Minutes:
(1) Councillor Donaldson reported that a Conservative Government were proposing to freeze council tax, paid for by reducing unnecessary Government spending on consultants and advertising and asked why Rotherham could not do the same?
The Deputy Leader explained that a report following a Scrutiny review into the use of Consultants was presented to, and endorsed by, the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee on 13th March, 2009.
The review recognised that there were a range of circumstances where it might be necessary to engage the services of an external consultant. These included:-
· To provide specialist expertise which could not be provided in-house.
· To bring in additional resources to supplement a team.
· To develop the Authority’s own capacity when there was a gap in skills, expertise or human resource capacity.
· To provide independent support in problematic or challenging areas.
Whilst recognising the need to use consultants in the circumstances described above, in setting its 2009/10 Budget the Council set a challenging target of reducing consultancy spend by £250,000 per annum. This saving had already helped to keep the Council Tax increase down to its lowest level in over a decade.
With regard to advertising spend, in September 2008 the Council and its partners issued the first edition of the new monthly newspaper ‘Rotherham News’. In addition to keeping residents informed of the work of the Council and its Partners across the borough, the newspaper also provided the medium for placing Council advertisements and statutory notices at a reduced cost to that charged in other previously used publications.
The Council remained committed to driving down costs and increasing value for money for its residents.
(2) Councillor Donaldson asked how many houses were standing empty in the borough (Council housing stock)?
Councillor Akhtar reported that as at the end of March, 2009, 390 Council-owned homes stood empty in the borough.
(3) Councillor Donaldson asked how many people were currently on the Council waiting list for a house/property in the borough?
Councillor Akhtar reported that as at 31st March, 2009 there were 18,260 people registered on the Council's Housing Register.
(4) Councillor Donaldson asked if the Cabinet Member could tell her what the Council spent the rent on that was collected from community centres in the borough some of which have been open since the early 1970's - an example community centre being The Lings in Bramley?
Councillor Akhtar reported that the Council owned a number of community buildings and any rent received was used to assist with the upkeep, running costs and maintenance of the centres. Where the centres were attached to sheltered housing schemes, such as The Lings in Bramely, any rental income was received from tenants or non-residents contributing to activities at the scheme and again this money was used towards the running costs of the schemes.
(5) Councillor Fenoughty asked how many immigrants were living in social housing in Rotherham?
Councillor Akhtar explained that the term "immigrant" was a very varied descriptor of any person or household who had obtained legal status to reside in the UK. This could be on a temporary basis for example to study or work, or on a more permanent basis where ultimately "citizenship" may be achieved leading to the person having the full rights and responsibilities as any UK born citizen. There were also over twelve different social housing providers operating in Rotherham, the Council being the single largest landlord.
There was no centrally held record of those people living in social housing who would be classed as "immigrants". This would have to include tenants as well as members of households who may be classed as immigrants, but who were residing with tenants with full citizenship e.g. family members working in the UK whose place of birth and normal residence may be outside of the UK. The information held for Council tenants related to "ethnic origin", however, this was not a comparable data source to determine immigration status. There were eligibility criteria that all social landlords must assess, set out by the Secretary of State, before applications could be accepted for housing. This included assessing immigration status amongst other things, i.e. you have to be eligible before you could even apply for housing, and this information was further verified before offers of accommodation were made.
(6) Councillor Fenoughty asked what was this Council’s policy regarding organisations that carried out and promoted needle exchanges for heroin and crack cocaine addicts?
Councillor Kirk reported that the Council did not have any Service Level Agreements with any organisations in respect of this, however, a needle exchange/drop off service was provided by two local chains of pharmacy, Weldricks and Lloyds. The needles were stored as per guidelines (SHARPS) and the clinical waste was collected by the Council’s Waste Management Services. No collections were made at specific organisations.
(7) Councillor Fenoughty asked how many Youth Clubs in the whole of the borough, with financial backing from the Council, were run on a weekly basis?
Councillor S. Wright reported that currently there were twenty-four youth clubs and three outdoor facilities which were all run on a weekly basis and funded by the Council. Additionally, there were ten projects also run on a weekly basis, funded from various sources as well as from base budget.
