post was underway and the second was being discussed with a view to commencing the recruitment process; and
• cross-party working on the reviews had been beneficial, with project boundaries being a particular challenge, and many requiring long term culture change and investment.  It was important that any investment was tracked against future savings.

The Council NOTED:-

i.   the peer review into commissioned preventative services for children was now complete and was considered elsewhere on this agenda.  The building trades peer review was now substantially complete and would be presented to the Redesign Board for approval on 13 November 2018.  A number of new peer reviews were being tasked;
ii.   an officer level Lean Project team had been established to closely monitor and support the Lean review implementation, especially where savings or income potential were being delayed and to prioritise future Lean reviews, in discussion with the Redesign Board;
iii.  an up-date of the range of redesign reviews and their budget impact, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report; and
iv.   there would be greater focus on implementation of completed Peer and Lean Reviews, with progress reported back through the Redesign Board.

The Minutes of the Redesign Board meeting held on 25 September 2018 were also APPROVED.

b)    Council Redesign – Final Report on Commissioned Children’s Services
Ath-dhealbhadh Comhairle – Aithisg Dheireannach mu Sheirbheisean Chloinne Coimiseanaichte

Declaration of Interest – Mr A Christie as a director of Highland Third Sector Interface Ltd, Highland Citizen Advice Bureau Ltd and General Manager of Inverness, Badenoch and Strathspey Citizens Advice Bureau and a Non-Executive Director of NHS Highland; Mr A Jarvie as his mothered worked for Direct Child Care; and Ms E Knox as a director of Children in the Highlands Information Point declared non-financial interests in this item, but having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that their interest did not preclude them from taking part in the discussion.

There had been circulated Report No. HC/40/18 by the Redesign Team – Children’s Commissioned Services.

During discussion of part (b), Members raised the following issues:-

• assurance was provided that the Council intended to continue working with all relevant partners in the third sector and that many of the suggestions submitted by partners were in the process of being implemented, including the collective ability to report to the Care, Learning and Housing Committee;
• information was sought, and provided, on efforts being made to source foster carers, including improved recruitment methods and web presence, online applications and improved information sources for prospective carers. No increase in interest had yet been noted but work was ongoing to consider the level of the allowance and whether an increase would impact positively on recruitment. It was suggested that although increased allowance might attract more carers initially, the level of ongoing support available for them was a key retention issue;
• Councillor M Smith explained that she had only attended one meeting review of the funding for preventative services commissioned for children, due to prior commitments;
• the commissioned services review was welcomed and had resulted in savings in Care and Learning;
• the potential costs associated with the TUPE of staff in-house had to be taken into consideration;
• further consideration should be given to recruiting retired people as foster carers;
• the services under consideration were being provided to the most vulnerable and fragile people in the community and any changes proposed should only be to make improvements to the quality of their lives and not for the purpose of saving money;
• concern was expressed that the report lacked an equalities impact assessment. Budget decisions should not be taken without this being undertaken and this should be added to the recommendations in the report; it was suggested that the proposed savings could be spread across the three year programme and it was explained that timescales were flexible and that budget decisions would be brought to the Care, Learning and Housing Committee before implementation;
• information was sought, and provided, on the level of involvement of the service users and communities in the decisions;
• the responsibilities of all Members and members of the community planning partnership as corporate parents were emphasised; and
• effective communication within political groupings was encouraged.  However, it was pointed out that Members also, at times, wished to make points as an individual and not always as representatives of the Group.

Decision

The Council AGREED:-

i.    to take forward the proposals presented in section 11.3 of the report and to integrate the proposed in-house hub for Placement and Support Services for Children into the overall agreed approach to the review of Children’s Services delivery;
ii.   to continue to have dialogue with the Highland Third Sector Interface and other stakeholders to ensure that proposed savings can be made with minimum impact to individual clients and families; and
iii.  a savings target of £779k over 2019/20 and 2020/21 with contract lead officers delegated the responsibility to develop proposals as outlined above to achieve the overall targets indicated.  It was recognised that these targets require a full impact assessment and timescales might need to be reviewed in the context of the Council’s future budget considerations.

