To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).
1. Councillor B. Cutts asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health “With 130 people registered on their books, I am very concerned for the people who attend the Addison Day Centre I have received a 260 page report, however to date, page 75 Addison Road, is not mentioned. Could I now have the present position?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health advised that, prior to the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic, there were 88 individuals who attended the Addison Centre and that they had all been contacted by staff regarding the reassessment process, with many individuals already accessing the new services. The Cabinet Member advised that while the Addison Centre was not in use due to current restrictions, staff at the Centre had remained in contact with individuals and carers to provide them with as much support as was possible. The Cabinet Member provided information on the activity that was happening to restart the transformation activity as restrictions related to the pandemic were eased. The Cabinet Member noted that the Council maintained its commitment to support all individuals and provided assurance that no one would move from the Addison Centre until they had a robust support plan in place.
As a supplementary question Councillor B Cutts advised that he had been provided with different information when he had asked this question previously and sought clarification on how the Council had arrived at the current position.
In response the Cabinet Member advised that the review of Service provision had started in 2015, with a plan being formulated in 2016 that had been subject to full consultation and Scrutiny input, with Scrutiny Members supporting the proposals. It was noted that the related Judicial Review regarding the changes had found in favour of the Council.
2. Councillor Carter asked the Cabinet Member for Cleaner, Greener Communities “What impact do you believe the coronavirus outbreak has had on the Council’s plans to become the Children’s Capital of Culture?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Cleaner, Greener Communities advised that the Children’s Capital of Culture was planned for 2025, and that by then it would be hoped that the impact of the pandemic would be minimal. The Cabinet Member advised that originally it had been planned that external funding would be sought for outline proposals, and that in the first year of planning these would be focused on early conversations and consultation with target groups with a view to developing a more formal ‘launch’ of the programme early 2021. The Cabinet Member advised that as these programmes needed funding to ensure that they had the resources required to meaningfully engage with children and young people across the Borough, early discussions had taken place with Arts Council England who were supportive of bid for funding. However, as a result of the pandemic, Arts Council England had halted all funding streams and diverted resources into emergency funding that the Council was not eligible to receive.
The Cabinet Member advised with the applications for funding from Arts Council England reopening imminently, and given the time taken to develop a bid, engage with groups and to build trust and confidence, that it was now envisaged that the public launch of the Children’s Capital of Culture programme would take place next Summer.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter noted that given Rotherham’s history the Borough was a surprising choice for the Children’s Capital of Culture and asked what activity was planned in order to consult with residents to ensure that they were connected and engaged with the programme.
In response the Cabinet Member advised that increased public engagement was a key element in the Council’s Cultural Strategy and that significant engagement activity was planned with the community via the Cultural Partnership Board and invited Councillor Carter to a future meeting of Board.
3. Councillor B. Cutts asked the Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy “With the height of the steel shuttering now almost determined and complete, can we now have an update on the next stage of the Forge Island programme?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy advised that now planning permission has been secured and that the next stage in delivering the scheme was to complete legal agreements with the cinema and hotel. The Cabinet Member advised that despite the implications of the pandemic, both the cinema and hotel operators that had been negotiating with the Council’s development partner to locate on Forge Island remained keen to progress with the scheme and to conclude a deal.
There was no supplementary question.
4. Councillor Carter asked the Leader “How does the Leader believe the coronavirus outbreak has affected the medium and long-term strategies for the development of the Town Centre?”
In response the Leader noted that it was still very early to be able to fully assess the impact of the pandemic on the traditional high street but advised that the pandemic would most likely hasten the decline of traditional retail, and as such the Council’s Town Centre Masterplan was more important than ever. The Leader noted that the Masterplan recognised the need to enhance the attractiveness of the Town Centre, for it to have less emphasis on the traditional retail model and promote a more diverse and mixed offer that would create the right environment for future investment. The Leader advised that the Council would continue its focus on delivering its long-term strategy for the Town Centre.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked for further information on the specific activities that had been happening in relation to the delivery of the Masterplan.
