Agenda item - Oral questions from Councillors

A list of Councillors who have indicated their desire to ask an oral question at the meeting along with the subject matters has been listed in the agenda papers (copy attached).

49.1      The Mayor noted that nine oral questions had been received and that 30 minutes were set aside for the duration of the item.  He also noted that Councillor Page had decided to withdraw his question.

 

(a)  Council Budget and Government Funding

 

49.2      The Mayor then invited Councillor G. Theobald to put his question to the Leader of the Council.

 

49.3      Councillor G. Theobald asked the following question, “I’d like the Leader of the Council to explain how his Administration will identify a more reliable, transparent, timely and scientific approach to forecasting service pressures to assist with future budget development.”

 

49.4      Councillor Morgan replied; “On a day when Councillor Theobald’s government has delivered an axe to schools funding, offered nothing in terms of easing the cuts on services provided by this council and has applied less than a sicking plaster to the gaping wound of social care funding. So for him to ask me when we’ve had this last minutes announcement around funding to provide some kind of better forecast I’m really at a loss as to how to answer that.”

 

49.5      Councillor G. Theobald asked the following supplementary question, “As Councillor Morgan knows full well there are three budget lines and generally speaking it’s those three services which are over spent. I mean I could go on, I believe he has written answer there which he’s waiting to put out to you all. I had a specific question and it was a sensible question which deserved a sensible answer and I would just remind Councillor Morgan that on a blog he sent out on the 5 August where gave 5 reasons Mr Corbyn would lead labour to defeat the councillor said ‘I want to be part of a party that strives for the power to deliver a better city and a better country not a movement which shouts at a perpetual Conservative government in the town hall and in the Commons’. Well that is exactly what Councillor Morgan is doing, stop blaming everything on the government, get on with running the council and give me a straight forward answer to my question.”

 

49.6      Councillor Morgan replied, “I am again slightly at a loss for words when Councillor Theobald must know unless he’s deaf to what his Conservative council colleague including Lord Porter the Conservative Head of the LGA is saying about the social care crisis which is affecting all top tier authorities in this country. He doesn’t like to hear it about his own government but I’m going to tell him about his own government. It is this government that is wrecking social care that is wrecking council funding, local government funding, for Labour councils, for Conservative Councils a like up and down the country. If he cannot listen to commentators, to council leaders to chief executives, to people from the social care sector that something has to be done about the social care crisis in this country then I really despair at Councillor Theobald’s attempts to try and score political points off of us here tonight. This is no longer a party political issue this is a serious issue about social care funding in this country and it needs to be addressed urgently.”

 

(b) City Clean Performance

 

49.7      The Mayor noted that the question had been withdrawn.

 

(c)    Support for Parents with Learning Difficulties

 

49.8      Councillor Wealls asked the following question, “Given the comprehensive set of positive response to the impetus work on highlighting the support needs and opportunities for parents with learning difficulties in the fairness commission response report we saw at Policy, Resources & Growth Committee last week and our commitment to bring our practises in line with the Department of Health good practice guide it was a really good positive response to those representations and my congratulations to the administration for that.

 

                            My question is what processes and steps does Councillor Bewick and colleagues intend to take to ensure that we’re up to date in progress against these objectives and in particular noting how many people are awaiting assessment under the care act?” 

 

49.9      Councillor Barford replied; “I’d like to thank Councillor Wealls for raising this issue today hopefully I can answer all of your questions but some were quite specific so if I can’t a full response will obviously follow. I’d also like to thank the Fairness Commission for their work and highlighting this issue in the first place.

 

            We’re absolutely committed to offering the best possible support to our families where parents have learning disabilities to enable them to bring their children up successfully. Our aim is to reduce the number of parents with a learning disability who have looked after children. However we recognise that it can be necessary for a child to become looked after, as our absolute need is to ensure the wellbeing and safety of the child. The large majority of parents with a learning disability raise their children themselves sometimes with additional support and sometimes without. To give some background, figures of cases open at 31 March 2016, 39 of 436 looked after children in the city have a parental learning disability record as a factor in their assessment. This equates to just under 9% of all looked after children. Of the 188 who began to be looked after during the year ending 30 November 2016, 15 had parental learning disability recorded as a factor in their looked after child review this is nearly 8%. It is important to note that children classified as a looked after children do also include children that are residing in placement with their parents but despite the relative small number of parents with a learning disability whose children become looked after, we know we need to improve our offer to them. As the proportion of families subject to escalating intervention increases slightly if the parent or parents have a learning disability so the provision of services may be able to help with but not always fully mitigate some of the multiple vulnerabilities experienced by people with a learning disability.

