Agenda item

Questions to Former Cabinet Members and Committee Chairmen

Minutes:

(1)  Councillor C. Vines referred to a resident stating that the car park now run by the Council at the old Tesco Forge Island Site did not meet legal requirements which were:-

 

240 cm width

480 cm length

 

The length is only 410 cm.

 

Was this car park operating in accordance of the legal requirements?

 

The Leader confirmed the minimum car parking bay dimensions were set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions which was a Statutory Instrument. However, this document prescribed dimensions for on-street parking bays and not for off-street bays as was Forge Island car park.

 

Checks had been made with both Barnsley and Doncaster Councils and they have confirmed that there was no legislation for the prescribed dimensions of off-street parking pays.

 

Clearly, off-street car parks needed to ensure that the parking bays were fit for purpose and that vehicular/pedestrian movement around the site was safely achieved.

 

From taking over the day-to-day operational management of Forge Island in November 2014 no incidents had been reported. 

 

(2)  Councillor C. Vines asked with proposed Landlord Licenses being introduced only in certain areas could he be told how many Council-owned properties would fall into these proposed areas and how much this would cost the Council in License fees and who would be the enforcer tasked with enforcing the License requirements?

 

The Leader confirmed the Selective Licensing Scheme related only to properties owned by private landlords and, therefore, there would be no charge to any Council-owned properties.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor C. Vines asked if this was discriminatory?

 

The Leader confirmed that there were separate regulations that governed Council-owned properties.

 

(3)  This question was not accepted.

 

(4)  This question was not accepted.

 

(5)  Councillor Cowles asked did the Leader agree that local people should receive, at the very least, the minimum wage for their labour? 

 

The Leader explained he did agree.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles stressed the importance as two meetings ago he raised a concern about the minimum wage not being enforced by Government.  The answer given was about the positives of the Living Wage, but no answer was given for this matter to be looked into locally to ensure the minimum wage was being paid in this region.  Rachel Reeves made the same point on Question Time on the 26th February, 2015, as had Councillor Cowles.  She also stated that there had been few prosecutions.  Given the current situation Councillor Cowles asked if a cross party group could look into this issue, which may involve working with other agencies, but it was important that this issue was looked at locally to ensure minimum wage was being paid in this region.

 

The Leader considered this to be an excellent topic for a cross party scrutiny review, but pointed out subject to the arrangements may be something that could be looked at. 

 

The Leader referred to some recent prosecutions by the Government where companies were not paying the minimum wage, which did include a prominent Rotherham employer.   The Leader would be writing to the company to raise concerns about this in due course.

 

Councillor Sangster pointed out that the Audit Committee had previously asked about making sure all Council contractors were paying the minimum wage and a request was made for this to be written into contracts.

 

(6)  Question withdrawn.

 

(7)  Councillor Cowles asked did the Leader feel that officers were fit for purpose, who took the decisions with regard to spending public money officers or Cabinet Members, and who was accountable for such expenditure? 

 

The Leader pointed out the overwhelming majority of Council Officers turned up for work and performed a very good job.  Where there were officers who were not fit for purpose there was a disciplinary procedure in place.  If there were any concerns over Elected Members these could be taken up with the Chief Executive or the Monitoring Officer.  The issues raised now fell within the remit of the Commissioners.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles explained the purpose of this question was around the waste of public funds on the employment of consultants in order to advise on the viability of Magna.  He quoted the Leader’s response to a local activist indicating a preference for external consultants to look at Magna’s viability rather than using well qualified Council staff with the experience and asked if this was reasonable.  Staff had been recruited to ensure probity and best value for money and this is simply baseline expertise.  This again demonstrated that the tradition of throwing unnecessary ratepayers money at external consultants was embedded in the Labour hegemony. 

 

The Leader acknowledged the political difference of opinion about who should carry out the viability assessment for Magna.  Bringing in an independent person, who had no involvement in Magna, was a sense of responsibility and a good use of public money.

 

Councillor Reynolds referred to those employed at Magna, including the Chief Executive, Marketing Director and the Strategic Direction Director - why could they not make it work and why did the Council have to keep baling them out when every other business in Rotherham would welcome an injection of cash to keep it solvent?

