To put questions, if any, to Advisory Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or their representatives) under Standing Order No. 7(1) and 7(3).
Minutes:
(1) Councillor C. Vines referred to Look North on 26th August, 2015, which again confirmed from the Jay Report that Councillors at the seminar could not say they were unaware of the scale of child sexual exploitation. When would the Leader stop putting his head in the sand, show some leadership and rid the Council of these people who failed instead of promoting them?
The Leader explained the Council was working hard to make the changes to move the Borough forward. An opposition Member had also been present at the seminar. The absence of questions relating to child sexual exploitation, Children’s Services, Adult Services and the improvement plan were also noted.
In a supplementary question Councillor C. Vines again referred to the attendance of certain Councillors at the seminar as identified in the Jay Report. This town could not move forward when people were being placed into positions, making it unfit for purpose. What this town needed was a complete clear out to be able to start again.
The Leader again reiterated his commitment to making the changes required for Rotherham. The public would decide on the right people to take the town forward next year and until that time the Leader would continue with the job he had been asked to do.
(2) Councillor C. Vines asked could the Leader please tell him what benefit to Rotherham did the following visits by Labour Councillors past and present bring and were there reports to cover the visits of Councillors Foden, Rushforth, and Stone, together with a guest each and an officer to St. Quentin Xmas Market in December, 2013.
The Leader explained there were no longer foreign trips for Councillors, but explained the annual civic visit to St. Quentin was part of the Town Twinning Agreement to maintain permanent links between the two towns, the aim being to promote exchanges between residents of the two towns and to develop a greater understanding of one another’s culture.
An example of one of the benefits of the twinning link was a project which came to fruition in the following year (2014) involving students and lecturers from Rotherham College of Arts and Technology funded by the European Comenius programme. This was to be part of a multi–cultural project where colleges from Italy, Romania, Greece, Turkey and France came together to work on a project around fashion from designing the clothes, the ultimate aim to show their designs during a cat walk show in St. Quentin.
(3) Councillor C. Vines referred to his previous question and asked the Leader to explain the purpose and benefit to Rotherham tax payers for the following visits in March, 2013 for Councillor Hussain and Karl Battersby to Strasbourg for Roma inclusion and Councillor Dodson and Paul Woodcock to Poland to calibrate City Rights.
The Leader explained that the visit to Strasbourg on the 20th March, 2013, was to represent the Council at the Council of Europe's Alliance for Roma Inclusion launch. The launch was an opportunity to share experience and best practice, and be part of the European programme for Roma inclusion. The Council were invited to attend, because at the time Rotherham were leading on Eastern European and Roma challenges at the Yorkshire and Humber Regional level. This led in part to Rotherham’s involvement as a delivery partner in the EU the Roma matrix project.
Rotherham has a partnership agreement with Zabrze in Poland, based around working together on projects focussing on information sharing, cultural, education and the economy. This visit took place from the 27th to 30th September, 2013, and was to a City Rights event in Zabrze to maintain links with our partner town and with existing partners in Europe, in the event that funding for mutually beneficial projects becomes available, as well as maintaining cultural links. Former Councillor Dodson was Deputy Mayor at the time of the visit.
In a supplementary question Councillor C. Vines asked what benefit there was to Rotherham for these people visiting to discuss Roma inclusion.
The Leader explained this visit was to look at the Roma Matrix Project, which was delivered with funding from the EU Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme.
(4) Councillor C. Vines again referred to Question 3, referring to Councillor Akhtar and Tim O'Connell attending Marseille for the Roma Conference in October, 2013 and asked what was the benefit to the Rotherham tax payers of all these visits and was there any visit reports to justify these visits.
The Leader confirmed there was no written report to Council on the outcome of this conference, but again reiterated overseas travel was no longer taking place.
In a supplementary question Councillor C. Vines was aware visits no longer took place, but asked would there be a further fact finding tour now there may be an expectation to accept refugees from Syria.
The Leader had nothing further to add.
(5) Councillor Price asked did the Leader agree with him that in a time where South Yorkshire Police faced up to 1500 staff cuts and the local economy was struggling; more should been done to prevent fascist groups repeatedly coming to Rotherham to hijack the town's recovery with their politics of division.
The Leader confirmed he did agree with Councillor Price and was working closely with the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable from South Yorkshire Police and had met with them last week. This was at a time when the Police were losing resources and making redundant 20% of the Police Community Support Officers.
(6) Councillor Beck asked, given the recent submission of the Sheffield City Region Devolution Deal to Government and welcomed focus on the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District within it, would the Leader support bringing Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting minutes as an agenda item for future Council meetings in order to strengthen communication between the Combined Authority and the Council as a whole?
