Minutes:
(1) Councillor Clarke asked could the Labour Leader explain how, during a period when many Departments have faced cuts and reductions in services, he had found the money to increase the advertising budget by £780,000, including a huge 50% plus increase in ‘Promotional Material’?
The Leader explained that in 2005/06 the Council spent £3.6 million on recruitment, general and promotional advertising and publicity. Of this spend approximately 52% was used to promote new and changed services to citizens, customers and publicising the Council and its services to external stakeholders.
In addition, the costs and accounting treatment in 2005/06 reflected the publicity costs incurred across the Council and in RBT. The RBT costs accounted for about £390,000 of the increase. This was the cost of RBT’s design studio and 2005/06 was the first year that these costs have been accounted for in the Council’s Accounts.
(2) Councillor Mannion asked what plans did the Council have, or could the Cabinet Member tell us of any plans of the Government, for huge improvements to the public transport system?
Councillor Smith confirmed the Council’s plans, along with others in South Yorkshire, were contained in the current South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011, which has contained within it both a South Yorkshire Bus and a South Yorkshire Rail Strategy. These contained details of objectives and actions to achieve the desired outcomes. However, because transport was not constrained by administrative boundaries, there was also a Sheffield City Region Development Plan and within the Regional Spatial Strategy, a Regional Transport Strategy.
The Government have recently published “Putting Passengers First; The Government’s Proposals for a Modernised National Framework to Bus Services” which set out proposed changes to how bus services could be procured, improved and regulated, particularly in metropolitan areas. On behalf of the DfT, Network Rail plan and manage the rail network across the UK.
Recently in Yorkshire and Humberside, the Regional Planning Assessment review process had begun to prepare a long term improvement and investment programme for regional and national rail operations.
In addition to this South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority had a working policy, which could possibly link the transport from Sheffield through to Rotherham.
(3) Councillor Mannion asked what had been the cost to the Rotherham taxpayers for this Labour Council’s decision to pay for Green Electricity?
The Leader confirmed that from November, 2005 to November, 2006 the Council consumed 38,483,333kWh of electricity at a cost of £2,175,941 from our operational properties, this was excluding street lighting and domestic properties. Purchasing green electricity had cost an additional £49,644 above the cost of the climate change levy.
Purchasing green electricity had resulted in a reduction of Rotherham Council's CO2 emissions by 16,202 tonnes a year to 346 tonnes. Applying the social cost of carbon (the estimated cost that carbon had on the environment, set by DEFRA) the CO2 reduction in monetary terms was equivalent to £478,633.
This was Rotherham’s contribution to hopefully saving the planet.
(4) Councillor Mannion asked how much extra green electricity had been generated with Rotherham taxpayer’s money?
The Leader explained that all the electricity purchased was green electricity, therefore, the generation was the same as our consumption - 38,483,333kWh.
This had helped our suppliers, Npower, to further invest in sustainable and green electricity generation.
(5) Councillor Mannion asked did the Council have any plans for celebrating the Bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade during 2007?
The Leader explained that the Museums, Galleries and Heritage Service was a member of a consortium of Yorkshire Museums that submitted a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund for a grant towards the cost of a series of exhibitions to mark the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade. Unfortunately, this was not supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Consequently, the service would be planning an event to raise awareness of Rotherham's links to the slave trade, to William Wilberforce and exploring the possibility of publishing a booklet about those links. Unfortunately, the collections of the Museum did not contain items or pictures that related to the story of the slave trade or its abolition, so an exhibition from our own resources was unable to be developed.
(6) Councillor Mannion asked now that the New Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had given such a wholehearted endorsement to academy schools, what was the Cabinet Member’s view on academies and did he have any plans to introduce more to Rotherham?
Councillor S. Wright explained that the statutory responsibilities of the Council, in relation to the education of children and young people, were to raise standards and ensure the quality of education for all children. In order to achieve this, the child/children and their needs were at the heart of everything that was done.
The Academy Programme was introduced to replace those schools that consistently failed to offer an appropriate quality of education provision for their pupils. No Rotherham secondary school fell into this category. It had, therefore, not been necessary to consider changing the designation of any Rotherham secondary school to that of an Academy. Should the situation arise then the needs and educational opportunities of the children and young people would be, as always, the first priority when considering the appropriate action to take.
(7) Councillor Mannion asked was the Cabinet Member aware of the ‘so called’ educational packs on ‘Intelligent design’ that have been distributed to all the secondary schools in the country and could he assure Councillor Mannion that this theory was not being taught in our schools?
Councillor St. John believed in the theory of intelligent design (ID), which held that certain features of the universe and of living things were best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID was thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems was an illusion.
