Minutes:
1. It was moved by County Councillor Hennessy, with a minor revision to the wording, and seconded by County Councillor Beavers that:
Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 passed by the last Labour Government, schools that were not grammar schools at the beginning of the 1997/98 year cannot make the admission arrangements for selection by ability and parents may request for a ballot on whether existing grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements.
Council believes that the principle of selection by ability is wrong educationally and makes it difficult for children, specifically children from BME backgrounds and children who qualify for free school meals. The principle is wrong because it assumes every child develops at the same rate. Council believes that the restriction against new grammar schools and provisions for parental balloting on existing grammar schools should be kept in place.
Council recognises the opposition for the Grammar school proposal amongst the teaching profession, a recent survey of more than 2,500 teachers, school leaders and heads, revealed that 80 per cent of the profession did not believe that the 11-plus test, taken to get into selective schools, could reliably measure long term academic potential. Kevin Courtney, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, called the grammar schools proposal “a backward-looking policy”. He said: “Promoting grammar schools as the elite academic option instantly casts all other schools into the role of supporting actor.” This is damning evidence that the new government are out of touch with what this country really needs, we need an education system which works for everyone, not the few.
Council therefore requests that the Chief Executive writes to the Prime Minister outlining Lancashire's County Council's opposition to any move to open new grammar schools and commits the Council to working with the county's family of schools, the head teacher managerial association, parents, trade union partners and others to ensure that every child regardless of ability, gets the best education possible.
A recorded vote on the motion was then taken. The names of County Councillors who voted for or against the motion and those who abstained were as follows:
For (40)
|
A Ali |
C Crompton |
J Hanson |
J Mein |
M Tomlinson |
|
A Barnes |
M Dad |
C Henig |
Y Motala |
D Watts |
|
L Beavers |
B Dawson |
N Hennessy |
J Oakes |
D Whipp |
|
D Borrow |
F de Molfetta |
S Holgate |
M Parkinson |
B Winlow |
|
M Brindle |
C Dereli |
D Howarth |
N Penney |
|
|
T Brown |
G Dowding |
M Iqbal |
C Pritchard |
|
|
T Burns |
K Ellard |
M Johnstone |
S Prynn |
|
|
D Clifford |
J Fillis |
D Lord |
R Shewan |
|
|
L Collinge |
J Gibson |
T Martin |
J Sumner |
|
|
C Crompton |
P Hayhurst |
B Murray |
B Winlow |
|
Against (31)
|
A Atkinson |
F Craig-Wilson |
A Kay |
J Shedwick |
|
M Barron |
A Cullens |
J Lawrenson |
D Stansfield |
|
P Britcliffe |
G Driver |
D O'Toole |
C Wakeford |
|
K Brown |
G Gooch |
M Otter |
D Westley |
|
I Brown |
M Green |
M Perks |
P White |
|
P Buckley |
P Hayhurst |
P Rigby |
G Wilkins |
|
S Charles |
K Iddon |
A Schofield |
B Yates |
|
A Cheetham |
T Jones |
K Sedgewick |
|
Abstentions (3)
|
E Oades |
|
S Perkins |
|
S Serridge |
Having been put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was:
Resolved: - That:
Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 passed by the last Labour Government, schools that were not grammar schools at the beginning of the 1997/98 year cannot make the admission arrangements for selection by ability and parents may request for a ballot on whether existing grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements.
Council believes that the principle of selection by ability is wrong educationally and makes it difficult for children, specifically children from BME backgrounds and children who qualify for free school meals. The principle is wrong because it assumes every child develops at the same rate. Council believes that the restriction against new grammar schools and provisions for parental balloting on existing grammar schools should be kept in place.
Council recognises the opposition for the Grammar school proposal amongst the teaching profession, a recent survey of more than 2,500 teachers, school leaders and heads, revealed that 80 per cent of the profession did not believe that the 11-plus test, taken to get into selective schools, could reliably measure long term academic potential. Kevin Courtney, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, called the grammar schools proposal “a backward-looking policy”. He said: “Promoting grammar schools as the elite academic option instantly casts all other schools into the role of supporting actor.” This is damning evidence that the new government are out of touch with what this country really needs, we need an education system which works for everyone, not the few.