The Leader stated that the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority was a public meeting, and the minutes were posted on the Sheffield City Region website. However, as this was not a meeting of the Council they should not be included on the agenda, but consideration would be given as to how Members could gain access to these minutes.
(7) Councillor Beck referred to Rother Valley Country Park being one of Rotherham’s most visited outdoor recreational and leisure facilities and asked could he have an update on any recent and planned developments at the Park.
Councillor Roche, Advisory Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, replied that over the past year there have been several significant additions to the range and quality of customer facilities at Rother Valley Country Park. A new cycle hire centre had been opened, equipped with an increased variety of cycles catering for people of all abilities, and groups of different sizes. There was also a new classroom providing high quality accommodation for school groups, meetings and corporate hire. Improvements to the café were providing a higher quality service to customers. Following the reopening of the miniature railway, a second station had been built to serve the newly opened Animal Petting Farm at no cost to the Council. These were all proving to be very popular with customers and the resulting additional income was helping to reduce the net cost to the Council of running the park.
The proposed development of the Gulliver’s children’s theme park on the adjacent Pithouse West site, as referred to in Question 20, would be complementary and further enhance the park. Consideration was also being given to expansion of the existing café business to increase income and to further reinforce the park’s reputation as one of the region’s top visitor destinations.
In a supplementary question Councillor Beck asked given the developments at Rother Valley, what other developments had taken place at other parks such as Thrybergh.
Councillor Roche, Advisory Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, replied that developments at the other parks included an ice cream parlour, crazy golf and at Thrybergh the opening of a new tooty fruity soft play area with ice cream parlour.
(8) This question from Councillor Currie askingon average per year, over the last five years, had the revenue from taxi licensing created, and where had this revenue been used would be responded to in writing as he was unable to be present.
(9) This question from Councillor Currie indicating the Prime Minister has given a 5 year pledge to take Syrian refugees in to Britain under the current UN scheme, where will Rotherham be in this allocation would be responded to in writing as he was unable to be present.
(10) Councillor Reynolds asked who decided that the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Magna report was needed and agreed how much the report would cost.
The Leader explained that the meeting of the Former Cabinet on the 4th February 2015 resolved ‘That the appointment of an independent consultant to undertake a review of Magna’s business, to help to strengthen the Magna business plan and to assess the future viability of Magna, be approved and a report be submitted back to the Cabinet in due course.’
In response to this approved recommendation the Council undertook a formal tender process, which resulted in the award of the contract to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds asked how much the report had cost.
The Leader confirmed the report was not yet complete. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) had submitted a fixed cost for the report of £12,850. The Council had decided not to proceed with any further work on this.
(11) Councillor Reynolds asked when would the report from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) be delivered on Magna’s viability as a business and who would the report be sent to.
The Leader explained that PwC were in the process of finalising their report on the Magna business plan for review by the Council. It will be delivered to the Acting Strategic Director of Resources by the end of September 2015. It would come into the public domain as part of the decision making process for the Commissioners.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds was aware the report had been delayed by some four to six weeks and asked if there were any penalty clauses written into the contract with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) given that it had not been delivered on time.
The Leader explained the delay was not due to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), but due to the staff being unavailable at Magna.
(12) Councillor Reynolds asked who would evaluate the Magna report and decide on the actions to take in the light of the report findings.
The Leader confirmed a report would be prepared by officers on the findings of the PwC review, which would be considered jointly by the Managing Director Commissioner and Commissioner Julie Kenny at a joint decision-making meeting.
Following consideration of the report, the Commissioners would issue a “Minded to Grant Decision”, where upon the Commissioner would take representations for a period of five working days before issuing a Final Decision.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds asked why the public could not decide on the future of Magna with it losing money year on year.
The Leader pointed out the public could make representations on the “Minded to Decision” once it was published.
(13) Councillor Fleming referred to the Council managed residential homes for older people and asked how many units were provided for dementia residential care.
Councillor Roche, Advisory Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, advised that there were two Local Authority managed care homes for older people, Lord Hardy Court and Davies Court. Both these care homes provided residential care and Intermediate care. Each home had sixty beds, thirty of the sixty beds were for specialist dementia care.
In a supplementary question Councillor Fleming referred to the costs associated with dementia care of which there were 1,688 people on the G.P. register. By 2025 the number of people in Rotherham with dementia could have increased to 4,400 and he asked was there any forward planning taking place to ensure this could be managed.
Councillor Roche, Advisory Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, advised attempts were being made to address this problem in care homes with only 87% of dementia care occupied. However, because of the ageing population a review would take place over the next few months to ensure the plan for the future was sustainable.
(14) Councillor Cowles pointed out that with the anniversary of the Jay report and last year’s accounts about to be published would the Leader provide the Council Members with an update on the additional total costs to-date incurred to cover the child sexual exploitation scandal.