(8) Councillor Hughes reported that several residents in his ward had expressed concerns that they may be forced to pay for the new deliveries with credit cards or direct debit. When the Council was recommending these new service providers for meals on wheels what arrangements were being made to ensure that service users were not restricted to only one payment method and what payment methods would be available?
Councillor Kirk reported that a meeting had been held in the last week with twelve different providers of services, demonstrating that there was a significant range of providers able to deliver a quality service, providing choice and flexibility to customers. These providers have confirmed that they would accept cash, cheque or debit/credit card payment. The providers also demonstrated that they were able to respond to customers’ needs including providing information in large print, on CD or tape. Everyone who currently received a service would receive an assessment or review of their services. At this review, any concerns that customers have would be listened to and arrangements made or support put in place to ensure that their needs continued to be met.
(9) Councillor Hughes asked with the Council now scrapping the meals on wheels service what provisions were being made to assist people who did not currently receive the service, but who might have required the service in the not too distant future?
Councillor Kirk confirmed and underlined that the meals on wheels service was not being scrapped, but the service was to be provided in a different way. The new service should meet the needs of a wider range of customers. To date, if a person did not meet the Council’s eligibility criteria, but needed some form of support or help with their meals, we were unable to offer any support. With the new service, we would be able to signpost people to the many providers in the community and assist them with making a choice of meals providers and meals. We would be able to offer this service to anyone who contacts us, irrespective of whether their needs were eligible for Council services. Through this we would help many more people to live at home than we have been able to and provide people with choice, flexibility, and a cheaper option than they received at present.
(10) Councillor Turner asked what exactly would be the new situation with the Meals on Wheels and the Laundry Services?
Councillor Kirk referred to his previous response and reiterated that the Council would be providing anyone who contacted the Council with information about a range of providers. We have developed an information pack which contained leaflets and catalogues for customers to choose from. Officers had met with twelve different providers in the last week and were pleased to hear about the range of options that existed currently within Rotherham. These included the delivery of frozen meals and hot meals. Most of these were cheaper than the current service and provided an excellent choice of good quality and attractive meals. We have also spoken to local small businesses who were keen to provide flexible and local alternatives, such as hot meal deliveries and also offering social opportunities to those people who were able to access the community, such as a pub landlord who was very keen to provide meals and social activities.
Existing customers would receive a visit from a social worker who would work through the changes and options with them. For those people who could use frozen meals, the options would be explained to them and assistance given to make contact with their choice of provider. For those people who needed more support, adjustments would be made to their care package to ensure that they received the support they needed to heat a meal. Some of the providers were able to give customers a Microfix – an easy to use microwave that worked with their meals to ensure that customers with limited vision or motor skill could heat a meal safely. This helped to maintain people’s independence.
The Council had heard from some customers who have four visits a day and who were concerned that their meal service was being withdrawn. We have reassured them that they would receive the support they needed to purchase meals and their care package would be changed, if this was needed, to include the reheating of a meal. This would provide the customer with their choice of meals, at the time of their choosing.
With regards to the Laundry Service, customers would be given information about the range of options that currently existed including launderettes. We would also adapt or amend care packages, if needed, to ensure that support was given to people to get their laundry done. Where appropriate, people would be referred to the incontinence service run by NHS Rotherham, to ensure that their health needs were met and that suitable incontinence aids were provided.
(11) Councillor Turner asked what was the situation with the new Technical College?
Councillor S. Wright reported that Rotherham College of Arts and Technology had gained planning permission and had gone through the various processes and appointed a contractor to start the first phase of construction in July, 2009.
However, a temporary stop had been put on all new college projects nationally until the DCSF had carried out a reprioritisation exercise, which was due to insufficient funding for the demand throughout the country. The total cost of the project was estimated to be in the region of £70 million.
The College had been able to delay going into its temporary accommodation until there was more certainty around the project, which would mean minimal disruption to students.
(12) Councillor Gilding asked the Cabinet Member what his response was to the people demonstrating outside the Town Hall today in protest at the cuts in services for the elderly?