In response the Leader provided information on activities that were underway including information on the Future High Streets Fund bid, support from the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, engagement with local businesses and the delivery of new homes in the Town Centre.
5. Councillor M. Elliott asked the Leader “With reference to a recent Licensing Application regarding a fast food outlet on Fitzwilliam Road, an objection was lodged by Children and Young Peoples Services on the grounds of anti-social activity, Child Sexual and Criminal Exploitation. Therefore, as you are obviously aware of these issues, just what are you, and partners e.g. the Police doing about this?”
In response the Leader noted that in respect of the individual application for the fast food outlet there had not been any concerns raised about the individual making the application but rather concern about how this type of provision would advantage the local community and residents.
The Leader stated that Council staff and partners from across the partnership took concerns regarding child exploitation very seriously and that weekly multi-agency meetings were held in order to share intelligence, that in turn enabled preventative and disruptive actions to be taken where necessary to safeguard young people in Rotherham. The Leader noted that when the Council received information relating to concerns of exploitation of children, Children’s Services worked closely with colleagues in South Yorkshire Police to ensure that individual children were safe and that all actions were taken to progress a criminal investigation. Furthermore, the weekly intelligence meetings allowed information to be shared relating to indicators of vulnerability.
The Leader advised that at the weekly intelligence meetings information was shared from across the Borough that resulted in action being taken to protect individual children and young people and enabled work in neighbourhoods to reduce opportunities for offending to occur. The Leader noted the community-based activities that had taken place in the area of Eastwood, where Fitzwilliam Road was located to reduce vulnerabilities including increased use of re-deployable CCTV in the area.
The Leader advised that the Council’s specialist CSE service, Evolve, and the Youth Offending Service were working closely with the Police, local schools and Drug and Alcohol Services for young people in order to undertake community and group work to support reduction and prevention. It was noted that following the pausing of some of these projects due to restrictions related to the pandemic work would soon be restarting. It was noted that even during the pandemic that several partners, including Council staff, the Police and the voluntary sector had continued to have a presence within the area supporting the community.
The Leader advised that regarding individual children and young people who had been identified as being at risk of exploitation, whether that be sexual exploitation or criminal exploitation, a range of interventions were available to be deployed dependent upon the assessed level of risk, with all concerns discussed at the weekly meetings, with appropriate follow-up activity and monitoring conducted. The Leader assured the meeting that tackling Child Sexual Exploitation remained a priority for the Council and its partners via the Safer Rotherham Partnership and the Safeguarding Children’s Partnership and noted that a number of campaigns had been developed to encourage victims and bystanders to report information or intelligence.
As a supplementary question Councillor M. Elliott noted that given the history in Rotherham of Child Sexual Exploitation, it was essential that the Council was seen to be taking action in preventing this activity and asked why that, despite action having been taken, the visibility and awareness of these activities was not very visible to the local community.
In response the Leader advised that extra resources had been put into place in the area that had made a difference including Public Space Protection Orders and Selective Licensing. The Leader acknowledged that their remained significant challenges in the area but assured the meeting that a robust multi-agency approach was in place to deal with Child Sexual Exploitation in the area.
6. Councillor Carter asked the Chair of the Planning Board “With rumoured changes to planning legislation how does the Council intend to deal with the permitted development rules regarding the conversion of retail and office units?”
In response the Chair of the Planning Board advised that while there had been rumours that the Government was to make it easier to convert more types of buildings into residential accommodation without requiring planning permission, there had been no consultation documents issued in relation to any further changes to planning legislation. The Chair advised that statements had been made by the Government about a big shake up to the planning system and that a Planning Policy Paper had been promised for release in July setting out its ‘plan for comprehensive reforms of England’s planning system to better support the economy and release more land for housing in areas that need it most’. The Chair reaffirmed the Council was committed to high quality development and did not want to see an increase in low quality developments of office block conversions.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked what type of reforms to the planning system would the Council like to see to ensure a sufficient supply of housing in Rotherham.
In response the Chair advised that the Council’s Local Plan provided a good and sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites that continued to attract good levels of interest from developers.
