Agenda item

MEMBERS' QUESTIONS TO CABINET MEMBERS AND CHAIRMEN

 

To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).

Minutes:

(1)  Councillor Jepson asked why the Rotherham Bus Partnership advertised on national television, why was this considered necessary for a local service and what was the cost to the Council as a member of this organisation.  

 

The Leader confirmed the advertising element of the Rotherham Bus Partnership (RBP) was funded through its own Marketing and Promotions budget, to which the Council did not financially contribute.  This budget was supported solely by the Bus Operators.

 

In relation to the Rotherham Bus Partnership paying for national advertising, this did not happen.  Owners of digital smart televisions received bespoke advertisements during ‘ad breaks’ on national TV stations based on their demographic and geographic location. For example Members may have seen an advert on a national TV channel for local buses, this would not have been a National Advert where people in other parts of the country would have received it.

 

(2)  Councillor Napperasked would R.M.B.C. promote the teaching of ancient history in our schools?

 

Councillor Watson confirmed Local Authority maintained schools were required to follow the National Curriculum. The teaching of history in the UK and the ancient world was included in the History Curriculum for KS1 pupils (5-7 year olds), KS2 pupils (7-11 year olds) and KS3 pupils (11-14 year olds).

 

Academies did not have to follow the National Curriculum, but the vast majority of them did as national tests and examinations were based on their content.

 

Therefore, the response to the question was ‘Yes,’ RMBC did promote the teaching of ancient history in its schools as it was a key element of the History National Curriculum.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Napper referred to the young people of today who had the misconception that the Jews of Israel had pinched Jerusalem, which was not accurate so if schools taught history correct they may get rid of some of the conflict that had arisen.

 

Councillor Watson confirmed that all young people should be educated about the world, but the difficulty in schools was that examples in the national curriculum were non-statutory and schools could choose which bits of ancient history were actually taught.

 

(3)  Councillor Jepson asked how many households have signed up to the new green waste collection service that was due to start in October?

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed that as of this morning 2,530 households had signed up to the green waste collection.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Jepson asked what percentage this was out of the total households in Rotherham.

 

Councilor Hoddinott confirmed that it was approximately 2% of the total households.

 

(4)  Councillor M. Elliott referred to Ulley Country Park recently having signage erected indicating the only means of payment was by mobile phone, using either a Debit or Credit Card and asked would the Cabinet Member for Green Spaces consider re-installing the coin operated ticket machine to operate alongside the RINGO SYSTEM of payment?

 

Councillor Allen had spoken to Councillor Elliott on this already so was aware of the changes that had been implemented.  The reason why the car parking payments were recently changed to the ‘Ring and Go’ system was because over the years various machines have either been vandalised or stolen.

 

The system operated effectively at a number of other Council car parks, particularly where they were in isolated locations.

 

However, Kevin Burke (Countryside and Ecology Manager) was in discussions with the Park user group and friends group to see what additional measures could be put in place to make the parking charge as accessible as possible and this was being considered.

 

It was worth noting that people could pay via the internet before leaving home or purchase annual/biannual car parking pass from the Park.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Elliott confirmed the Ringo system was causing some confusion and not everyone was in possession of a mobile telephone or payment cards.  He pointed out that some visitors were parking on the busy main road and on the access to the car park to avoid being fined and the Council should be encouraging visitors and not deterring them.  He urged the Cabinet Member to reconsider the payment options.

 

Councillor Allen confirmed she was aware of the parking that was now taking place, but urged everyone to ensure they always carried a mobile telephone with them for their own personal safety.

 

(5)  Councillor Jepson asked had there been any savings made as a result of the reduced number of grass cuts that have taken place due to the exceptionally dry summer weather.

 

Councillor Allen explained the period of dry weather saw the suspension of grass cutting when grass growth slowed down and cutting was not required. This resulted in some limited savings achieved relating to fuel and grass cutting equipment maintenance.  However, given the unpredictable nature of the weather, seasonal staff were not laid-off. Instead they were deployed on alternative duties to improve the street scene environment including the removal of weed growth from key routes into the borough, snickets and heavily weeded areas. So whilst the good weather did not allow the Council to make any savings, it did allow for additional work to be undertaken that improved the street environment across Rotherham. 

