PAPER A

POLICY COMMISSION MEETING

Meeting	Policy Commission for Safer Communities
Ref	Saf.PC.04/05/06
Date	4 May 2006
Time	18.00hrs
Place	Council Chamber, County Hall, Newport
Purpose of meeting	Formal public meeting
Attendance	Commission	Cllrs David Williams (Chair); Henry Adams; Vanessa Churchman; Heather Humby; Susan Scoccia; Arthur Taylor; Diana Tuson
	Cabinet	Cllrs Barry Abraham; Andy Sutton
	Secretariat
	Officers	Mr Iain Donald; Mr Steve Milford; Ms Sue Lightfoot; Mr Rob Owen; Mr Peter Ross; Mr Andrew Shorkey; Ms April West;
	Other Members	Cllrs Mike Cunningham; Melanie Swan
	Stake holders / Experts
	Apologies
Agenda Items
1. To agree the evidence arising at the meeting held on 4 April 2006 (Paper A)	The notes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true record of the evidence received.
2. Declarations of interest	There were no declarations of interest.
3. VFM Exercise on the Future of the Crematorium: To approve the Blue Paper - Cllr Arthur Taylor and Mr Rob Owen, Head of Consumer Protection (Paper B)	1. The estimated £900K required for the abatement and replacement of three cremators was calculated at today’s prices and would likely be higher in 2011/2012 due to inflation. 2. As Bereavement Services received an injection of funding for 2006/2007 the contingency funds accrued in the 2005/2006 financial year totalling £45K will be returned to the Council’s corporate pot. 3. The crematorium gas bill for 2005/2006 was approximately £45K. 4. Options E and F demonstrated the lowest risk scores of the options outlined in the Blue Paper. 5. Projections with regard to future performance and costings should always come with a ‘health warning’ and be treated with a degree of caution due to the variables involved – legal, economic, political, environmental, sociological, technological, etc. 6. It is possible that an external regulator could step in to control pricing by private sector monopolies should the IW Crematorium be externalised to the private sector. However, it is difficult to get the Office of Fair Trading involved with matters that impact more significantly than the pricing at an individual crematorium. Generally, it is thought that competition is the best form of protection for the consumer. 7. Currently the policy of the IW Council is not to ring-fence capital receipts. Such receipts are distributed according to need. There is a precedent for making exceptions to this general rule: capital receipts from the sale of premises have previously been set aside to acquire new premises. 8. There would be a question over where legal obligations would rest should statutory obligations be passed over to the private sector for management. 9. There was a need to look beyond 2012 with respect to the financial void that will be left if the Crematorium is externalised. 10. There was scope to reduce the grounds maintenance contract through working with Town/Parish Councils. 11. The need to take action with respect to the future financial position of the crematorium had been flagged up six years ago. No action was taken. 12. The business case to maintain the Crematorium within the IW Council was very clear. 13. Members of the Commission voted unanimously to recommend: 1. That Cabinet adopt options E and F. 2. That Cabinet instruct Bereavement Services to prepare a full-form business case based on the measures identified in subparagraph 6.5.3. 3. That Cabinet vary the principle of not ring-fencing capital receipts from the disposal of assets in respect of Bereavement Services asset disposals in order that funds are available to meet the capital investment required in 2011/2012. 4. That Cabinet instruct Bereavement Services to monitor developments with respect to ‘Promession’ technology and related legislation to assess the viability of such a scheme in future years.
Action	1. Incorporate recommendations into the Blue Paper and forward the approved Blue Paper to Cabinet.	Overview and Scrutiny Team