7. Councillor M. Elliott asked the Cabinet Member for Housing “A property on Russel Street, Eastwood, was recently found being used as a Cannabis Farm. Does the Selective Licensing Policy allow for the Landlords License to be revoked in such circumstances?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Housing advised that where a landlord has a serious conviction, for example for cannabis cultivation, then the provisions within Legislation and the Council’s Selective Licensing Scheme did allow Licenses to be revoked. The Cabinet Member noted that while there had been 238 revocations of Selective Licenses since May 2015, the vast majority of these had been for breaches of Selective Licensing conditions relating to the effective management of the property, such as failures to take up references from tenants or the failure to carry out gas and electrical safety checks.
There was no supplementary question.
8. Councillor Carter asked the Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety “Given the impact coronavirus is having on the hospitality sector, will the Council commit to removing the anti-business Cumulative Impact Zone Licensing Policy, or is this administration prepared to see the few successful hospitality areas in the Borough such as Wickersley go the same way as the Town Centre?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Waste, Road and Community Safety advised the Council did not consider the Cumulative Impact Policy to be anti-business and noted that there was nothing in the Policy that would prevent well managed, responsible businesses from thriving in Wickersley. The Cabinet Member advised that the Cumulative Impact Policy did not ban new licensed premises from opening in the area but was intended to ensure that the night time economy in Wickersley could operate successfully, whilst at the same time ensuring that local residents were not adversely affected by those activities. The Cabinet Member stated that the Council recognised the challenging environment that many businesses, including those in the hospitality sector were currently facing and noted that the Council did not believe that the removal of the Cumulative Impact Policy would be an appropriate or necessary response to the current situation.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter noted that with the hospitality sector struggling due to the pandemic, and with many residents employed in the sector, that the Council should be working to support hospitality businesses, and as such would the Council be promoting the Government’s “Eat out to help out” scheme.
In response the Cabinet Member advised that the Council was working with the hospitality sector to help it recover from the impact of the pandemic and for residents to be able to enjoy the hospitality sector safely.
9. Councillor Carter asked the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Finance “At the last Council meeting it was revealed that over 40% of the Council’s workforce was working from home since the pandemic. How does the Council plan to facilitate home working long term?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Finance advised that the latest Council workforce data showed that 46% of Council staff were currently working from home, but noted that many Council staff would have been working from home on some days of the week prior to the pandemic in accordance with the Council’s flexible working arrangements. The Cabinet Member noted that since restrictions were imposed in March, that staff had quickly adapted to new ways of working and had continued to deliver Council services.
The Cabinet Member advised that like every good employer, the Council was aware that every colleague’s personal circumstances were different and that whilst current working practices would suit some individuals, they would also present challenges for others. The Cabinet Member advised that in order to support staff the Council had provided a range of advice and support in relation to working from home.
The Cabinet Member advised that the Council would be reviewing its approach to home working assessments in order to support colleague’s physical health. The Cabinet Member advised that a staff survey had just been launched so that colleagues across the Council could share their experiences of working from home in order to identify what additional support they would value longer term. The Cabinet Member noted that home working arrangements would continue to be kept under review based on the Government’s latest guidance on Covid Secure working arrangements and the need to continue social distancing.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter welcomed the high number of staff working successfully at home and asked that while this was a temporary measure and as services had continued to function, was the Council looking at enabling permanent home working?
In response the Cabinet Member noted that the current arrangements were temporary and that due to the evolving pandemic it was hard to predict what would happen in the future but noted that the Council had always supported flexible working practices for staff.
10. Councillor Carter asked
the Cabinet Member for Cleaner, Greener Communities “As the
Council has recognised, Ash Dieback is affecting our
Borough’s trees. Does the Council commit to a policy where
removed trees are replaced with sufficient trees to make the
process carbon neutral or better?”.