Council therefore requests that the Chief Executive writes to the Prime Minister outlining Lancashire's County Council's opposition to any move to open new grammar schools and commits the Council to working with the county's family of schools, the head teacher managerial association, parents, trade union partners and others to ensure that every child regardless of ability, gets the best education possible.
2. It was moved by County Councillor Whipp and seconded by County Councillor Winlow that:
County Council notes the independent report by Price WaterhouseCoopers which sets out the future financial position of the county council and shows the stark deficit due to rising Social Care costs and inadequate central government funding.
Council also notes that in a recent BBC TV interview, Prime Minister Theresa May notably failed to comprehend the severity and causes of the financial crisis affecting every resident in Lancashire.
Council resolves that all-party representations be made to Mrs May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to request the Government to take urgent action to provide appropriate financial support to ensure that vital services continue to be provided by Lancashire County Council.
The following amendment was moved by County Councillor Driver and seconded by County Councillor Atkinson:
County Council notes the independent report by Price WaterhouseCoopers which sets out the future financial position of the County Council.
Council also understands and supports the two basic principles that have long underpinned the methodology of central government's financial support to local government which are designed to enable all local authorities to provide the level of service that their particular residents are entitled to expect.
Firstly, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the age profile of its population, each local authority has different needs in terms of the services it has to provide for its residents. For example, with several areas of high deprivation and a relative elderly population, Lancashire County Council faces far greater demands for many of its services than some other County Councils.
Secondly, and again for a variety of reasons, each local authority has different levels of resources available to it to meet those demands upon its services. For example, Lancashire County Council's council tax base is below the average for all County Councils and therefore the "2% premium" that local authorities are allowed to levy specifically for Adult Social Care, in Lancashire only raises a fraction of the amount raised in some other counties with very similar populations and age profiles.
This Council is determined to do its best to ensure that the people of Lancashire receive their fair share of Government funding and therefore resolves:
"To instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government enclosing a copy of the report by Price WaterhouseCoopers and requesting that the costs of the level of services needed by the people of Lancashire and the resources available to the County Council to meet the costs of those services are properly and fully taken into account by the Government in determining any future grant settlements".
Following debate, County Councillor Hayhurst proposed that the meeting be adjourned for 20 minutes to allow the political group leaders to discuss a composite motion for consideration by Full Council. It was:
Resolved: - That the meeting be adjourned for a period of 20 minutes.
Following the adjournment, the following amendment was moved by County Councillor Mein and seconded by County Councillor Driver:
County Council notes the independent report by Price WaterhouseCoopers which sets out the future financial position of the County Council.
For a variety of reasons, not least of which is the age profile of its population, each local authority has different needs in terms of the services it has to provide for its residents. For example, with several areas of high deprivation and a relative elderly population, Lancashire County Council faces far greater demands for many of its services than some other County Councils.
Again for a variety of reasons, each local authority has different levels of resources available to it to meet those demands upon its services. For example, Lancashire County Council's council tax base is below the average for all County Councils and therefore the "2% premium" that local authorities are allowed to levy specifically for Adult Social Care, in Lancashire only raises a fraction of the amount raised in some other counties with very similar populations and age profiles.
This Council is determined to do its best to ensure that the people of Lancashire receive their fair share of Government funding and therefore resolves to instruct the Chief Executive to:
1) Write to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government asking for an urgent all - party County Council group leaders meeting to discuss the seriousness of the County Council's financial situation.
2) Arrange an urgent meeting with all Lancashire MPs to gain their understanding of the financial reality of the County Council and gain their support in lobbying Ministers to secure additional monies to fill the big financial 'black hole'.
This amendment was accepted and the original amendment from the Conservative Group was withdrawn. On being put to the vote, the amendment was CARRIED and became the Substantive Motion.
On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED and it was:
Resolved: - That:
County Council notes the independent report by Price WaterhouseCoopers which sets out the future financial position of the County Council.