The Leader said that a Transformation reserve of £8.4m was set aside to cover one off costs arising from the Jay Report. At the moment the additional cost amounted to approximately £5.5m of which approximately £365,000 had been spent on post abuse support.
The costs associated with legal services and partner agencies were not yet known. However, the Leader had asked Ian Thomas, Strategic Director, to make enquiries on Councillor Cowles’ behalf. Once he had the information he would get back to Councillor Cowles in writing.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to many of the children involved being in public care and as education was important to him he had requested educational outcomes. Compared to the national average the Rotherham’s outcomes for children in care figures were low. What was needed was the employment of an Educational Psychologist and whilst the cost to the authority would be in the region of £100,000, this would improve the performance of the children.
It was not all doom and gloom though as it had been reported that one child in care had been accepted into university and this Council’s congratulations should be forwarded and any additional support offered.
The Leader was unable to give a commitment to the appointment of an Educational Psychologist, but would indeed make enquiries. Clearly the Council wished to move in the right direction and congratulations were offered to the young person who had secured a place in higher education.
(15) Councillor Cowles referred to a recent short conversation where the Leader agreed with him that Area Assembly meetings were not very effective and asked how long had he felt this to be the case.
The Leader explained this was a matter of opinion and had thought this for a while.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowes asked why had the Leader not done anything if he felt like this. People were being paid to run these meetings and the same topics were arising time after time with no-one being charged to act nor were some Ward Councillors attending. If there was a wish for these meetings to be effective and for the public to participate would the Leader show some leadership and make them effective or scrap them.
The Leader confirmed there was to be a review of Area Assemblies as part of the Governance Review Group as to how engagement through communities could be improved.
(16) Councillor Cowles explained the Leader had agreed with him previously that politicians needed to learn from the experience of others. What, if anything, had he learnt from the experiences of Cardigan in West Wales (parking), and Kettering in Northamptonshire (Town Centre), as reported over the summer.
The Leader asked Councillor Cowles to elaborate on what he thought he should have learnt from them.
Councillor Cowles in a supplementary question confirmed that the removal of parking charges from Cardigan had had a tremendous benefit on footfall. Not only did local businesses benefit, but also the local supply chain with buying local.
In Kettering they opened their shopping developments in the centre of town rather than out of town. Local people commented on the improvements in the town centre as being beyond recognition.
Rotherham town centre had had everything destroyed. Questions had been asked about Main Street and Corporation Street. When would the Leader show some leadership and vision. He had the opportunity to put a mark on this town and it was about time we saw some come through rather than see inactivity.
The Leader responded by confirming information already shared by the Advisory Cabinet Member in the masterplan exercise looking at the town centre and the bringing in of experts. Parking was an area that had been raised previously, but there was a potential loss of £1 million revenue from car parks. If the Opposition could find this money in their budget the Leader was happy to consider this. Of note though was the action taken in Aberystwyth where the removal of parking charges had resulted in chaos and a campaign amongst shop keepers for this to be restored. There was a need to proceed with caution.
(17) Councillor Cowles to the Leader referred to the recent press learning of further job losses at Tata Steel. If Rotherham were to lose Tata completely as an employer, what would be the effect on the town and what would be the loss of revenue to the Council.
The Leader confirmed this was a difficult subject and the Council should send thoughts and solidary to those losing their jobs.
On hearing the recent job losses announcements, the Council had been working very closely with representatives from Tata Steel and the Department of Works and Pensions to support workers who were to be made redundant. Clearly the first impact would be on those employees who lost their jobs to whom we offered our heartfelt sympathy. We would be doing everything we could as a Council to support them in getting back into work by offering assistance in a number of different ways.
If Tata Steel were to relocate away from Rotherham, the Council would stand to lose its 49% share of the business rates collected on works and premises currently occupied by Tata Steel within the Borough. This equated to a loss of revenue to the Council of c. £1.5m p.a. in 2015/16 terms. It was difficult to quantify what the other economic and social implications on the town might be, but the loss of well-paid skilled jobs within the Borough would undoubtedly reduce the spending power of such employees and would place increased demands on Council and other public sector services.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles asked the Leader if he was aware of what had happened at Tata, how many people would still be employed if the 700 jobs were taken out, what the losses were and whether he was thinking about mitigation matters or sitting back and waiting until the inevitable happened.
Since the news had been announced Councillor Cowles had been and visited the plant and spoken about Tata’s plan. It was time the Leader started to look at these matters and taken mitigation before action was taken and asked the Leader if he agreed.
The Leader explained he had taken action, had spoken to colleagues in RIDO, was supporting multi-agency efforts, had had conversations with colleagues in the City Region in how best to help keep people in work should the worse possible things happen. Discussions were also taking place with trades unions representatives at the plant.