 

(6)  Councillor Napper asked what was R.M.B.C. position with regards to women only session at Rotherham Leisure Centre.

 

Councillor Allen explained the women only sessions provided were mainly demand led and the evidence of need was demonstrated by attendance, as all the sessions were well attended on a regular basis.  In addition funded programmes were offered in order to increase participation from women and girls through the ‘This Girl Can Swim’ programme, which had delivered sessions across the four leisure centres. 

 

The provision of women only sessions was a continuation of service provision that was provided at the Council’s old leisure facilities. The service was developed based on customer feedback and relevant research undertaken by the Council as well as recognised organisations such as Sport England and the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation. There was also a process of meetings and discussions with a range of individuals, groups and organisations that took place in advance of the new leisure centres opening in 2008/9 and this confirmed the need for the sessions to continue.

 

The Council understood that it will remain lawful for service providers (and associations in their capacity of providing services to their members) to provide separate services for persons of each sex, to offer different services to persons of each sex, or to offer single-sex services where certain circumstances apply. This will be where it is not as effective to offer the service jointly to men and women and the single sex restriction is objectively justifiable. For example: A swimming pool may offer women-only sessions as certain women may feel uncomfortable swimming in front of men. To allow women-only sessions may widen access to facilities for women without disproportionately restricting access to the facilities at other times. If this were the case, women-only sessions would not be unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Napper asked what was the legal position in having women only sessions and could men only sessions be provided.

 

Councillor Allen confirmed that should there be sufficient demand and evidence for men only sessions to be provided at leisure facilities, the Council would work with its partners PfP Leisure to give it full consideration, but could not of course guarantee to meet all requests for service.

 

To date there had not been any demand for a general public men only session, but at least one men only programme had been run, sponsored by the Hairy Bikers and focused on weight loss.

 

(7)  Councillor Reeder asked for a breakdown of the running costs of the day centres and how much had been budgeted for the Service users after closure thus giving a clear view as to how RMBC were going to save the £3 million that they were proposing to achieve.

 

Councillor Roche confirmed the savings on the running costs of existing facilities (based on full closure) were £2.895m. The building costs were different from the user costs so could not be put together.

 

(8)  Councillor Carter would receive an answer to his question in writing.

 

(9)  Councillor Napper referred to the L.G.A. setting up a national register for taxi and P.H.V. drivers (NR3) and run by National Fraud Network at Tameside M.B.C. and asked would R.M.B.C. be joining at a cost of £1050 per annum.

 

Councillor Ellis confirmed the Council already subscribed to the National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN) and uses the service for a range of enforcement and investigative purposes.  The National Register of Revocations and Refusals (NR3) went live in August 2018, and the Council’s Licensing Service would undertake a check of the database as part of the process of assessing an applicant’s fitness to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s license in Rotherham.

 

Licensing officers and Members recognised that weaknesses in current legislation could be exploited by certain individuals who may seek a license in another part of the country with the intention of working in Rotherham.  Some of these individuals may have been previous license holders in Rotherham and had their licenses revoked as a result of information that had been received by the licensing service.  The service had made numerous representations to Central Government departments in an attempt to address this issue, and had advocated the development of a national database that would allow local authorities to check the licensing history of individuals that made applications to them.

 

Council licensing officers initially contacted NAFN in March, 2017 and suggested that a shared database of revocations and refusals would be useful, and that the existing NAFN system could be adapted to provide this.  Following this contact, other local authorities expressed an interest in the scheme and a “local authority user group” was established in July 2017 (hosted by the Local Government Association).  Officers from Rotherham MBC were part of this user group, and over subsequent months officers were involved in the development and testing of NR3.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Napper asked if the Council could lobby Rotherham’s three Members of Parliament to push Clive Betts to get a national licensing strategy.

 

Councillor Ellis confirmed all three Members of Parliament were kept informed and kept up-to-date and discussions were now taking place with the Mayor of the Combined Authority to strengthen the voice.

 

(10)  Councillor Carter would receive an answer to his question in writing.

