Agenda item

Questions 1, 8 and 13 were not answered as Councillor Turner was not present.

(2)  Councillor Gilding asked why was the Welfare Rights Department underfunded and understaffed with the result that many people were having to wait a long time for their cases to be heard?  

The Leader replied that the Council recognised the extra demand for advices services created by the economic downturn. It had committed an additional £154,000 in 2009 to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, Age Concern, Ferham Advice Centre, Rotherham Disability Information Service and Kiveton Park Independent Advice Service. The funding enabled these services to help an extra 5,000 residents in the last six months. The Council’s response to the economic downturn had been commended by the Audit Commission.

The Council was also reviewing with partners the way in which advice services, including the services provided by the Welfare Rights Department, could be delivered to ensure residents in greatest need of help would be given highest priority for support as quickly as we could.

(3)  Councillor Hughes asked with the contract for the BDR, why did this contract need to be over a twenty five year period?  In doing so were we going to be paying fixed prices per tonne at today's rates without any review to ensure this price was still competitive in the future? 

Councillor R. S. Russell confirmed that the longer the contract period, the easier it was to spread out the repayment of the capital costs.  As a result, a greater volume of waste was processed and the ‘gate fee’ per tonne was reduced.  It was in this way that the capital affordability case could be made.  The cost model did assume that the gate fee would remain constant in real terms unless there was a variation in the tonnage processed.

(4)  Councillor Fenoughty asked why were the changing rooms in our new Leisure Complexes unisex? 

Councillor St. John reported that all of the new leisure facilities have been designed and built in consultation with Sport England, who provided national guidance on such matters and with DC Leisure Management our new leisure facility partners, who have many years experience of designing, building and managing local authority sport and leisure facilities.

The style of changing provided at the new leisure facilities was based on Sport England guidance and had been standard practice across the country for many years. It was considered to be the best option, not because of cost, but because it offered a much more flexible space, meeting a wider range of needs. In particular it allowed an adult of any gender to be able to supervise young people of different genders, as well as allowing families to change together. It also allowed school teachers to more easily supervise mixed gender school groups.

The Council, therefore, believed that this style of changing was appropriate for the type of modern facilities that it was now providing.

(5)  Councillor Thirlwall referred to the General Balance Fund as follows:-

General Balances                      –             £10.10 million

Less School Balances               –             £4.90 million

Less Monies in Icelandic Bank –              £3.75 million

Less Current Overspend           –              £5.63 million

Total Balance deficit                  –              £4.18 million

and asked did the Leader accept that we were now in the dire-financial straits that Councillor Thirlwall himself had been predicting?  

The Leader did not accept that the Council was in dire straits and it had been in this position before.  The Leader pointed out to Councillor Thirlwall first of all that, as previously discussed in this Chamber, the prospects for the recovery of investments in Icelandic banking institutions currently looked good and funds have already started to return to the Council. What was more, the Council had been good at how it used its money to strengthen, not weaken, its financial position.

Secondly, Councillor Thirlwall’s over-simplistic view of Council finances showed his lack of understanding of the real issues.

This Council had some significant issues to address, at a difficult time for the world’s economy, not just the economy in Rotherham.  These issues would be addressed and if it meant changing spending plans to meet unforeseen needs then this would be done, especially when children were involved. It was because the Council had been doing this, putting Rotherham people first, that it currently found itself with in-year budget challenges.

The Council had had similar challenges to face every year and Councillor Thirlwall was reminded that external assessment of this Council by financial experts had been very complimentary about how scarce resources were being used to take such issues.

The Leader did not under-estimate the challenges that this Council was facing, but equally was not going to under-estimate the ability to tackle these issues for the benefit of the borough. 

Questions 6, 7 and 12 were withdrawn.

(9)  Councillor Gilding asked could the Leader please update Members with regard to the former Weights and Measures Department at Chapeltown?

The Leader reported that this matter was still the subject of a Police investigation, and had nothing at this stage to add to past reports.

(10)                     Councillor Fenoughty asked for the numbers and denominations of the religious buildings in the Rotherham Borough?

Councillor Smith confirmed:- 

(11)  Councillor Thirlwall asked in view of the fact that the general balances of the Council were so woefully inadequate and that these had been used in the past to sustain the revenue budget, what cuts did the Leader intend to make in the future to balance the budget? 

The Leader disagreed with Councillor Thirlwall’s assessment of the Council’s financial position and suggested that if he was so eager to jump to the conclusion that services have to be cut he should set out what cuts he would be imposing if he was in charge of the Council’s Budget.

However, in answer to Councillor Thirlwall’s question he was reminded that this Council had a track record of securing efficiency improvements and securing cost reductions, whilst continuously improving service quality. In the years 2005 to 2008 Rotherham Council generated efficiency gains of £33.5 million, putting the Council at the top of the league table of Metropolitan Councils and would be looking to take similar actions to address current budget pressures.

Again, the Leader was not under-estimating the budget challenges being faced, but this was a time for considered action not knee-jerk responses and the people of this borough could be sure that the Council would be taking all available measures to ensure that front-line services were maintained during these difficult economic times.  The Council was aware of the challenges and was getting to grips with them in a way which would not put people in Rotherham at an unnecessary disadvantage. Service Directors have been charged with taking action to maintain the financial strength of this Council and as Elected Members we would ensure that this happened without the rashness that Councillor Thirlwall seemed to think was necessary.

Answers to all questions that remained unanswered after the thirty minute guillotine would be provided for all Members in writing.