Members are asked to consider whether they have any disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest.

Members are reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they are subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

Members were asked to consider whether they had personal or prejudicial interests in connection with the item on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they were.

Members were reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they were subject to a party whip in connection with the item to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

Councillors Sullivan, Fraser and Elderton declared personal interests by virtue of them being friends of libraries.

Councillor S Williams declared a personal interest by virtue of him being a Board Member of the Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority.

Councillor Stapleton declared a personal interest by virtue of her being a member of the Birkenhead Park Advisory Committee.

The following documents are attached for Members’ consideration:

• ‘What Really Matters’ Questionnaire
• Summary paper for Regeneration and Environment
• Options papers relevant to this Committee:

o  Car Parking

o  Garden Waste

o  Waste Charges

o  Dog Kennels

o  Environmental Health

o  Trading Standards

o  Pest Control

o  Highway Maintenance

o  Street Lighting

o  Highway Drainage

o  Street Cleansing

o  School Crossing Patrols

o  Withdrawal of Parks’ Maintenance

o  Reduction of Parks’ Maintenance

o  Community Patrol

o  Dog Fouling

o  Modernisation of Leisure Centres

o  Libraries (and One Stop Shops) [N.B. This option can be found in the Families and Wellbeing summary document]

The Committee received a presentation from Jane Morgan, Policy Manager, Chief Executive’s Department, on the process of the consultation and the progress made on Stage 2 of the consultation to date. Jane Morgan reported that over 70 budget options had now been published and the savings identified were 25 per cent more than what was needed, giving Members and the public a real choice as to where they should be made. She also went on to outline the role of Overview and Scrutiny members in the process.

Jane Morgan then responded to some questions from the Committee and informed the meeting that a variety of community groups representing the elderly had and were being engaged in the consultation and that she would feed back the suggestion about marketing the consultation in as many post offices as possible.

At the suggestion of the Chair the Committee then considered the 18 budget options relevant to its own remit in turn.

1.  Libraries (and One Stop Shops)

Malcolm Flanagan, Head of Revenues, Benefits and Customer Services, introduced this option. Responding to comments from Members he stated that it was the intention to try and keep an open environment within libraries rather than introducing separate rooms. There would be less change in smaller libraries and staff were being trained in giving first level advice. It was acknowledged that a large number of people did not have internet access but there were over 200 personal computers available in libraries for the public to use. The proposed closure of libraries between Christmas and New Year would mean just one library remaining open, if more were to remain open then the saving would be reduced.

There were certain charges for some library services and these were reviewed each year. There was a need to ensure a balance of any increase in charges for certain services not adversely affecting the income being received.

The Chair, in summing up, expressed the Committee’s continuing support for the department in maintaining an excellent library service in the face of reducing resources.

2.  Dog Kennels

Rob Beresford, Head of Regulation, introduced this option. Responding to comments from Members he referred to the advantages of being part of a Merseyside consortium with several other neighbouring authorities and the fact that the kennels at Halewood did have spare capacity. He did share concerns at the short term nature of dogs being at the kennels before being put down and wanted to give the greatest opportunity for dogs to find a new home. The Council kennels currently had a rehoming rate of about 80 per cent. He had spoken to the RSPCA who had kennels at Cross Lane in Wallasey and consultations were ongoing with the Friends group. The problem of the logistics of travel to Halewood would be explored during the tender process if this option was to proceed.

On a motion by the Chair, seconded by Councillor S Williams, it was –

Resolved (4:2) – The Committee expressed all Party concern that people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.