14. Results from the Citizens’ Panel 2017/18 Performance and Attitudes Survey
Toraidhean bho Shuirbhidh Coileanaidh agus Bheachdan Phannal nan   
Saoranach 2017/18       
                                                                                                              
There had been circulated Report No. HC/41/18 dated 24 September 2018 by the Chief Executive.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• concern was expressed at the decreased levels of public satisfaction in relation to road repairs and potholes and more preventative maintenance was urged to avoid vehicle repair costs and compensation claims.  Highland Council had been ranked 9th best in Scotland in the Scottish road maintenance condition survey in 2011 but had fallen to 24th in 2017.  Of the estimated £21.7m required to maintain the road network at its current level, only £9.7m had been allocated. However the context of extreme budget pressures and the impossibility of ‘catching up’ with the backlog of road maintenance that was required without significant additional funding was explained.  It was also suggested that the road condition could vary throughout the year so the timing of the survey was relevant. In recent years, additional funds had been allocated to the roads budget and this should be publicised;
• it was unfortunate media attention tended to focus on negative issues rather than publicising more positive news.  Better use of social media to answer negative comments and promote positive news stories was suggested;
• increased collaboration with partners, stakeholders, communities and government was urged, to devise new ways of working and delivering services in view of the challenging budget situation. Reference was made to the successes Hull City Council had achieved in this regard;
• staff were thanked for their hard work and the improvements being made to many services, despite the public perception to the contrary, and Members were urged to encourage positive messages to avoid undermining staff confidence; and
• in relation to ‘satisfaction with Council services’ at 3.2 (j) of the report, it was important to consider and report on actions to reduce the negative scores.

The Council:-

i.    NOTED the key findings of the feedback from the Citizens’ Panel from this year’s survey;
ii.   APPROVED the follow up action to communicate the results set out in paragraph 4.1 of the report;
iii.  AGREED to await further analysis and reports as outlined in paragraph 5.3 of the report; and
iv.  AGREED to consider and report on how to reduce the negative scores at 3.2(j) of the report.

15. Towards a Sustainable Financial Future – Revenue Budget Update 2018 - 2022
Cunntas às Ùr mu Bhuidseat

There had been circulated Report No. HC/42/18 dated 15 October 2018 by the Depute Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Resources.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• reference was made to the uncertain and unpredictable economic climate and the working assuptions that would be used to model the budget. One of the economic objectives in the Council’s 2012 Plan was to protect frontline staff and stability and this remained the case, with everything possible being done to avoid compulsory redundancies. Over £100m had been saved in the previous five years and this level of savings had to continue through a stringent programme, based on Best Value audit templates, of meetings and engagement with all stakeholders, initially Members and trade unions and then the public, staff and partner organisations. This would include online surveys, a media launch and facebook forums. The budget was challenging but it was hoped that through extensive engagement the Council would protect jobs, reduce waste, improve services and make the best use of tax payers’ money;
• it was important that commercial activity was adequately resourced, given its vital role in generating income;
• further information on the budget gap information at Table 3.6 in the report was sought for Members;
• more information was sought on the revenue implications of capital spend e.g. the effect of interest rate rises. It was clarified that consideration had been given to risk implications and further information would be provided on this. Two key areas of uncertainty for the budget were the outcomes of equal pay negotiations and the severity of the coming winter;
• reference was made to the 14% increase in Council Tax for the highest four categories of Council tax, as a result of rebanding, during the previous financial year in addition to the agreed 3% rise across the board. In response to suggestion that this additional income of £14.1m had ‘vanished’, it was clarified that it was clearly documented and had been used to bridge the £20m savings gap;
• the serious nature of the current economic climate was emphasised with the Council’s reserves being at their lowest limit, the increasing numbers of older people, decreasing retention of younger people leading to workforce planning challenges and widening education gaps.  Unity among Members was urged to find solutions and increase engagement, including with community councils;
• it was suggested that reserves should be available for emergencies without unnecessary restrictions in relation to repayment and the Depute Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Resources clarified that plans were in place to repay £1m to reserves annually for the next three years to bring reserves back to 2% of the overall budget;
• information was sought, and provided, on the cost of the voluntary redundancy scheme and the savings obtained as a result;
• it was suggested that unachieved savings be reported to the next Corporate Resources Committee;
• consideration was given to the merits of cross-political and group budget collaboration versus independent plans being worked on; and
• it was important that following consultation, any findings or decisions were adhered to and not postponed.

Decision

The Council NOTED the:-

i.    work to date in addressing the budget gap;
ii.   proposals for engagement and consultation; and
iii.  current risks and uncertainties.