 

(11)  Councillor Cowles referred to a Lincolnshire Council having announced it is buying commercial properties in Sheffield as part of its strategy to fund social services and asked could the Cabinet Member advise if she was aware of whether or not they have bought any property in Rotherham?

 

Councillor Lelliott explained the Council was not aware of any Lincolnshire Council’s property holdings in Rotherham.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles confirmed he recently attended a conference in London on commercial strategy and it seemed that there were many Councils and Local Authorities who had developed a commercial strategy.  For example to name a few, Northumberland had a development company, Lincolnshire had bought a hotel and gym in Sheffield and Leeds had just implemented a new incinerator that burnt waste and produced hot water for social housing with 10% energy reduction costs for residents.  He was aware Rotherham had a single unit at the Advanced Manufacturing Park, but this did not compare of what many others were doing so asked if the Council had any intention of developing a commercial strategy and if not, why not since people were doing this for the simple reason of developing a revenue stream to fund social services rather than announcing closures.

 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed the unit at the Advanced Manufacturing Park had not been supported by the opposition.  However, further consideration was being given to the Beighton link project and where further opportunities arose these would be explored in order to get the best for the residents of Rotherham.

 

(12)   Councillor Carter would receive an answer to his question in writing.

 

(13)  Councillor Napper referred to residents of Sandhill asking if the top 50 metres of Sandhill Road could revert back to two way traffic as ambulances etc. have to detour 500 to 800 metres with the exit view blocked by parked vehicles so why not.

 

Councillor Hoddinott had received advice to indicate that this fell far short of the minimum standards set out in the Department for Transport’s advice for the Geometric Design of Major/Minor Priority Junctions TD 42/95 and suggested that she arrange for a meeting with Councillor Napper and officers for them to go through the technical detail and reasons for its layout.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Napper argued officers had replied that it was Government advice for exits around that area, but when it came to Government advice this was not followed in relation to Ravenfield crossroads.  Looking at this area with the exit onto North Street there were vans parked on both sides delivering to shops and traffic had to go into the middle of the road to see to come out.  He asked could it either be made to “no parking” to keep it clear as no one used that stretch.  There were no shops at the top of Sandhill Road so could officers take a further look.

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed she would facilitate a visit with officers and Councillor Napper.

 

(14)  Councillor Cowles stated, having discussed Eastwood at the last meeting, the Cabinet Member told us about the wonderful mural created in Eastwood.  He had visited that evening to take a look and guess what no mural and it was actually started on the 16th August, 2018, and he asked was it the Cabinet Member’s policy to mislead the Council in order to create a false impression?

 

Councillor Hoddinott referred to the progress on this project which had been documented on social media.

 

The local community project led by volunteers involved a number of stages in the creation and completion of the mural; celebrating history and landmarks.  The process started back in March with a community clean up and on the 9th and 10th June painting of the walls commenced in preparation, identifying designs and then transferring those to the walls and whilst it was not yet finished good progress was being made.  The Cabinet Member asked if Councillor Cowles wished to support the community with their painting.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles quoted from the previous minutes of Council referring to the recent work in the subway transforming the area with the mural which had been created – no mural had been completed nor was there any mention the smell which had not improved and asked again was it the Cabinet Member’s policy to mislead people.

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed there was a mural design which had been shared.  The work had commenced in the subway with the base paints already being completed.

 

(15)  Councillor Carter would receive an answer to his question in writing.

 

(16)  Councillor Cowles referred to the Budget approved by the Council which included savings for 2017/18 of £100k in relation to enhanced enforcement of environmental crime. Based on 8,000 fines and working with Doncaster the business case showed a shortfall of £77,900 and asked was this proposed saving brought to scrutiny without prior proper evaluation?

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the report to Cabinet and Commissioners in December, 2017 outlined that the Budget approved by Council on 8th March, 2018 included savings for 2017/18 of £100,000 in relation to enhanced enforcement of environmental crime. However, it was made clear that “…until the procurement process has been completed and details of the arrangements with Doncaster have been finalised it is not possible to report on what the final financial position will be although it is expected to achieve a saving. Should there be any budget shortfall this would need to be met from savings elsewhere in the Directorate and would require the approval of Cabinet due to the fact that the currently approved savings would be being delivered by a different means.” 

