Agenda item

 

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.

(1)  Mr. S. Ball was unable to attend today’s meeting so his question would be answered in writing.

 

(2)   Mr. P. Thirlwallasked could the Leader tell him who was responsible for ensuring that Councillors complied with the ‘Code of Conduct’ and explain what actions were taken when Councillors were found to be in breach of the code?

 

The Leader confirmed that the responsibility for complying with the Code of Conduct rested with the individual Councillors. 

 

Where a Councillor was found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct the options available to the Standards and Ethics Sub-Committee were:-

 

(1)     Censure or reprimand the Councillor.

(2)     Publish its findings in respect of the Councillor’s conduct.

(3)     Report its findings to Council [or to the respective Parish/Town Council if appropriate], for information.

(4)     Recommend to the Councillor’s Group Leader (or in the case of ungrouped Councillors, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council.

(5)     Recommend that the Councillor be removed from the Cabinet, or be removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities.

(6)     Instruct the Monitoring Officer to [or recommend that the Parish/Town Council] arrange training for the Councillor.

(7)     Remove [or recommend to the Parish/Town Council that it removes] the Councillor from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the Council [or by the Parish/Town Council].

(8)     Withdraw [or recommend to the Parish/Town Council that it withdraws] facilities provided to the Councillor by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access.

(9)     Exclude [or recommend that the Parish Council exclude] the Councillor from the Council’s offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings.

 

The Localism Act 2011 abolished much of the standards system for Councillors including Councils’ powers to suspend Councillors from their duties and the power to refer more serious cases to the First Tier Tribunal, which had the power to suspend for longer periods and to disqualify Councillors.  This had severely limited the sanctions available to Councils when dealing with Councillor who have breached the Code of Conduct.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Thirlwall pointed out that the failure to comply with the register of interests within twenty-eight days of being elected was a criminal offence with a £5,000 fine and the said Councillor could be barred from standing for elected office.

 

He went on to point out that Councillor Cowles received £8,000 for being the Leader of the Opposition, however, ten of the thirteen UKIP Councillors had not completed the register of interests properly, eight of those Members had not listed their membership of the UKIP political party and two had left their register completely blank.

 

The Labour Party had not fared much better.  Seven Labour Members had not listed their Labour membership, one was a Cabinet Member, one a Chair of a Committee and one claimed to own their own house.  This was not satisfactory.

 

Members could not absolve themselves from completing their register now as they had missed the twenty-eight day period so Mr. Thirlwall, therefore, asked would the Leader be reporting all these Councillors to the Standards and Ethics Committee and the Crown Prosecution Service or was he going to allow them to continue breaking  the law.

 

The Leader was not sure the Crown Prosecution Service would welcome the referral, but would take legal advice from the Monitoring Officer on the appropriate route to be followed and would urge Councillors to ensure their register of interests were updated.

 

(3)   Mr. L. Harronasked, in response to my supplementary question at the Council meeting on 25th July, 2018 the Leader of RMBC Council stated:-

 

“I will study that and I will come back to you in writing”

 

Ninety days had now passed and he had received no response in writing and he asked the Leader if he could explain this?

 

The Leader apologised as having checked the transcript of the meeting believed he was to receive something further from Mr. Harron before responding.  However, he was happy to pick this up again if Mr. Harron wanted to forward on the latest piece of correspondence.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Harron pointed out he had quoted from the transcript and had checked this again before he submitted the question.

 

This raised a bigger issue as at the same Council Meeting there was a petition calling on the Leader to urgently meet with the Adult Survivors Kampaign to review the bid to the Home Office with a view to taking a different approach in the bid for resources.  Mr. Harron asked again when would the Adult Survivors Kampaign get a response to that petition.

 

The Leader confirmed he had responded regarding the petition and on at least two subsequent occasions offering meetings to meet with the Adult Survivors Kampaign.

 

(4)  Mr. R. Beecherasked did South Yorkshire Fire Authority have sufficient funds to reinstate the second night time appliance at Rotherham Fire Station?

 

Councillor Atkin advised the Service continued to face significant funding pressures, including the need to save £1.4 million from its annual budget as a result of the Close Proximity Crewing Judicial Review, a potential multi-million pound increase in employer pension contributions and as yet unknown costs relating to detriment claims for staff displaced because of Close Proximity Crewing.

 

As a result of these cost pressures and the fact that significant proportions of reserves were allocated to essential  capital investment, including operational equipment, replacement fire engines and fit for purpose stations and training facilities for firefighters, there was no opportunity to reinstate the second night time appliance. To do so, would require an alteration to the existing immediately available arrangements at a single pump station elsewhere, which would have even greater impact in that area.

 

The Fire Authority agreed earlier this year that the Service should begin the process of developing a revised Integrated Risk Management Plan, which would consider its future service provision (including fire cover) in line with the money available to it. 