AGREED that :-

i.    that community councils be engaged as part of the consultation process;
ii.   more detailed information be shared with Members in relation to the figures contained in Table 3.6 of the report and on the revenue implications of capital spend both historical and future;
iii.  an update be provided on equal pay negotiations; and
iv.   when the Council withdraws from its reserves plans for replenishment are communicated to Members.

16. Review of Public Conveniences in the Highlands                               
Ath-sgrùdadh air Taighean-beaga Poblach 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
There had been circulated Report No. HC/43/18 dated 8 October 2018 by the Director of Community Services.

During discussion, the following issues were raised:-

• officers were thanked for the work undertaken during the summer to address the considerable concern expressed from various sources including members of the public;
• reference was made to the need to introduce fairness in the number of facilities available in each community, with some towns being currently better provided for than others. Detailed scrutiny and local engagement would take place around this;
• reference was made to the current 201 Public Convenience facilities that were available for public use and to planned partnership working with communities that could also consider other services such as showers and waste disposal, as detailed in the report;
• an explanation was sought, and provided, on the savings to be realised through the creation of mobile teams to service facilities within a certain radius.  This would create up to 18 full-time posts, reducing the number of full-time equivalents required to provide the service by 11.  Assistance would be provided to staff who required re-training, for example, to obtain a driving licence;
• it was hoped to developed an app to map all facilities;
• an explanation was sought, and provided, for the savings and expenditure figures in the report, some of which were estimated, that resulted in a the net value of the savings to be delivered of £0.491m;
• a definition was sought, and provided, of a ‘publicly accessible toilet’;
• information was sought on how  a condition of sale for facilities sold on the open market that they be retained as a public convenience could be enforced;
• information was sought on which facilities would be serviced by the proposed mobile teams. Effective public communication on this was urged;
• reference was made to public conveniences having come 13th on the priorities list in the Citizen’s Panel survey and, as a result, specific public convenience options were sought for Inverness in consultation with Members, partners and third sector organisations;
• specific queries regarding distances to individual facilities would be addressed outwith the meeting; and
• concern was expressed that there was insufficient concrete information and figures to agree the matter and that it should be deferred pending more accurate figures.

As a MOTION, Mr A Henderson, seconded by Ms L Munro, moved the recommendation as detailed in the report.

As an AMENDMENT, Ms K Currie, seconded by Ms P Hadley, moved that a paper was presented to this council with accurate figures, projection and details in relation to the public convenience provision in the Highlands, which could be appropriately scrutinised and debated by Members.

Whilst accepting the recommendation within the report to reduce the number of facilities from 201 to 191, Mr A Jarvie moved, but failed to find a seconder, that the facilities at Fortrose and Kinlochbervie be moved from the section “alternative non-Council provision be found” to the list detailing “proposed retention of facilities.  

On a vote being taken, the MOTION received 33 votes and the AMENDMENT received 23 votes, with 2 abstentions, and the MOTION was therefore CARRIED, the votes having been cast as follows:-

For the Motion:
Mr G Adam, Mr R Balfour, Mr A Baxter, Mrs C Caddick, Mrs B Campbell, Miss J Campbell, Mrs H Carmichael, Mr A Christie, Mr G Cruickshank, Mrs M Davidson, Mr J Finlayson, Mr R Gale, Mr J Gordon, Mr A Graham, Mr J Gray, Mr T Heggie, Mr A Henderson, Mr B Lobban, Mr R MacDonald, Mrs D Mackay, Mr W MacKay, Ms A MacLean, Mr D Macpherson, Mrs B McAllister, Ms L Munro, Mrs M Paterson, Mrs T Robertson, Mr M Reiss, Mr D Rixson, Mrs F Robertson, Mr G Ross, Mr A Sinclair and Mr B Thompson.

For the Amendment:
Mr B Boyd, Mr R Bremner, Mr I Brown, Mr J Bruce, Dr I Cockburn, Mrs M Cockburn, Ms K Currie, Mr C Fraser, Mrs P Hadley, Mr A Jarvie, Ms E Knox, Mr D Louden, Mrs L MacDonald, Mr D Mackay, Mr G MacKenzie, Mr C MacLeod, Mr D MacLeod, Mr N McLean, Ms P Munro, Mr I Ramon, Mr K Rosie, Ms N Sinclair and Ms M Smith.

