To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question in respect of matters within the Council’s area of responsibility or influence.
Subject to the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may ask one question and one supplementary question, which should relate to the original question and answered received.
Councillors may also ask questions under this agenda item.
Minutes:
(1) A member of the public in asking a question followed on from a discussion at the last Cabinet meeting about the commissioning of services for adult survivors. He had received a letter from the Assistant Director for Commissioning and Performance, for which he was grateful, and he had written back about public consultation and his pleasure that the Council had the same objective. He asked how could the Council reach members of the public, particularly those people who have suffered abuse, but did not necessarily want to be identified. They could come forward as part of the public consultation, but it was indicated the consultation would take place in February, but was this correct.
The Leader would clarify the actual dates for the commencement date, but this had been delayed slightly due to some of the arrangements.
It was hoped, however, that this would commence as quickly as possible, but done in a way that was safe for all parties. The Leader was committed to making sure the consultation would enable survivors to come forward and make their views known and share their experiences, but in a way that did not threaten their anonymity.
The Leader would confirm in writing about the timeline for when it was likely the consultation would take place once he had discussed this further.
In a supplementary question the member of the public referred to an e-mail exchange where it was suggested he put in a Freedom of Information request. However, he had since met with the NCA and discussed the issue of additional resources for adult survivors and how the Council could be assisted in seeking additional funds. He had also contacted by email the Chair of the Improving Lives Select Commission over three weeks ago and had still not received a response. This was a shame as he was aware the Improving Lives Select Commission was dealing with this process and so asked if the Leader thought it appropriate for the Chair of the Improving Lives Select Commission to respond to an e-mail asking for a meeting with one or two adult survivors of CSE
The Leader responded to the three queries and confirmed it would be for the Chair of the Improving Lives Select Commission to determine whether she believed it appropriate or not to meet. However, he would ask her to respond to the member of the public’s e-mail.
In terms of the email about the FOI response the member of the public was copied into, some of the information could be provided and the Leader would come back on this.
In terms of the NCA bidding process there were two parts to this. The Council were working alongside the NCA with the Government and specifically around costs arising from Operation Stovewood and the support services for victims and survivors coming through those court cases. This was a particularly intense period of time and required specific support. Discussions with Government remained ongoing.
The Council also had a broader commitment and this formed part of consultation and, whilst the support to victims and survivors was connected, they were not the same thing.
(2) A member of the public expressed his dismay that Councillor Lelliott had given her apologies today. He had attended a meeting about CILs for Parish Councillors and had asked why the Bramley one way traffic system had not been included on the wish list for CIL spend. He was advised by Councillor Lelliott that she would not discuss it and if the member of the public wanted to discuss it he was to see her outside of the meeting. At the end of the meeting the member of the public fully intended broaching this issue, but Councillor Lelliott had already left. He subsequently left her a message for her to ring him, but had not received a reply. He, therefore, asked why did the Leader choose members of the Cabinet who were untrustworthy and unreliable.
The Leader did not believe he had chosen Cabinet Members who were untrustworthy and unreliable. He had not been able to speak to Councillor Lelliott about the comment described, but would like to receive her recollection first.
However, the Leader pointed out that if a member of the public wished to raise an issue with the one way system or indeed any other part of the Council's infrastructure, then this was a conversation that should take place.
In a supplementary question the member of the public pointed out the flaws in the one way system, which Councillor Lelliott admitted in a letter two years ago. Everyone accepted this was a flawed system and ought to be improved in some way so the member of the public asked, therefore, once the Leader had spoken to Councillor Lelliott, could he ask that she contact him to set up a meeting to discuss the matter.
The Leader confirmed he would be happy to do so.