(18) Councillor Cowles referred to the operation of the crematorium which had been sold off to a company called Dignity. Successfully from their standpoint, but at some cost to residents who were now finding funeral costs increasingly expensive and asked have other Rotherham assets been sold to this company.
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Enforcement, replied no. No other services have been sold to this company.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles asked the Advisory Cabinet Member if she had heard of any crematorium going bust as he had not. He described the company’s simple operation with no transport costs and how ideal a business model this was. Dignity paid the Council a fixed sum each year, which was around £500,000 and the company was making a considerable sum of money. It paid dividends twice a year of 7.5%, a few Directors had pocketed £1 million each, and the share price had doubled £13.00 to £26.00 a share. Next time would the Council not consider selling things off, take some equity instead and ask people who knew about these things rather than taking a decision. This was a disaster the same as the Digital Region and the Council was urged to look to making some money for this town instead of other people taking all the profits.
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Enforcement, confirmed the contract between the Council and Dignity Funeral Services Ltd. required Dignity to deliver all bereavement services that were previously provided by the Council. The Council had, however, retained ownership of all assets that were now maintained and managed by Dignity. In addition to the providing services on behalf of the Council, the contract had also seen Dignity invest over £3 million in bereavement services in Rotherham. The service and facilities available to Rotherham residents were far better than they have been at any point in the past. It was extremely unlikely that these improvements would have been made without the investment by Dignity.
(19) Councillor Cowles was sure the Leader agreed that he should be a guardian of the public purse and control expenditure wherever possible. That being the case just how many additional people did he think he needed and was acceptable to accompany him to the same public meeting.
The Leader gave his many thanks to Councillor Cowles for his question and confirmed he did of, course, attend many meetings all on his own.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to the Leader’s attendance at the Sheffield City Region meetings where he had a seat on the Board. Often he was accompanied by Commissioners Kenny and Manzie and Karl Battersby. Why did they all need to attend when Commissioner Kenny met once a week with Karl Battersby.
The Leader explained he was the Council’s representative on the Combined Authority and where the Commissioners felt it necessary to accompany him to meetings they did so, much like other advisers which was quite common.
(20) Councillor Cowles reported that in both a recent article and in a conversation with a Commissioner it was stated that the role of Commissioner Kenny was still not fully defined. If this was the case, why were we paying £700 per day for the pleasure and did the Leader think this situation was acceptable.
The Leader confirmed that Commissioner Kenny was doing a good job and working towards getting the Council back on the right track.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles confirmed he had no issue with Commissioner Kenny, but queried what role she had within the Authority. With the valuable business experience she had Councillor Cowles thought her role would be obvious. Did the Leader agree that if there was no role it was an expensive £22,000 and in the interests of the taxpayer he should do something about it.
The Leader was sure Commissioner Kenny was doing a great job and it was the role of the Secretary of State to determine when the Commissioners would be removed from Rotherham and we needed to move forward and work together.
(21) Councillor Reeder stated that in recent years considerable sums of money have been spent in Eastwood, to little effect. The bulk of the money being spent on the physical environment. How much had been spent and, how long does the Leader need before he recognised this is the wrong approach.
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Enforcement, replied that she could not give Councillor Reeder a precise figure, as spend was not recorded on an area basis. However, based on the amount of time operatives were working in the area, and the number of reports from the public about the area, we were able to estimate that the Council spends around £450 per week in the Eastwood Village area on Street cleansing. This gives an annual spend of approximately £23,400.
Councillor Sims agreed that additional resources on street cleansing in Eastwood was not the whole answer and this was why the Council, at the request of the Leader, had set up a multi-agency meeting for the central area dedicated to dealing with the challenges.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reeder referred to the amount of money spent on cohesion and the audit trail that must exist and asked if she could see what had been spent and on what.
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Enforcement, would ensure a response would be provided in writing.
(22) Councillor Reeder stated that at recent road shows the public have demanded change. They have requested openness, transparency and inclusion in major decisions affecting the town. At the last meeting, quite out of the blue came the Pithouse West announcement. When would the Party opposite get the public message.
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet, Housing and the Local Economy, confirmed that in Spring 2015 the site was marketed, with the intention to secure a leisure scheme on the site. In May, 2015 Gulliver’s made an offer for the site, but since this time, Officers have been in complex negotiations with the Coal Authority relating to claw back provisions which were imposed when the site was restored many years ago. These negotiations were finally concluded on 28th August, 2015. Whilst every effort was made to be as open as possible, until agreement with the Coal Authority was reached, the deal could have collapsed. The detail of those negotiations was commercially confidential.
In a supplementary comment Councillor Reeder confirmed she had no objections to the Gulliver’s proposal, but pointed out she knew nothing about it when approached by the public.