The educational packs that were referred to would have been distributed by the Intelligent Design Network, Inc. which was “a non-profits organisation that sought institutional objectivity in origins science”. These packs were not put into Rotherham’s schools.
Schools received many curriculum packs and publications from numerous organisations. Schools were statutorily required to delivery the National Curriculum, developed by the Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (QCA), which covered all subjects other than Religious Education. The Religious Education guidelines were developed by the Council’s Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) and schools have to follow these guidelines.
(8) Councillor Mannion asked was the only way to get an adequate education for your child, if they have learning difficulties, to pay £15,000 to send them to a private school like the Cabinet Member and former Education Secretary Ruth Kelly?
Councillor S. Wright disagreed with Councillor Mannion and explained that in Rotherham, in the financial year 06/07, £9.8 million was identified as a minimum budget to meet the needs of children and young people with largely high incidence special educational needs in our mainstream schools and £8.4 million was allocated to our seven special schools for those with more significant low incidence needs. Additional funding was allocated to other specialist units meeting needs across the four types of SEN. These budgets were an increase on the amounts allocated in 05/06 and funding in mainstream schools had been delegated more fairly to reflect factors around social deprivation, which national research shows was clearly linked to high incidence special educational needs. There remained additional funding in mainstream schools which was pupil led according to individual pupil needs. Currently Rotherham had 1.99% of children and young people with a statement of SEN which was in line with the national trend of 2%.
(9) Councillor Mannion asked was the Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning, Culture and Leisure satisfied with the GCSE results?
Councillor St. John confirmed he was not happy with the results, but Rotherham was committed to improving on our previous best. In 2006 Rotherham’s GCSE results showed, for the fourth year running, a level of improvement that was higher than the national rate of improvement. We have set ourselves a target to reach national levels of attainment by 2010 and each year our level of improvement was reducing the gap.
Rotherham’s results were the highest in South Yorkshire and compared well with those authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside and our Statistical Neighbours that have similar levels of social and economic deprivation.
No Rotherham secondary school fell below the DfES floor target for 2006 of 25% 5+GCSEs at A*-C. Indeed no Rotherham secondary school fell below the DfES floor target for 2008 of 30%.
In 2006 results were also published for the percentage of children achieving 5 or more higher level (A*-C) GCSEs that included English and Maths. This was a harder test and Local Authorities across the country showed a reduced level of achievement using this indicator.
(10) Councillor Mannion asked was the Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning, Culture and Leisure as confident as the un-named Education Chief who forecast in the Star that the number of students passing their Maths and English would rise in the future and who were the ‘Local Education Chiefs’ who made the comments in the Star?
Councillor St. John confirmed that the “Local Education Chief” making the comment in the Star was Catharine Kinsella, Director of Learning Services.
English had been a key priory for the Council at the foundation stage over the last two or three years. A positive trend for English and Maths over the last four years had continued and this remained a priority.
As a parent and grandparent, Councillor St. John considered English and Maths to be essential subjects, but many children enjoyed other aspects of the curriculum. Perhaps the newspaper read by some Members viewed education differently to what Rotherham did as Rotherham was concerned with what was best for its children.
(11) Councillor Mannion asked if the Cabinet Member for Community Cohesion agreed with him that the delayed response from Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on the disgusting way the execution of Saddam Hussein was carried out did nothing to help cohesion with the Muslim communities of Rotherham and the country at large, not to mention the concerned Muslim countries worldwide?
Councillor Hussain agreed with the condemnation expressed by Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott and Chancellor, Gordon Brown, regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of Saddam Hussein.
(12) Councillor Mannion asked did the Cabinet Member for Community Cohesion agree with him that the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) forced people to choose between obeying the law of the land or their religious laws? A similar Act was said to be on the way for England and Wales.
Councillor Hussain explained that the Equality Act, 2006 introduced into England and Wales had similar laws to those referred to by Councillor Mannion which were currently operating in Northern Ireland. With effect from 6th April, 2007 regulations would be introduced that prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, and services.
The Council was committed to providing accessible services and facilities in line with our Equality and Diversity Policy and intended to comply with this law, as it would with any other forthcoming equality legislation.
The Council was not aware of any opt out or exemptions on religious or other grounds so businesses who failed to comply with the new regulations would inevitably find themselves in breach of the law and legally liable for the breach, together with adverse publicity and damage to their reputation.
(13) Councillor Mannion asked did the Cabinet Member for Community Cohesion agree with him that political correctness and so called ‘positive’ discrimination could often fail to impress the minority it was aimed at and could result in ill feeling by people outside the group targeted?