Councillor Kirk reported that the Council was facing year on year increases in demand for services. We were aware from our Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, which had been recently updated, that there would be in the next few years a significant increase in the number of older people, especially the very old over 85 – who tended to be more ill or frail.
Despite significant investment from the Council into Adult Services, demand would begin to outstrip the resources available unless the Council began to spend money more wisely.
The process of personalisation had been started, as outlined in the Government circular Putting People First, which was published towards the end of last year. This process of personalisation fundamentally changed the relationship that services have with service users. It put the customer in control, giving them much more choice and control over the services they received. It also required us to provide many more services on a universal basis - i.e. to all members of the public, not just those who met the eligibility criteria.
Aspects of the current service could provide better value for money and could be provided in better ways, leaving more money to invest in front line services. In the 2009/10 budget settlement Neighbourhoods and Adult Services (NAS) have received a £5.2m investment, This new funding would be invested in areas where we have been able to demonstrate that there was demand with:-
· Over £400,000 investment in safeguarding adults, creating a new team that would help us to safeguard people in the community and in residential care homes.
· Investment in people with physical disabilities, including older people with disabilities, providing a better range of respite options, more money for direct payments and support to help people to live at home.
· Investment in carers’ services to provide more support, advice and information, funding for direct payments to met carers’ needs to help carers to continue to care for longer at the same time as having a life of their own.
To balance this investment there were a number of changes that would result in better value for money. These included the changes being proposed to make to the meals on wheels service and laundry service. We do not believe that these services provide good value for money and the new meals service would provide better choice, quality and price for more older people than we provide service to at present.
This was not a cut in service, but finding a new way to provide better services at less cost to the Council.
(13) Councillor Gilding had received many comments regarding the view of Rotherham Minster now that All Saints’ Building had been demolished. Now that there was an abundance of vacant shops, could this site be kept vacant and landscaped until demand returns?
Opening up this vista of the Minster could only add to the improvement of the Town Centre.
Councillor Smith reported that the demolition of the former All Saints Building had revealed a striking view of the Minster from Corporation Street. This had fostered a debate about whether a replacement building should be erected on the site or should the site be subjected to a Public Realm Scheme.
On the one hand public realm would afford an open and spacious feel and provide the opportunity for public seating and interchange in a high quality urban landscape setting. On the other hand a new quality building would provide new office/commercial space and new retail space on the ground floor with underground car parking. Whilst demand for such a building would effectively be to plan ahead by making space readily available to meet demand when the economic situation improved.
It was these considerations which we have to balance before making a decision. Whilst that decision had not been made, the Cabinet Member assured Councillor Gilding that every consideration would be given to both options in the interest of what was best for the regeneration of Rotherham Town Centre.
(14) Councillor Gilding asked what was the original cost for the junction alterations at Greasbrough Street/Greasbrough Road, what was the cost of the amendments to it and what was the accident rate at this junction?
Councillor Smith explained that the construction works order for the scheme was valued at £129,599 although the majority of this cost related to the resurfacing works at the junction, rather than the junction alterations. Approximately one third of this figure was related to 'alterations'. The amendments have yet to be formally valued with the delivery contractor, but were expected to be minimal and in the region of £2,000.
Between 1st August, 2004 and 31st July, 2007 (three years) there have been a total of ten accidents occurring either at the junction or within 200 m of it. This resulted in eighteen casualties. There were no fatal casualties. There were two serious casualties and sixteen slight. The percentage rate of accidents producing serious casualties (two out of ten - 20%) was higher than the Great Britain average for all 40 mph roads, at 12.9%.
(15) Councillor Gilding asked was there an English language test for Licensed Taxi Drivers in Rotherham?
Councillor Wootton explained that there was no specific English language test for licensed taxi drivers in Rotherham. However, all applicants must undergo a written knowledge test and a practical driving test (assessed by the Driving Standards Agency, and specifically designed drivers of licensed vehicles), both of these tests were administered in English.
Additionally, all licensed drivers were required to provide proof of eligibility to work in the UK. The Authority did not set a minimum standard with regard to the applicant's ability to speak English. All licence holders were required to be a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a licence. Should it become evident that a licensed driver was not a fit and proper person, they may be brought before the Council’s Licensing Board which had the delegated authority to revoke or suspend the individual’s licence.