 

The Leader pointed out that the Council was a third shareholder in Magna and was why the use of an external Consultant would be used to look at their plans moving forward and to assess them.  Based on the independent assessment the Commissioners would make a decision on whether to loan money to Magna in the future or allow them to fold.  If allowed to fold, there will be additional costs to the Council, given that they were a third shareholder so the decision was not straightforward. 

 

Councillor C. Vines picked up on the comments by the Leader with the Council being a third shareholder.  He asked why was the Council picking up the tab to pay for a consultant?  He pointed out that there was more faith in Council officers who were highly qualified to assess whether a company was viable or not.  This was just a waste of public money to bring in additional consultants in.  Abbey School was an example where consultants got it wrong.

 

The Leader pointed out that Abbey School was now open.  The Commissioners would be responsible for making a decision and decide on the viability of Magna.

 

Councillor Middleton asked for clarification on the procedure for asking questions as it appeared to be entering into a debate.

 

The Mayor explained that for openness and transparency, he had used his discretion to be equal to all sides of the Chamber and he was allowing further questions.

 

Councillor Currie referred to the recent scrutiny review of Standing Orders and believed it right and proper for the Mayor to use his discretion for open debate.  There was to be a further review of Standing Orders in due course.

 

The Mayor referred to the time guillotine which had been lifted.

 

Councillor Turner referred to previous protocols for asking questions and how the time period had been reduced, but he asked in terms of the responsibility for Finance which Elected Member agreed the contract with RBT and after nine years suddenly bring it to an end when three years remained?  He believed Members had been told lies.  This contract had cost the Council a considerable amount of money and he had asked questions about this contact in this Chamber because BT was a large company who would not accept cessation of contracts mid-clause.

 

The Mayor confirmed Councillor Turner had received answers to his questions in the past.

 

Councillor Sangster, Chair of the Audit Committee, was of the view that the discretion by the Mayor to asking questions could lead to time wasting and acting up to the webcasting taking place.  However, as far as the RBT contract was concerned this did not cost the Council lots of money.  In fact it had saved the Council money and came to a logical end and the contract was ceased in agreement with B.T.

 

Councillor Parker referred to a recent Cabinet meeting where it had been stated by Finance that the Council had a bill for £6.4 million for the Digital Region contract being cancelled.  This was current and Members had been misled to indicate no further funds were required to be paid.

 

(8)  Councillor Cowles asked would the Leader finally develop and provide an effective communications strategy for keeping both Elected Members and the public informed of the progress with Child Sexual Exploitation investigations as this would solve many problems?  Councillor Cowles could not understand why this had not been put into place already.

 

The Leader confirmed that this was a recommendation following the two day Scrutiny Review into Child Sexual exploitation undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and would be taken forward.

 

Councillor Cowles also made reference to “investigations”. Clearly where this referred to criminal investigations, any communications activity would need to be led by South Yorkshire Police and every effort would be made to work closely with them and provide any help and support required.

 

In a supplementary comment Councillor Cowles referred to his remarks at Riverside House, at the meeting at Manvers with the Police and also at the meetings of the Scrutiny Review where he stressed the importance of keeping people informed as this stopped rumours and hares running and was surprised to learn the Police had not realised the importance  There were lots of opportunities available for sharing information, but suggested there be a dedicated Communications Manager to be responsible for sharing information to ensure these matters were not lost.  Elected Members were constantly being asked questions which would be alleviated if progress on an effective strategy of information sharing was implemented.

 

(9)  Councillor Hunter asked how many places of worship were there in Rotherham by broad based religion (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) and what level of Council Tax did they pay?

 

The Leader explained that Places of Worship were usually non-domestic properties and were not rateable and, therefore, not included on the rating list compiled by the Valuation Office. The Council were unaware of the current numbers of these in Rotherham.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Hunter asked how many Places of Worship were there by broad based religion?

 

The Leader explained that the Places of Worship were not included on the rating list and so, therefore, no numbers were available.  This could only be achieved by individual properties being counted.

 

Councillor Reynolds asked for confirmation that Places of Worship did not pay Council Tax.

 

The Leader reiterated that where a properties was classified as a non-domestic then they did not pay Council Tax.