To record any apologies for absence received.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached.

Members are reminded that they should also declare whether they are subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered at this meeting and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

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

Members were reminded that they should also declare whether they were 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.

At the request of the Chair, and in response to a question from a Member, the Head of Legal and Member Services gave advice on the matter of signatories to the call-in notice sitting on the Committee. He commented that although being a signatory to a call-in notice did not preclude a Member from sitting on the Committee hearing the call-in they would need to be mindful of pre-determination and bias. Supporting a call-in did not amount to a member accepting the reasons had been made out and proven or that one Member had reached a settled view.

Councillors Blakeley and Ellis declared their interest in the call-in of Cabinet minute 37 by virtue of them being signatories to the call-in notice.

Councillors Hornby and W Smith declared a personal interest by virtue of them being former members of the armed forces.

Councillor Meaden, in attendance as Cabinet Member for Leisure, Sport and Culture declared a personal interest by virtue of her daughter being a former member of the armed forces but resided abroad.

Councillor Doughty declared a personal interest by virtue of his father being a former member of the armed forces who had subsequently died of his injuries.

A report by the Director of Public Health is attached.

In accordance with the procedure previously agreed by the Committee, the Chair referred to the decision of the Cabinet (minute 37 (7 July 2014) refers), related to the Transformation of Leisure Services Sports and Leisure Facilities Pricing Structure.

The decision had been called-in by Councillors Paul Hayes, Les Rowlands, Leah Fraser, Geoffrey Watt, Jeff Green, Tom Anderson, Stuart Kelly, Chris Blakeley, Bruce Berry, Gerry Ellis and Pat Williams, on the following grounds –

1.  The decision made by Cabinet to cut the free services we offer to veterans of HM Armed Forces is contrary to the Council’s previously stated commitment to support those who have been willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our freedoms.

2.  The decision was not subject to any meaningful consultation, if at all.

3.  The Cabinet (in the five minutes it took to ‘debate’ this item or in the Agenda documents) had no regard as to how the Council would identify a ‘disabling’ injury: what the criterion would be or who or what would adjudicate thereupon.

4.  The Cabinet failed to have sufficient regard to the fact that many veterans of HM Armed Forces would suffer from mental rather than physical injuries, a characteristic of which will often be an unwillingness to discuss or disclose this injury, thereby discriminating against those afflicted by such injuries.

The Chair explained the call-in procedure and indicated that the Committee was invited to consider the decision that had been made and determine, in the light of evidence to be presented, the most appropriate course of action. The Committee had no power to overturn a Cabinet decision, or to substitute its own decision in place of the original. The options open to the Committee were –

·  to refer the decision back to the Cabinet Member, setting out in writing the nature of the Committee’s concerns;

·  to refer the matter to the Council – only where the Committee believed that the decision was outside the policy framework or contrary to or not wholly in accordance with the budget.  The procedures in those rules had to be followed prior to any such referral;

·  to take no further action, in which case the decision would be upheld and take immediate effect and may then be implemented.

Explanation of Call-in by the Lead Signatory – Councillor Paul Hayes

Councillor Hayes provided a brief explanation of the call-in and he commented upon the importance for the Council to honour the principles of the armed forces military covenant. He expressed a view that the free use of leisure facilities was a token of the Council’s support for the armed forces community and suggested that there had been insufficient evidence presented to the Cabinet upon which to base its decision. He commented also that it had not been made clear how the process would be administered and there was no criterion in relation to how injuries, both physical and psychological would be disclosed and adjudicated upon, particularly where there may be an unwillingness to discuss  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.