(16) Councillor Thirlwall asked if the Leader and his wife attended a gathering for a meal at Vasco’s Restaurant, Wickersley on the 21st December, 2007 as guests of the Rotherham Chamber?
The Leader reported that he had been at Vasco’s Restaurant on the 21st December, 2007, with his wife to celebrate the birthday of an individual and not at the invitation of Rotherham Chamber. Councillor Thirlwall and the former Councillor Ellis were also in the restaurant and he had offered to buy them a drink, which they declined.
(17) Councillor Thirlwall asked if the Leader could confirm to this Chamber that, by his own admission, both he and Councillor Smith were daft, having failed to reintroduce a two way traffic system in Bramley following the overwhelming expressed wishes of the public?
The Leader disagreed with Councillor Thirlwall, but pointed out that the decision with regards to the traffic scheme in Bramley would be made by Councillor Smith, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services.
(18) Councillor Thirlwall asked the Cabinet Member if he agreed with him that it was the Cabinet Member’s responsibility to inform the people of Rotherham that we have obtained the lowest score in the Region and twelfth from the bottom in the country for the number of pupils who have achieved the expected level in Key Stage 2 tests in English, Maths and Science?
Councillor S. Wright assured Councillor Thirlwall that it was his responsibility to support schools and families in improving educational attachment across Rotherham.
The results at KS1 had dipped slightly, at KS2 they had improved, the results at KS3 were not reported because of marking difficulties, but at KS4 they had improved again for the tenth consecutive year.
In taking responsibility Councillor Thirlwall was asked to be honest to his own constituents and inform them that he had opposed the investment that rebuilt Wickersley School, along with that for Clifton, Thrybergh, Wingfield, Wath and Winterhill Secondary Schools and the primary schools at Wath Central, Maltby Craggs, Thornhill, Ferham, Kimberworth, Meadow View, Coleridge and East Dene.
Only last week Councillor Thirlwall had opposed the investment programme that would transform Rotherham Learning and the new build schools proposed at Maltby, St. Pius, Aston, Dinnington and Swinton.
(19) Councillor Thirlwall asked could the Cabinet Member confirm whether the Parking Attendants have ever been given a list of car registration numbers to whom they were not to issue parking tickets to outside the Town Hall and could the Cabinet Member further confirm that the car registrations of Councillors Roger Stone, Gerald Smith and Sheila Walker were on that list?
Councillor R. S. Russell believed Councillor Thirlwall was referring to a historic list of dispensations which was produced in 2005 when a scratch card system was used for a short period in the past to enable the Council’s Senior Management and VIP visitors to park outside the Town Hall and Eric MannsBuilding. This obviated the need for Senior Management, who were already paying for parking permits adjacent buildings across the town, to claim for parking expenses on a near daily basis attending meetings at these two buildings. Parking Attendants had a record of the registration numbers of the Strategic Directors who had permission to regularly use scratch cards. Visitors to Eric Manns building were invited to display scratch cards paid for by Chief Executive’s Department.
The scratch card system started to become used by a range of staff and visitors. Consequently it became discredited and was scrapped completely last summer. Only VIP visitors could now have parking pre-arranged in Wellgate Multi-storey at the respective Directorate’s expense, but this only applied to a very limited number of visitors.
For limited periods of time whilst they had mobility difficulties both Councillor Gerald Smith and Councillor Sheila Walker were permitted to park in spaces outside the Town Hall. At this time they were both paying for annual parking permits for Wellgate Multi-storey car park. Councillor Walker now holds a disabled person’s blue badge which, in Rotherham, allowed free, unlimited parking, but insisted on paying for a parking permit by salary deduction.
(20) Councillor Thirlwall asked could the Cabinet Member explain his rationale, in making the decisions to cut the Meals on Wheels and the Laundry Service, prior to carrying out the necessary proper consultation?
Councillor Kirk referred Councillor Thirlwall to his earlier responses on this issue, but reiterated that the consultation process was still in its infancy, but already some positive views were being received. It was, therefore, suggested that some media attention be given to the positive views of customers when articles were published in the local press.