Abstentions:
Mrs I MacKenzie and Mr C Smith.

Decision
The Council:-

i.    NOTED that:-
a.    There was currently a total of 201 facilities throughout the Highlands that were available for public use;
b.    90% of the Highlands’ population were within a 15 minute drive of a publicly accessible toilet; and
c.    There were considerable opportunities for the Council, through working in partnership with communities and other alternative service providers, to deliver strategic facilities that would support tourism across the Highlands and address the increase in visitor numbers on smaller local facilities.
ii.   NOTED the progress on implementation of the savings agreed at the Council meeting on 15 February 2018;
iii.  NOTED the outcome of the Strategic Review of Public Conveniences in the Highlands;
iv.  AGREED that officers continue to work with third parties regarding transfer of facilities where this would deliver best value to the Council; and
v.   AGREED that, due to the lack of expressions of interest from alternative service providers, and the availability of alternative service provision nearby, the facilities identified in Appendix 2d of the report should close at the earliest opportunity after 31 October 2018 and that the Service continue to work with Elected Members and communities over the winter to seek alternative non Council-run provision at these locations.  No full-time facility would close where negotiations were ongoing with communities regarding alternative provision. Overall, this would result in 191 Public Convenience facilities being available to the public across the Highlands.

17. Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund  
Cuairt 1 de Phròiseactan Maoin Bun-structair Turasachd Dùthchail – Geàrr-chunntas na Gàidhealtachd 2018

There had been circulated Report No. HC/44/18 dated 10 October 2018 by the Director of Development & Infrastructure.

During discussion, Members raised the following issues:-

• these six projects, which had originated from communities themselves, were making excellent use of Scottish Government funding.  The Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund had been put in place by Fergus Ewing MSP and appreciation was expressed to him for this;
• officers were commended for their work in preparing the applications and which had undoubtedly contributed to their success;
• this funding was particularly welcome, given that the Scottish Highlands and Islands have been named by the Lonely Planet Guide as one of the top regions in the world for travellers in 2019.  This would result in an even greater influx of visitors and the funding would make a huge difference to Skye where visitor numbers had increased considerably in the last 10 years.  In addition, there were discussions taking place regarding establishing Edinburgh to China flights and, if connections could also be established to the Highlands, this would increase visitors even more;
• there was a second round of funding underway with full applications required by the end of January 2019 and it was hoped that Highland would again be successful; and
• the provision of six enhanced laybys on the Bealach Na Ba was welcomed given the difficulties campervans and caravans had in reversing on this steep single track road.  Although some criticism had been expressed that the money could have been spent on filling potholes it was not possible to divert this money for this purpose and it had to be kept in mind that this was money that would not otherwise have been available.

The Council:-

i.    NOTED the range of projects that were submitted to and those that were successful in attracting £1.4m of funding from the £3m available in the first round of the Scottish Government’s Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund; and
ii.   AGREED that details of projects being submitted to the second round of the Scottish Government’s Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund be shared with the Council’s Tourism Working Group prior to submission.

18. Commission on Highland Democracy 
Coimisean air Deamocrasaidh Ionadail

There had been circulated Report No. HC/45/18 dated 14 October 2018 by the Chief Executive.

The Leader reminded Members of the background which had led to the establishment of the independent Commission on Highland Democracy.  Chaired by former COSLA Chief Executive, Rory Mair, the Commission had set out key findings which, it was hoped, would be embedded as an ethos of democratic participation.  In particular, it had highlighted that public agencies needed to be more accountable and to work together.  In this regard, the work the Council had done around localism had to not only continue but to intensify.  Communities had been keen to have locality plans, nine of which were in place, but planning had to go down as far as the town and village level.  Furthermore, the role of Community Councils needed to be considered as sometimes they too were perceived to be as distant and remote as the Council.  In conclusion though, the Leader highlighted the importance of community responsibility.  This did not just mean involvement in consultations but involvement in the decision making process and going forward this needed to be a clear commitment of the Council.

Whilst supporting these sentiments, it was highlighted that a key frustration of Community Councils was that they did not know who to contact.  There therefore needed to be clear communication who to approach to avoid being passed back and forth between Services.  Also, many communities were already taking on more responsibility but, in some cases, required a little assistance.

The Council NOTED the final report from the Commission on Highland Democracy.