Councillor Hussain reported that “Positive Discrimination” was actually unlawful and the phrase was often confused with “Positive Action” which was lawful. The Council was clear about the distinction and meaning of these two terms and ensured that this was reported accurately in the media and thereby avoiding any perceptions of unfairness by any section of the local community.
(14) Councillor Mannion asked could the Cabinet Member tell the Chamber why the Government was being so discriminatory in their Children’s Bond Scheme.
Councillor S. Wright believed Councillor Mannion was referring to the Child Trust Fund. As Members would recall, the Government gave parents £250 to be put into a Trust Fund for each child at its birth, (an additional £250 was available for children from poorer families).
Councillor S. Wright understood that parents had one year in which to invest the money. If it was not after this time, then the money was put in Trust by the Government. Parents were given a booklet providing advice on how to set up a Trust Fund for their child. For children in care, the Council invested the money on the child’s behalf. Some 60%-70% of such money that came to Rotherham parents was invested by them, with the rest invested on the child’s behalf by the Government. Given this situation the Cabinet Member could not agree with the Councillor Mannion’s statement.
(15) Councillor Cutts asked what was the total investment on PFI to date, the annual repayment, value of future proposed PFI projects and which Departments were the money apportioned into?
Councillor Wardle confirmed the schools PFI programme was completed at the end of December, 2006 and had provided ten new schools, five part new and part refurbished schools, two new Key Young Persons Centres, four refurbished Key Young Persons’ Centres and one Surestart Centre. These facilities provided excellent learning, training and employment environments for pupils, community users and employees of the Council and its partners.
The above programme cost £96 million and the annual payment to Transform Schools was £12 million, funded through an annual Government grant of £6.2 million the Council received in respect of PFI and the remainder being funded by schools and existing Children and Young People’s Services budgets.
(16) Councillor Cutts asked what was the value of contributions towards the regional assembly from the Council?
The Leader reported that the contribution the Council made to the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly Levy was £11,272.
(17) Councillor Cutts made reference to the Cabinet meeting held on 11th August, 2004, Minute No. B29 (UDP Members Steering Group), and asked what projects and when have any ‘major issues’ been put to all Council Members on a Local Development Framework issue?
Councillor Smith confirmed that the Cabinet agreed a delegation scheme for the UDP Review Members Steering Group at their meeting on 11th August, 2004 (Minute B29 refers). The group was also renamed the “Rotherham LDF Steering Group”. Since that time the Steering Group had received reports on a variety of LDF matters, mostly relating to preparatory stages of the LDF.
However, as “key decisions” under the delegation scheme, the Local Development Scheme (LDS), the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and the preferred option Core Strategy have been reported beyond the LDF Steering Group as follows:
LDS – Cabinet held on 9th February, 2005 (Minute B147) and Cabinet held on 9th March, 2005 (Minute B178).
SCI – Cabinet held on 24th May, 2006 (Minute B4) and the Council held on 14th July, 2006 (Minute A14).
Preferred Option Core Strategy – Cabinet held on 10th January, 2007 (Minute B168).
Minutes of the LDF Steering Group were reported to Cabinet and were also placed on the Corporate Management Team agenda. Cabinet Members were invited to the Steering Group. Stakeholders Seminars were also held on the 12th January, 2007 in the Bailey Suite, to which all Members were invited.
(18) Councillor Cutts stated that it had been suggested that the purpose of setting up Rotherham Renaissance Ltd was to short circuit the democratic route, i.e. no Cabinet or Scrutiny evaluation that had a public access and asked what necessitated this limited company and would it not be perceived by the public to be more legitimate and transparent if there was a member of the opposition on the Board?
Councillor Smith explained that the purpose of setting up Rotherham Renaissance Ltd. was simply to preserve the name and establish a 'vehicle' in readiness to act should it become a preferred route for delivery of the key Town Centre projects within the Rotherham Renaissance agenda.
The current directors have simply been named in order to ensure the registered company adhered to legal requirements. So far, the business had not traded at all. Should we be in a position where this company was required to become active the list of directors would be reviewed.
(19) Councillor Cutts asked in the light of the Council’s recent survey ‘Consultation on Residents Priorities’ which produced results indicating concern at the behaviour of young people, would the Cabinet Member, therefore, in consequence confront those with poor behaviour including poor appearance. This would follow the recent example of Sheffield and Doncaster who dismissed pupils from their schools for poor appearance.
Councillor S. Wright explained that the concern raised was a broad matter and not just one for schools. However, all schools in Rotherham have developed, through their Governing Body and consultation with parents, a Behaviour Policy addressing the conduct of young people within the school and while representing the school. Furthermore, all schools delivered Citizenship as a component of their pastoral curriculum.