In response the Cabinet Member for Cleaner, Greener Communities advised that the problem of Ash Dieback had been noted and that it had received full consideration in the discussions of the Climate Emergency Working Group. The work of the Group had resulted in an action plan being developed that included targets for carbon capture over the next decade, with an aim of carbon neutrality for the Borough and the implementation of a tree planting strategy. The Cabinet Member advised that the Council was committed to, and had ensured that where trees were removed, more trees were always replanted than had been removed.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked for confirmation that while not currently the case that policies were in place to move the Borough to a position of carbon neutrality or better. The Cabinet Member advised that this was partly true as actions were still being developed but noted that with regard to planning applications part of the negotiations with developers now always included discussions on how tree planting could be maximised.
11. Councillor Napper asked the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Finance “The now defunct Just Yorkshire and Rethinking Prevent charities have been given an official warning due to misconduct or mismanagement with regards to unauthorised payments to trustees. Rethinking Prevent was also accused of promoting extremist viewpoints: - so has RMBC had any involvement with these 2 charities and have they received any monies in the past from RMBC?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Finance advised that the Council had not had any involvement with these charities and stated they had not received any money from the Council in the past. The Cabinet Member noted that a charity called “Just West Yorkshire”, which records suggested was the same charity as Just Yorkshire, had held premises in Rotherham between October 2016 and September 2019.
There was no supplementary question.
12. Councillor Carter asked the Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy “With Government funding being devolved for active travel schemes, how does the Council plan to use this money and what will the impact be on the current road infrastructure?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy advised that the Council had received confirmation of funding for Emergency Active Travel Funding based on two tranches of support. Tranche One had already been granted and was being used to support social distancing measures in town and district centres based on a set of plans developed in June 2020. The Cabinet Member noted that typically this work comprised of Town Centre signage to support retail recovery as well as temporarily widening footways using coning and temporary barriers and signage where queuing risks were identified. The Cabinet Member noted that these have met with mixed levels of support and acceptance and as such some have been removed.
The Cabinet Member advised that plans for Tranche Two funding were being drawn up and were scheduled to be submitted to Government by the 7th August deadline. The Cabinet Member noted that, if approved, the funding was expected to amount to approximately £1.5million and would be used to establish and improve cycling and walking measures along one or more routes into the Town Centre as well as for local active travel measures within residential locations.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked what the impact of the current and proposed measures would be on the current road network and road users. In response the Cabinet Member advised that active travel was always beneficial, and that the Council was doing as much as possible to promote initiatives that both encouraged healthy travel but also improved safety.
13. Councillor Napper asked the Leader “WYG Consultants have been engaged to carry out a survey on Eastwood, can the Leader tell us what will the cost to RMBC for their services?”
In response the Leader advised there would be no cost to the Council and that the work that WYG had been carrying out was funded by Government as part of the work to develop a Towns Deal proposal for submission to the Government in October. The Leader noted that the work covered an area across the wider Town Centre area including Eastwood and Templeborough and was essential in order to give the Council the best possible opportunity to secure up to £50 million of Government funding to enable a number of projects that would be presented through the Town Investment Plan.
There was no supplementary question.
14. Councillor Carter asked the Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy “What effect does the council think that the coronavirus pandemic will have on the Forge Island redevelopment?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy advised that the Forge Island scheme was continuing to progress well, noting that planning permission had being granted in July 2020 and that occupier interest remained strong. The Cabinet Member advised that there was every reason to be optimistic about the future of the scheme. The Cabinet Member noted that the development included high quality outdoor public spaces and areas for eating and drinking and that Forge Island was well placed to provide exactly the type of environment customers would be happy to visit post-pandemic.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked what the Council was doing to ensure that residents would be able to benefit from free on-site parking when using the facilities. In response the Cabinet Member advised that the Council was working with the cinema operator with regard to the provision of parking.
15. Councillor Napper asked the Leader “RMBC is supposed to be open and transparent, so can the Leader tell us why no-one was informed when the decision was taken to demolish the Old Hall at Bramley?”
In response the Leader advised that he had not been informed either and that he had learnt of the proposed demolition at the same time as everyone else.
The Leader advised that Planning permission as such was not required to demolish the Olde Hall at Bramley, adding that as the building was privately owned, was not a Listed Building and was not within a Conservation Area, planning permission as the term was generally understood was not required. The Leader noted that prior to the demolition of the building, the owner would have to notify the Council about the method of demolition and proposed restoration of the site, with the Council then having 28 days to consider whether the details of the demolition and of how the site would be restored once the building has been demolished were acceptable or not.