 

The pilot that was the initiative proved successful with a big increase in the number of fines for dog fouling and litter which were big concerns for the public.  That pilot was useful and provided not only additional revenue, but allowed the Council to look at some of the costs through that process. 

 

The Cabinet and Commissioners then agreed the shared service with Doncaster to move this forward and at that point it was made very clear until the process was completed the exact costs were not known.  It was worth pointing out that this was additional money coming into the Council through an initiative and achieved enhanced enforcement alongside a surplus to the Council.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to the hard work of scrutiny and in particular the Chair who pushed himself and the team hard.  The team were required to attend meetings every two weeks, attend pre-scrutiny meetings and work through potential questions.  The report on the website offered three options.  Successful trial - no additional people were required and the option brought to scrutiny did not require anyone else to run it and was brought as a £100,000 saving.  The second was for the Council to employ additional administrative staff in Rotherham which had reduced the savings and the third option to work in conjunction with Doncaster which was the most expensive and created a shortfall of £80,000.  This was from the cost conscious Cabinet Member who claimed to have taken Dignity to task and achieved the best deal, yet the least effective solution was chosen whilst wasting the time of scrutiny in asking them to evaluate an option based on recruiting no extra people. 

 

Councillor Cowles was in favour of shared services, but from experience they saved money, but also cost money.  The report talked about mitigation but there was no mitigation.  Why bring savings for scrutiny to spend time looking at and raise questions and do something completely different which cost more money.  He would be speaking and/or writing to the Chair of Scrutiny as it was not acceptable.

 

Councillor Hoddinott in response had taken this to scrutiny with all the options and the shared option was supported.  Discussion had taken place around the pilot, the back office administration and she considered the shared service to be a good way forward.  The estimate of the savings put forward was now back to officers to look at further savings around this.

 

(17)  Councillor Carter would receive an answer to his question in writing.

 

(18)  Councillor Cowles asked why, after repeated complaints about anti-social behaviour in Eastwood, had the Eastwood Deal not been amended to include the use of a ‘community trigger’.

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed a Community Trigger could only be applied to individual incidents and not to a whole community.  The Eastwood Deal covered the whole community and was a multi-agency response to some of the issues in that area. 

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles believed there were a number of incidents in Eastwood that would have triggered a response.  There was one in place at Page Hall providing results and was having a positive effect on the problems they were experiencing.  He asked the Cabinet Member again why there was not a similar facility in Eastwood

 

Councillor Hoddinott pointed out it was worth going back to understand what a Community Trigger was; it came from the community in response to anti-social behavior incidents.  The Community Trigger could be called for by either a victim of anti-social behaviour or another person acting on their behalf such as a Carer, family member, Member of Parliament or Councillor. It would not be the Council who called for the trigger as it would be the Council that responded.  The Council would need to look at issues and respond to the concerns with partners and act accordingly.

 

(19)  Councillor Cowles referred to Councillor Sansome and himself having visited the Police and Crime Commissioner in July to discuss the poor performance of the 101 call and connect service.  He expected that by now the Leader had been briefed on what we found and asked what conclusions had the Leader reached and what did he intend to do about it?

 

The Leader paid testimony to the work by Councillor Sansome, the Police and Crime Panel representative, who had had a meeting with the Police and Crime Commissioner and raised his concerns about the 101 service.  He had also, at his urging, written to the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding the steps the Police were taking to address the problems and not routing internal calls through the 101 service.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles would have thought that the Police and Crime Panel representative would have briefed the Leader.  He outlined what he had found:-

 

·                Two proposed implementation dates – both failed.

·                Would not provide a future date, unlikely this year.

·                Asked for documentation for the quality and project plan – not received.

·                Asked about commercials – commercially sensitive.

·                Not chosen a tiered telecommunications/software provider.

·                Software provider unheard of for such an important project.

·                Told concerned if too much financial pressure on provider may go bust.

·                This was taxpayers’ money and hardly surprising Labour showed no interest.

 

He asked again what did the Leader intended to do about it.

 

The Leader confirmed he would keep sending the Labour representative to the Police and Crime Panel who took an interest in this subject and was vociferous about the concerns unlike the UKIP representative who was advised and never raised this issue.