To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.
Minutes:
(1) Mr. L. Harron asked did the Leader agree that if a senior RMBC officer had lied in writing in a response to a FOI request and then refused to answer a simple question seeking clarification, that nothing this officer said could be regarded as being truthful unless it was backed up with written evidence?
The Leader confirmed he was unable to comment on individual staffing matters in the Council meeting, but pointed out the Council had a Complaints Procedure. This was publicly available for investigation complaints against the Council and/or any of its Officers and Mr. Harron was advised if he believed that there had been any wrongdoing then he should lodge a complaint.
In a supplementary question Mr. Harron asked the Leader if he agreed that the failings of previous Leaders of this Council to call Chief Executives to account had caused immeasurable damage to this Council, physically, emotionally, psychologically and materially. Would the Leader show he was different by looking at the two page document Mr. Harron had sent to all Councillors today with a view to asking the current Chief Executive to apologise to those individuals “A to O” in Professor Jay’s report and to do so before the fourth anniversary of that publication in August.
The Leader had not yet seen the document circulated by Mr. Harron. He would study this and come back to Mr. Harron in writing.
(2) Mrs. M. Watson asked did the Council have any information concerning a potential traffic management plan for the hydraulic fracturing site in Harthill:-
(a) Where would the clean water come from and which route would the tankers take?
(b) Was there a traffic management plan for the waste water from Harthill to FCC Environment on Stanhill Close, Ecclesfield?
Councillor Williams confirmed an application for an exploratory well at Harthill (no applications for hydraulic fracturing have been received to date) was refused by the Council. One of the reasons for refusal was traffic implications. This decision was appealed by the applicant and subsequently granted by the Planning Inspectorate following a Public Inquiry.
As part of the appeal process further traffic information was submitted to the inquiry by INEOS for the Inspector to consider and, in addition, the Inspector attached a condition to the permission which required a full Traffic Management Plan to be submitted, for the approval by the Council, prior to any development taking place on site. A Traffic Management Plan had not as yet been received.
In terms of the water tankers and waste water removal the route was yet to be confirmed and would form part of the Traffic Management Plan to be submitted. The removal of waste water and details of its disposal would be controlled through a relevant license from the Environment Agency.
In a supplementary question Mrs. Watson asked, when the Traffic Management Plan was approved and in the public domain, would the rescue services be provided with a copy.
Councillor Williams assumed this would be a sensible approach and would look into this further to ensure this was carried out.
(3) Mrs. M. Reed asked about the transformation of Learning Disability Services which would be a lengthy and expensive process and needed to be undertaken safely sensitively and responsibly. She asked could the Cabinet Member please explain how a saving of £3 million had been calculated given that no assessments have been completed and so predicted need was unknown.
Councillor Roche confirmed the Service was currently in the process of setting up the team who would carry out the assessments over the next two years and he gave an assurance that it would be undertaken sensitively and responsibly, recognising this was an anxious and stressful time for people and families. The assessment/review would be undertaken in partnership with the person, their family and the people that knew them best and the reviews would focus on individual assessed need. Each carer at the same time would also be offered a carer’s assessment.
The expected savings identified would come from across the current Learning Disability budget and would be found by a reduction in infrastructure costs such as transport, double funding support and activities where sometimes two or more different sets of staff were supporting a Service user and obviously savings on building costs.
However, whilst there was confidence in the financial model, the important thing was the amount of money needed to spend on Service users which would be guided by the individual assessments, not be an arbitrary target.
In a supplementary question Mrs. Reed referred to the last Council meeting where Councillor Roche had said there would be an in-house building base service for those with complex needs. She asked how this could be quantified until the assessments had been completed and, therefore, how could the cost be calculated for retaining a building base service.
Councillor Roche explained the service did know the number of people with complex care at the moment so could make a forecasted estimate of those numbers. It was not possible to give an accurate forecast until the assessments had taken place.
(4) Mr. R. Symonds was unable to attend the Council so Mrs. M. Hudson, on his behalf, asked how many agency workers have worked within Adult Social Care so far this financial year and at what cost, how much did the Cabinet Member estimate would be spent in total on agency workers by the end of the financial year and how did it compare with last year?
Councillor Roche confirmed there had been 22 agency workers working within Adult Social Care so far this financial year at a cost to date of £197k.
The estimated spend on agency workers by the end of the financial year based on current contract end dates was £331k. It was expected that this would be less than half the figure spent in the last financial year.
In a supplementary question Mrs. Hudson asked why was the cost so high and did this include cost of consultants and interim managers. If not what additional cost did this account for. Councillor Roche was quick to ask for the required savings to be made, but did he accept the agency bill was a great starting place to save money.
Councillor Roche confirmed agency staff were used to fill in vacancies or long term illness and therefore, carrying out essential work of the Adult Social Care Directorate. Occasionally extra staff brought in to ensure that projects were delivered on time for Service users. In terms of the cost of contract workers a response in writing would be provided.
(5) Ms. C. Meleady was unable to attend today’s meeting so a response to her question would be provided in writing.
(6) Ms. S. Healey pointed out public opinion was overwhelmingly against the proposed closures of Learning Disability Centre and she was yet to meet a service user or carer who agreed with your plans. She asked did the Cabinet Member not accept to being out of touch with vulnerable people’s needs and sounding patronising telling them what was best for them.
Councillor Roche confirmed the transformation of Learning Disability Services was a two year project and gave his assurance that it would be undertaken sensitively and responsibly. The reviews would be undertaken in partnership with the person, their family and the people that knew them best, in a person centred way which would focus on individual assessed need.
Before the process had even begun, Service users were already voting with their feet and choosing not to go into day care. The Cabinet Member was confident the changes were right because Service users, who were in day care previously and have moved to the new model, had advised how much better it was and that they did not want to go back.
In a supplementary question Ms. Healey pointed out the Council were causing vulnerable adults and carers, some who were elderly and infirm, worry and anxiety due to the uncertainty about what was happening. It appeared the Council had made a decision and were not prepared to accept they were wrong and asked the Cabinet Member how he slept at night as many carers did not.
Councillor Roche was aware this was a situation which had caused a lot of concern and anxiety, but was sure that looking at other authorities and discussing with officers the Cabinet had made the right decision. The Council would do all that it could to lessen the anxiety of the Service users as it went through the process.