Schools in Rotherham do have a uniform code which they monitored. Schools tackle infringement in a number of ways, such as recycling unwanted clothing and putting it to temporary loan to students either unable or unwilling to come to school in the correct attire. However, attendance at school was a matter to be encouraged and it was preferred that schools found solutions in those few cases where breaches of the uniform code occurred, rather than dismissing pupils from school.
To suggest that pupils were expelled from school for non-adherence to a uniform code was plain barmy.
(20) Councillor Cutts asked the Cabinet Member to advise him of the names of the referral agencies that were utilised for disaffected anti social young people from the education system.
Councillor S. Wright pointed out that there were a number of services referred to by schools so as to support pupils. The starting point, however, was usually from within the schools where pastoral staff were often involved with troubled young people. However, the most immediate services to such youngsters were the Behaviour Support Service, the Education Welfare Service and the Educational Psychology Service who also worked together with school staff. There were health colleagues such as the STEPS Team who provided training to school staff and support to youngsters. For young people where there may be a concern about their mental health, the CAMHS Team at Chatham House were also available. There were also voluntary sector services available to supporting young people in their development such as Get Sorted – where through engaging youngsters in music, staff were able to positively influence youngsters. Finally for those young people who did come to the attention of the Police there was the Youth Offending Service.
(21) Councillor Cutts asked would the Council give him the assurance that Herringthorpe Leisure Centre would not be demolished. If it could not be utilised would they offer it to the private sector as per Grange Park Golf Club?
Councillor St. John explained that at present the future of the whole Herringthorpe site was under consideration. The Centre itself was in less than ideal condition with the pool hall closed due to an unsafe roof and the whole building in need of a fundamental refit. An examination of options for the site was to be brought before Members and a decision as to its future would be made.
It was highly unlikely that the current Centre would prove an attractive proposition to the private sector given the need for multi-million pound investment, the high improbability of any external funding and the competition which would be engendered from our new suite of leisure facilities.
The future of the whole site was, of course, a major feature of the leisure 'offer' within Rotherham and this had been enhanced with a £200,000 lottery grant from Sport England to develop grass roots coaching in the area and the recent Housing Renewal Fund investment, which had fenced, lit and pathed the current site.
(22) Councillor Cutts asked that to utilise the high standard of facilities that have been provided for the car parking at “Unity Place” would the Council consider an initial period of “free parking” to encourage utilisation?
Councillor Smith reported that in April, 2006 a trial period of six months free parking on Saturdays was introduced in an attempt to improve business for the retail sector by increasing footfall in the Town Centre. There was no significant improvement during the trial and, therefore, it was not the intention to introduce free parking at Unity Place.
It was the intention though to publicise the existence of Unity Place through the local media and hopefully attract more customers.
(23) Councillor Gilding referred to the “empty property and action plan” and asked how many private properties in the borough would be estimated to come within the scope of this policy during a twelve month period?
Councillor Ellis reported that this had arisen and given the Local Authority powers as a result of the Housing Act 2004,
It was planned to target Maltby and Dinnington (which had the most visible empty property issues and had been identified as a key community priority within the area action plan) and it was anticipated that forty letters would have been sent to owners of empty properties by the end of this month. By the end of March, 2008 it was anticipated that one hundred and forty five letters in total would have been sent to owners of empty properties in Maltby and Dinnington. This represented the first stage of preventative action constituting the "Empty Property Advisory Service" outlined in the policy. Without this service, enforcement action to bring empty properties back into use was deemed illegal by the 2004 Housing Act. In April/May, 2007, the Empty Property Officer would move to the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder area to target empty properties, to support the housing market renewal strategy. It was assessed that a further six hundred letters would be sent. In total, it was planned to target up to seven hundred and forty five private properties between January, 2007 and March, 2008.
(24) Councillor Gilding asked what advantages to the public would be gained by the proposed privatisation of Bereavement Services?
Councillor Ellis clarified that the Council were looking to enter into a partnership arrangement with a commercial organisation. The Council currently provided an excellent Cremation and Burial Service and was currently among the top 25% of Councils across the country.
Over the coming years this service would be faced with many demands for capital investment to upgrade current facilities to comply with new Environmental Legislation and to develop new burial spaces. The opportunity had been sought to engage with the private sector to provide the necessary capital resources and to develop the best services available for our constituents.
The Council were currently short listing potential partners and anticipated a full partnership by this summer. The kind of benefits expected in the first twelve to eighteen months would include new car parking at Herringthorpe Crematorium, improved memorial gardens and a new bereavement services centre. All this whilst maintaining, and even improving, on the excellent customer service currently provided.