For a variety of reasons, not least of which is the age profile of its population, each local authority has different needs in terms of the services it has to provide for its residents. For example, with several areas of high deprivation and a relative elderly population, Lancashire County Council faces far greater demands for many of its services than some other County Councils.
Again for a variety of reasons, each local authority has different levels of resources available to it to meet those demands upon its services. For example, Lancashire County Council's council tax base is below the average for all County Councils and therefore the "2% premium" that local authorities are allowed to levy specifically for Adult Social Care, in Lancashire only raises a fraction of the amount raised in some other counties with very similar populations and age profiles.
This Council is determined to do its best to ensure that the people of Lancashire receive their fair share of Government funding and therefore resolves to instruct the Chief Executive to:
1) Write to the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government asking for an urgent all - party County Council group leaders meeting to discuss the seriousness of the County Council's financial situation.
2) Arrange an urgent meeting with all Lancashire MPs to gain their understanding of the financial reality of the County Council and gain their support in lobbying Ministers to secure additional monies to fill the big financial 'black hole'.
3. It was moved by County Councillor Driver and seconded by County Councillor Atkinson that:
The Budget for the financial year 2016/2017, which was approved by Council in February 2016, provides sufficient funds to keep all the County Council's Libraries open and operational until 31st March 2017.
Council therefore resolves to re-open those Libraries which closed on 30th September and defer the planned closure of other Libraries until 31st March 2017, to give Community Groups and others the opportunity to consider all possible means of taking over the running of these much valued facilities.
The following amendment was moved by County Councillor Iqbal and seconded by County Councillor Whipp:
The budget for the financial year 2016/17 which was approved by council in February 2016, provides sufficient funds to reconfigure and transform the County Council's Library service, Children's Centres and create a network of community hubs. These changes will deliver budget savings in future years.
Council therefore resolves to continue to give community groups and others the opportunity to take over surplus buildings to enable them to enhance and develop their vital community work including the creation of independent community libraries.
Council further resolves to write to the Prime Minister to reinstate funding to ensure a Fair Deal for Lancashire.
A recorded vote on the amendment was then taken. The names of County Councillors who voted for or against the motion and those who abstained were as follows:
For (39)
|
A Ali |
B Dawson |
S Holgate |
N Penney |
|
A Barnes |
F de Molfetta |
D Howarth |
C Pritchard |
|
L Beavers |
C Dereli |
M Iqbal |
S Prynn |
|
D Borrow |
K Ellard |
M Johnstone |
S Serridge |
|
M Brindle |
J Fillis |
D Lord |
R Shewan |
|
T Brown |
J Gibson |
T Martin |
M Tomlinson |
|
D Clifford |
J Hanson |
J Mein |
D Watts |
|
L Collinge |
P Hayhurst |
Y Motala |
D Whipp |
|
C Crompton |
C Henig |
E Oades |
B Winlow |
|
M Dad |
N Hennessy |
J Oakes |
Against (31)
|
A Atkinson |
F Craig-Wilson |
A Kay |
K Sedgewick |
B Yates |
|
M Barron |
A Cullens |
J Lawrenson |
J Shedwick |
|
|
P Britcliffe |
G Driver |
D O'Toole |
D Stansfield |
|
|
K Brown |
G Gooch |
M Otter |
C Wakeford |
|
|
I Brown |
M Green |
M Perks |
D Westley |
|
|
P Buckley |
K Iddon |
P Rigby |
P White |
|
|
A Cheetham |
T Jones |
A Schofield |
G Wilkins |
|
Abstentions (0)
The Amendment was therefore CARRIED and became the Substantive Motion.
On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED and it was:
Resolved: - That:
The budget for the financial year 2016/17 which was approved by council in February 2016, provides sufficient funds to reconfigure and transform the County Council's Library service, Children's Centres and create a network of community hubs. These changes will deliver budget savings in future years.
Council therefore resolves to continue to give community groups and others the opportunity to take over surplus buildings to enable them to enhance and develop their vital community work including the creation of independent community libraries.
Council further resolves to write to the Prime Minister to reinstate funding to ensure a Fair Deal for Lancashire.