The Leader advised that the actual decision to demolish this building was not something that could be taken into account. The Leader advised that as part of the notification procedure the applicant was required to display a site notice for a period of 21 days that contained certain information, but that as the notice that had been originally displayed had not satisfied these minimum information requirements the process would have to be repeated.
The Leader advised in order to ensure better information sharing with Elected Members that in future such notifications would be included in the planning list information that was circulated to members.
There was no supplementary question.
16. Councillor Carter asked the Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy “With unemployment rising as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic, how does the Council leadership plan to support those residents who now find themselves without work?”
In response the Leader noted the seriousness of the current economic situation for many residents and advised that the Council would work with DWP, Job Centre Plus, colleges, training providers and the voluntary sector to put in place support for residents who found themselves out of work. The Leader noted that the Council had worked closely with partners across the Sheffield City Region in order to develop a City Region Renewal Action Plan that supported economic recovery and advised that the Council had strongly advocated that the economic impact on people and communities should be a major focus of the Plan. The Leader stated that he was pleased to report that the Council’s proposals had been supported by partners from across the region and that as such a detailed proposal had gone forward to Government describing a series of measures to help people find jobs and adapt to the new economy.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked what lobbying activity was planned to obtain financial support in enable for programmes to be delivered that would enable residents to retrain for different jobs.
In response the Leader noted that lobbying activity was taken place and provided information on elements of the Renewal Action Plan that included Train to Work, Back to Work, the Young People’s Skill Guarantee Post and the Overcome Barriers scheme that would work to support residents get back into sustainable employment.
17. Councillor Napper asked the Chair of the Planning Board “Planning permission was sought two or three times for the Old Hall, Bramley, only to be told that it was not in keeping with Bramley and planning refused. So can the question be asked, and we be informed, what exactly would be in keeping with planning for Bramley?”
In response the Chair of the Planning Board advised that Councillor Napper had been misinformed and that Planning permission for the site had been approved in October 2016 for the refurbishment and conversion of the existing building to form four dwellings together with the erection of two new dwellings. The Chair noted that this permission had expired in October 2019 and that no further applications had been submitted to the Council. The Chair advised that it was understood from a structural survey submitted to the Council that the building was no longer suitable for conversion and that also a notification to demolish the building was pending. It was noted that discussions were ongoing with the landowner in respect to the redevelopment of the site.
The Chair noted that as the site had been allocated for residential development the principle of residential use of the site was acceptable, however, due to there being a Listed Building adjacent to the site any redevelopment would have to be sensitive to that building. The Chair noted further than it would also be necessary, considering the character of the surrounding area that any proposed development would likely to be restricted to two storeys in height with separation distances and outside space incorporated in accordance with the Council’s Standard that were set out in the South Yorkshire Residential Design Guide.
There was no supplementary question.
18. Councillor Carter asked the Leader “Will the Council Leader on behalf of his group condemn both Labour MPs who represent Rotherham residents for not joining the ‘Excluded UK’ All-Party Parliamentary Group, who are working cross-party to fight for three million residents who have been left out by the Government’s coronavirus financial support schemes?”. In asking his question Councillor Carter qualified his question by noting that since he had submitted his question it was one Labour MP.
In response the Leader stated that he was not aware of the full membership details of this group but noted that most MP’s were members of numerous groups of this type. The Leader advised that Labour MP’s had been at the forefront of calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the Government’s financial support schemes and that John Healey MP had made representations to the Chancellor regarding support for the self-employed.
As a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked how the Council would work to support residents who had not been eligible for any of the Government’s financial support schemes.
In response the Leader advised that the Council had been working hard to distribute the funds that it had been allocated to those who were entitled to receive the support. The Leader noted that via the Council’s Discretionary Business Support Fund ,around £4million had been distributed to small businesses who had missed out on previous schemes and advised that the Council would continue to work within its resources to support residents.
