Agenda item

Deputy Leader – Pages 27D to 35D (Section D)

Children and Education Services – Pages 40F to 53F (Section F)

Environment – Pages 31G to 34G (Section G)

Adult Social Care and Health – Pages 41H to 49H (Section H)

Business Growth and Regeneration – Pages 26I to 32I (Section I)

Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods – Pages 60J to 67J (Section J)

A number of questions were raised in relation to the minutes of the meetings of Cabinet Members as follows:-

Minute No. D38 (Financial System Managed Service Renewal) – Councillor Cowles referred to the reasons for outsourcing an I.T. system when the systems in Riverside House appeared to have the capacity and could provide accommodation and asked if this was not considered, then why not, why the Council were not considered to have the expertise and was it not time to look at a fully integrated system?

Councillor Hoddinott pointed out that the Council did not always have the expertise to provide support, but drew attention to the questions raised in the Minute and particularly Recommendation No. 1 where written confirmation was requested that no alternative provider could provide the required level of support.

It was also pointed out that consideration was already being given as to ways that the Council could become smarter with technology to engage with residents and work had commenced on the refresh of the I.T. Strategy, which was due later this year.  External support from providers was only sought when the expertise was not available in-house.

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to the inexperience of decision makers, the apparent lack of expertise in the Council and believed, having visited Riverside House, that the provision was only functioning at a third of its capacity.

Councillor Hoddinott pointed out that Opposition Members could have attended the delegated powers meeting and added their view, but  if they felt the decision was incorrect, could have called it in, but maintained it was the right decision for the Council to make.

Councillor C. Vines challenged the participation of Opposition Members in meetings and criticised the call-in process.

Councillor Steele referred to a decision that was called in by the Opposition and heard on the 13^th February, 2015.

Councillor Hoddinott referred to 23^rd January, 2015 meeting of her own where Councillors Parker and C. Vines were invited to contribute.

Minute No. D34 (Waiver of Standing Orders for Post Abuse CSE Support) – Councillor Parker expressed his concern that the funding referred to in Recommendation No. 3 was being pooled to commission further voice and influence work and these would simply become talking shops which was not addressing the problem nor giving the victims the support they required.

He pointed out that the proposed work was to better understand the effects of Child Sexual Exploitation on minority ethnic groups and communities, including Asian and Roma when the majority of the girls exploited were of white origin.  Would this not simply divide a community?  Reference was again made to a previous question where he had asked if there were any Roma families in this community in Rotherham married to underage children and claimed the answers provided were nonsense as it was illegal in this country and marital status details and dates of birth would be recorded on the passports of those entering the country.

Councillor Hoddinott explained that the funds were required to commission further voice and influence work to listen to those victims and survivors and to ensure the services provided met the needs of all.  Going forward it was important to hear the voices of victims and survivors longer term.  This was a really important piece of work which was why the urgent business powers meeting was called at short notice.

In terms of the minority groups it was important that they be engaged and not ignored and that their need for support be heard.

The issue of underage marriages within the Roma community was difficult to tackle, but was a serious issue that needed to be addressed.

In a supplementary question Councillor Parker again reiterated his concern about talking shops, but believed his question about the numbers of underage children being married within the Roma community had never been fully answered and found the situation unacceptable.

Councillor Hoddinott agreed that any marriage involving an underage child was acceptable and knew it was taking place.  However, there was a need to engage and understand the community and work with the Police in order to seriously tackle the issue.

Councillor Reynolds applauded the extra money being provided, but suggested that the Opposition be more included so that the Council could work together to safeguard young people.

Councillor Gilding pointed out that marriage to an underage person was a crime and this was a matter for the Police not the Council to take action.

Councillor Read, not wishing to score any political points, drew attention to the alternative budget submitted by the Opposition which reduced the amount of funding to the voice and influence work, which was vital.

Minute No. D35 (Child Sexual Exploitation Support Services Strategy) – Councillor Jepson asked for an update on the Ministry of Justice funding bid.

Councillor Hoddinott advised that the Ministry of Justice funding bid was currently being put together by a consortium of various partner agencies.  The outcome on whether the bid was successful or not would be announced at the end of March, 2015.

Members of the Opposition were invited to submit letters of support for this funding to come to Rotherham.

Minute No. F45 (Questions from Members of the Public and the Press) – Councillor Cowles referred to the £155,000 being charged by the Winterhill Management Team and the involvement of the Strategic Director and the External Consultant who found the original decision to appoint Winterhill a sound one, but then claimed the solution did not work and believed the Consultant’s advice was worthless.

Minute No. F50 (Proposal to increase the Published Admission Number at Brinsworth Whitehill Primary School) – Councillor Parker, having spoken to Admissions, was informed there were no problems with children obtaining a school place in Rotherham.  However, this was not the case as children in his own Ward were finding they could not get a place at Wickersley Northfield or Flanderwell and children were being home tutored as they could not get a place at their preferred school.

The Leader agreed there was a problem in the Flanderwell area and specific information could be clarified in writing.

The Director of Children Service’s had previously commented on a similar issue at the Commissioners’ Meeting on the 27^th February, 2015 and confirmed Rotherham was not facing the same kind of difficulties as they were in the South East where there was an acute pressure on school places.  97% of secondary school parents were likely to have access to a good school and 90% of parents were also given their first preference of schools.

In a supplementary question Councillor Parker expressed his concern about those parents who were not getting their first choice school and children then being home tutored.  There was a serious problem in the Flanderwell/Wickersley area for school places and the figures were, therefore, wrong.

Councillor Hoddinott pointed out that Rotherham had very good schools and the Council must not be complacent, but these types of issues were picked up within the Capital Programme report to invest into school buildings, which recommended that action be taken at schools to increase school places to help deal with the rising numbers for the future and would not like to see a repeat of problems that had occurred across the United Kingdom.

Minute No. F54 (Esuite Data Management System) – Councillor Cowles referred to the cost of this support and maintenance contract of £19,000 for hosting computer systems and the space in Riverside House.  He referred Councillor Hoddinott to an earlier question about her lack of expertise and her Adviser’s lack of expertise on the Council and suggested she found people who had the expertise as hosting the platform was “kids stuff”.

Minute No. I45 (Herringthorpe Athletics Stadium) – Councillor Middleton referred to the importance of the Athletics Stadium, but could not understand the two paragraphs in the Minute where it referred to the use of the Stadium for the last two years since 2013 had been because of finance.  Some finance had now been found and appeared to suggest doing the same thing.  What was different in 2015 over what had happened  over the last two years and could the Council be certain it would be getting sufficient access to this facility for the people of Rotherham.

Councillor Beck shared the same sentiments, but referred to the savings made over the last few years by the reduction in staff at the Athletics Stadium, move towards the Rotherham Harriers taking greater ownership and responsibility and how in the longer term the Harriers would bear more of the cost of the Stadium and income generation to ensure the cost to the taxpayer was reduced and this facility was able to remain open and accessible at all times.

Resolved:- That the reports and minutes of the meetings of Cabinet Members as listed below be adopted:-

·                Deputy Leader – Pages 27D to 35D (Section D)

·                Children and Education Services – Pages 40F to 53F (Section F)

·                Environment – Pages 31G to 34G (Section G)

·                Adult Social Care and Health – Pages 41H to 49H (Section H)

·                Business Growth and Regeneration – Pages 26I to 32I (Section I)

·                Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods – Pages 60J to 67J (Section J)

Mover:- Councillor Read, Leader               Seconder:- Councillor Watson,

                                                                         Deputy Leader