(25) Councillor Gilding asked what positive and negative points were made in the client review of the ALMO (Rotherham 2010)?
Councillor Ellis confirmed that the Council wanted to improve the working relationship with 2010 Rotherham Ltd., but also wanted to move forward on:-
· Further incentives to encourage 2010 Rotherham Ltd. to reach ‘3 Stars’ as an encouragement for improvement and innovation.
· The management agreement was out of date and needed to be SMART. More effective monitoring arrangements needed to be put in place and as a result capacity needed to be added to the strategic housing function.
· The 2010 Rotherham Ltd. Board and Members of the Council were not completely familiar with their respective roles in assessing the performance of 2010 Rotherham Ltd. and this raised significant governance issues for both parties.
· The Council’s current performance monitoring arrangements in place for 2010 Rotherham Ltd. needed to be developed further in the light of current experiences.
(27) Councillor Gilding asked how much was in the Rotherham Economic Regeneration fund at the moment?
Councillor Smith confirmed that as of 31st December, 2006, the fund was currently showing £1.2 million Capital and £296,000 Revenue.
Of these figures, £237,000 Capital and £102,000 Revenue had been spent. There remained £16,000 Capital and £159,000 Revenue to allocate to new projects.
(27) Councillor Gilding asked would the pedestrian/cycle tunnel under the Sheffield Parkway to the Waverley Site replace the proposed “Iconic” footbridge?
Councillor Smith reported the subway would not be replacing the proposed ‘iconic’ footbridge.
(28) Councillor Gilding asked what was the latest news in this Council’s negotiations with Rotherham United F.C. with regard to a venue for them to continue to compete in League One?
The Leader pointed out that this Council was not negotiating with Rotherham United F.C. about a venue at which they could play. Indeed, the club had an existing lease over Millmoor, their traditional home and the Leader was not aware of any suggestions that they should move from the site.
The Council had been considering, on an exploratory basis, the potential for a Community Stadium to be developed in Rotherham and Millmoor could prove to be a good location for this. No decisions on whether or not to proceed with such a project have yet been made, nor could they be unless detailed negotiations with Millmoor’s owners, C. F. Booth Ltd. were completed. At present no such negotiations have taken place, although there have been some exploratory talks.
The Leader was pleased to confirm that, following consultation with colleagues, he had today authorised the Chief Executive to open negotiations with C. F. Booth Ltd. about the ground. A further report would be presented to Members when the negotiations have been completed and at that point a final decision could be made.
(29) Councillor Gilding asked for how long had the Council been paying Carers under the Adult Placement Scheme, well under the minimum wage?
Councillor Kirk explained that the scheme was set up in around 1980 and offered long term care and some day time support to people with learning disabilities. Payments were made on a sessional basis e.g. £24 per night for long stay service users. Service users were cared for in the carer's homes and lived as part of the family.
The payment for day time support/befriending had been set at £2.74 per hour for some time, possibly since the scheme started. It was important to be clear that this was a payment, not a wage, and these people were not employed by the Council, but were self-employed (although their payments went through the Council's salary scheme). A similar increase took place in Children's Service last year, bringing payments roughly into line with the national minimum wage as a benchmark of appropriate payment.
This change brought the service into line with similar schemes locally.
(30) Councillor Gilding asked how were things progressing in Adult Social Services with tackling the projected £1.9 million overspend?
Councillor Kirk confirmed that the current projected overspend of £1.9 million across Adult Services was the result of increased demand for services, in particular around Learning Disability Services and Older People’s Services. A management action plan had been put in place that would help to re-address some of this projected overspend before the end of the financial year.
Some examples of action that have already been taken included:-
· The setting up of an Allocations Panel that scrutinised all requests for residential care and home care packages above £200.
· Some charges around non-residential care fees have been increased which helped the Council increase its income in some areas which had again offset some of the pressure.
· The Fair Access to Care Service criteria had been raised from high-moderate to substantial.
· The closure of two residential care homes last year had resulted in additional savings.
· A review of existing Service Level Agreements had been undertaken with some proposals to reduce expenditure in some areas.
· Proposals were being considered in relation to the further outsourcing of some Council services
· And finally, and much more recently, the bringing together of the Neighbourhoods and Adult Social Services Programme Areas into one Directorate would allow managers to look at further efficiencies within the services which would hopefully contribute towards additional savings.
The Cabinet Member assured Members that action was being taken to bring expenditure back in line with the budget whilst trying to minimise the impact of this on vulnerable people and their carers, a task that was a difficult balancing act.