19. Councillor Cowles asked the Deputy Leader “Social mobility campaigners are urging the setup of selective sixth forms to boost the chances of deprived children outside the capital of attending an elite university. Increased numbers of these schools are transforming the lives of disadvantaged children. MP’s state this is a priority. When can we expect to see adoption of this policy?”
In response the Deputy Leader advised that this would never happen.
As a supplementary question Councillor Cowles asked that as selective sixth forms were being rejected, how could high achievers at Rotherham’s schools be assisted most effectively as many high achievers did not maximise their potential due to the lack of effective guidance on choosing the best courses and the best universities. Councillor Cowles also asked how many young people in Rotherham went on to attend “Russell Group” universities.
The Deputy Leader advised that the establishment of selective sixth forms would need to be a ‘free school’ application and therefore would come through an existing Academy, ideally with experience of post-16 provision. The Deputy Leader noted that given the recent reduction in post-16 funding, any such applications would need to target an existing wide catchment, which was currently well provided for across Rotherham and, therefore, any new provision would be entering into a highly competitive market.
The Deputy Leader advised that whilst he would want to see more students from Rotherham applying and entering highly selective universities, evidence suggested that the key reasons for low entry into these institutions was not due to any lack of breadth of provision available, but more often because of the associated costs and barriers associated with low income families being able to afford the cost of attending such universities and the legacy costs connected to the repayment of any costs incurred during the study period.
20. Councillor Cowles asked the Cabinet Member for Housing “Selective Licensing has been in place for a full term. How many landlords, for whatever infringement of this Policy, have had one or more licenses revoked?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Housing advised that 238 Selective Licenses had been revoked since May 2015 and noted that that number included landlords that had breached conditions of the License, together with where landlords for a property had changed during the lifetime of the Licence.
The Cabinet Member stated that mandatory Selective Licensing of private rented housing had been shown to be a successful tool to improve standards of rented property, both locally and nationally and as such the Scheme had been extended for a further five years. This was supported through the decision to designate a number of Selective Licensing areas for a five years period which had commenced this year. The Cabinet Member noted that when the previous Selective Licensing Scheme began, over 90% of properties inspected had not met minimum legal standards, but by the end of the Scheme over 95% of properties had been compliant, with those that were not complaint going through a formal process for improvement. The Cabinet Member stated that he hoped the extended scheme to Thurcroft and Parkgate would bring the benefits of Selective Licensing to those communities.
As a supplementary question Councillor Cowles noted that whilst Selective Licensing had improved housing, it had not improved communities as a whole and asked how a landlord had not been aware that his property was being used as a cannabis farm.
In response the Cabinet Member asked that Councillor Cowles should raise any questions he had on specific cases with him outside of the meeting but noted that Selective Licensing had been effective and revoking licences where breaches had occurred.
21. Councillor Cowles asked the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Finance “A few weeks ago, ex-Councillor Vines published a letter in the local paper highlighting significant sums of money provided by RMBC as grants to various groups. Additionally, the letter indicated that there had been little or no scrutiny of how the money was spent. Can you assure us that this was not the case?”
In response the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Finance advised that it was clear from his letter what former Councillor Vines had been trying to suggest where he had highlighted a number of groups that supported black and minority ethnic people that had received money from the Council, grants that in most cases had been made many years ago. The Cabinet Member stated that the assertion that the Council had given Voluntary Action Rotherham £6 million made by former Councillor Vines was false and that while the Council had provided money for Magna, former Councillor Vines had at the time advocated higher levels of financial support. The Cabinet Member stated that the current administration had five years ago brought in a system that introduced a competitive grants process that was supported by strict financial safeguards that ensured a high degree of assurance regarding value for money.
As a supplementary question Councillor Cowles asked that given how the Leader had advised that questions are always answered, why had the Cabinet Member failed to answer the question he had asked fully. Councillor Cowles noted that he had not been given any assurance on the robustness of the process and scrutiny surrounding the allocation of such substantial sums.
The Cabinet Member noted his disagreement with this statement and advised that all processes were fully accountable.