 

This Council had made clear its view that it would wish to see the second appliance restored and Councillor Atkin had made clear his view to the Fire Authority colleagues in the approach to the revised Integrated Risk Management Plan.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Beecher pointed out the removal of the second appliance at night time in Rotherham was never meant as a cash saving, but an efficiency saving.  The Integrated Risk Management Plan clearly stated the second pump would be placed at Parkway on day staffing. Where was this pump and where was its twelve staff.  They simply did not exist.  The station would require thousands of pounds to accommodate the changes.  Currently in Rotherham there were seven members working the day shift when there should be twelve.  This was a similar position in Barnsley.  Quite simply it was not working and it never had and staff disliked the system so much that many had requested transfers onto the 224 shift system.  The Fire Authority spokesperson blamed austerity for the cuts, but what he failed to tell this Chamber was that before this period the Fire Authority had consistently underspent meaning now had a reserve pot of £27 million out of an operating budget of around £49 million.  Earlier this year Councillor Elliott tabled a motion.  It was amended with Councillor Read including “where finances allow”.   Clearly, they did. 

 

At a recent scrutiny meeting the Fire Authority spokesperson sat alongside the Chief Fire Officer answering questions for nearly two hours.  At the end of the meeting it was recommended to reinstate that appliance.  On this basis Mr. Beecher asked, as Vice-Chair of the Fire Authority, would Councillor Atkin lobby fellow members and openly and actively seek reinstatement of the second night time appliance.

 

Councillor Atkin confirmed he had consistently spoken to his Fire Authority colleagues about this and other requests.  The Fire Authority simply could not do everything with the envelope they had.

 

(5) Mr. M. Sylvesterasked what ambitions did this Council have to increase the number of green flag parks in the Borough?

 

Councillor Allen confirmed the Council had a strong desire for all of its services to be of a high quality, but sometimes ambition was overtaken by reality.  In the face of continued reductions in funding from Central Government, pressures in Social Care and the cost of entering parks for awards (including the associated increase in levels of maintenance), ambitions were focused on possible achievements and the Service was looking into possible applications for Country Park Accreditation at two country parks (Thrybergh and Rother Valley) as there was no cost for this.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Sylvester asked in looking at Green Flag status Rotherham did not fair too well as Bassetlaw had two, Doncaster had four and Sheffield had twelve plus another community one.  This came down to resources and putting necessary details together and was it the best to be chasing Green Flag status.  There was a perception local parks were being sacrificed for Green Flag.  Over the past two weeks the play area at Thrybergh had been completely out of use, barricaded off and could not be used by local children during half term.  Should officers not ensure play areas were available during half term rather than merely looking for Green Flag accreditation.

 

Councillor Allen was not aware of the position with the play area at Thrybergh, but assured Mr. Sylvester she would go away and investigate this particular situation and reply.  She pointed out that there had been no sacrificing of other local parks for success of Green Flag status at Clifton Park or the chasing of votes and maintenance at any other parks had not been reduced.  This status had been voted for by the people of Rotherham and Councillor Allen was incredibly grateful for this.

 

(6)   Mr. N. Carbuttin February asked about monies committed to reserves on a yearly basis from 2006. The Fire Authority spokesperson said he would write to him with the answers. For the benefit of this Council could the spokesperson now describe the yearly sums committed to reserves in each of those years?

 

Councillor Atkin congratulated the FBU on its recent 100^th anniversary.  He went on to state that the Fire Service’s finances were a matter of public record and were reported to the Fire Authority, which was a public meeting, on a regular basis which Mr. Carbutt attended.

 

As explained in response to the same question earlier this year, the growth in reserves was mainly a consequence of the retirement rate of operational staff outpacing the rate at which the Service’s funding had reduced, and having no confidence to recruit new fire fighters (which were now a 40 year commitment) due to uncertainty about the extent and duration of future cuts. A significant proportion of these reserves would now be spent over the next few years on necessary capital projects including investments in equipment, vehicles and buildings for firefighters.

 

This would leave a much smaller amount of other earmarked and general reserves (expected to be around £5 million), to provide for other initiatives and unexpected future costs, such as insurance and operational contingency.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Carbutt expressed his disappointment that on the second time of asking he was still awaiting answers.  Council amended the motion to add “where finances allow” and clearly they have allowed.  The finances were publically available, but this was not why he asked the question, but to demonstrate that there were resources to keep Rotherham’s second appliance available at night time.  It was fact that this was the sixth busiest appliance in South Yorkshire and demonstrated not only a financial need, but a need in terms of risk and Mr. Carbutt asked that this matter be referred back to Scrutiny where it was discussed some months ago.

 

Councillor Atkin was unable to see what advantage it would be for the matter to be reconsidered by Scrutiny, as nothing significant had altered, but it would be for Scrutiny to decide.

 

(7)  Elizabeth stated that, as a member of the community of Rotherham, she and many others were shocked by the negative comments made about same sex couples being allowed to foster and adopt the most vulnerable children.

 

She asked what did the Leader plan to do to challenge this disgraceful behaviour?

 

The Leader confirmed his shock and disappointment for reasons set out at Agenda Item 13, but gave his assurances that the view of the Member was not a representation of the views of the Council.  He reiterated and welcomed foster carers from all backgrounds including same sex couples.

 

The Member concerned had been subject to a Standards and Ethics Committee hearing which produced a number of recommendations and as a result had undergone some equalities training.   The agenda item later would consider the recommendations, but it was felt the Member was not an appropriate person to represent the Council on the Police and Crime Panel.  The comments made fell short of the standards expected of Members.