           

            Following on from the Fairness Commission’s report we are reviewing our current work practices. We recognise there are thing we could do such as early support for example access to good sex education and contraceptive advice, parenting support and education, and clear and easily accessible communications regarding universal. Alongside this we’re in the process of drafting a joint assessment protocol between adults and children as a point of statutory social work as it is necessary in assessing the safety of the child. We’re also anticipating this as a joint protocol ready in spring 2017 and we’re also doing more joined up working with the learning team coming together under a new directorate this November, Families, Children & Learning. We’ve also delivered training on good practice and we will continue to monitor data and information so we can evaluate the success of actions and adjust our approach accordingly”

 

49.10   Councillor Wealls asked the following supplementary question, “Thank you for that extremely comprehensive answer. I actually brought this up as I think we as a council have some very ambitious targets for parents with learning difficulties and I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of the work that was going on within the Fairness Commission. My question was really around processes for checking progress against those objectives. I appreciate you giving me lots of stats but what I’m interested in is how we keep a tab as politicians on what’s going and the support that given to those parents.”

 

49.11   Councillor Barford replied, “It is absolutely important to officers and councillors a like, as well as the general public, that they do need to know how we are keeping up with progress so we are happy to bring a report to the Neighbourhoods, Communities & Equalities Committee, due to the Fairness Commission coming through that process, but also to the Health and Wellbeing Board.”

 

(d)   Waste & Recycling

 

49.12   Councillor Deane asked the following question, “There appears to be a culture in the city that our communal waste and recycling facilities are a repository for large items of rubbish and usable household items and this can lead to perfectly usable items being taken unnecessarily to the incinerator. So my question to Councillor Mitchell is can you please tell me when we can expect to see signage on communal bins warning in large writing that fly tipping is illegal and for useable item directing resident to alternatives such as Freecycle sites?”

 

49.13   Councillor Mitchell replied; “Policy, Resources & Growth Committee last week gave permission for the purchase of a large number of new communal bins and this will give us the opportunity to place stickers on those bins warning about fly tipping but also I hope containing the type of information that you have suggested. We are already looking at recycling or helping to reuse some of the items which are tipped around the bins and this working is starting imminently.”

 

49.14   Councillor Deane asked the following supplementary question, “Councillor Mitchell when residents contact the council and they ask for large items to be collected why is it that they are not asked questions around that such as are they moving house and whether they know about the Freecycle sites or charity shops and whether they have considered donating to charity or other alternatives?”

 

49.15   Councillor Mitchell replied, “When residents do contact the call centre to ask about how large items can be disposed of they usually want a quick answer which would direct them to our website which does indeed offer other options or they would be given advice as to cost and so on of disposal. I think residents should and do get advice as to other avenues to disposing of these items and I will ensure that that advice is being given.”

 

(e)    Remembrance Day Parade

 

49.16   Councillor Barnett asked the following question, “Over the last few weeks so many people have got in touch with me expressing their disappointment at the decision not to stage a Remembrance Day parade in Hove this year. So many young men and women have fought in the wars right across the world and it is vitally important that we continue to remember them especially for their families and friends. Cllr Morgan as leader of the council will you promise to do everything you can to ensure that the parade returns to the streets of hove next year?”

 

49.17   Councillor Morgan replied; “I would remind Councillor Barnett that decisions on Remembrance events are taken not by the Administration but by the Leaders Group on which her leader sits and in conjunction with the Royal British Legion. We have discussed and agreed steps to address the reduction in available resources across the legion, the council and the police to safely organise the range of remembrance events which has grown in recent years but which now is not sustainable so those discussion will continue via the Leaders Group and with the Legion on what can be maintained for next year.”

 

49.18   Councillor Barnett asked the following supplementary question, “The local authority do organise the Remembrance services, you’re the Leader of the Council and you have the power to bang heads together and influence people, so I ask you again to do all you can to bring back the parade to Hove next year. I remind you that you are the Leader of the whole city council and I am afraid this is another example of Hove losing out to Brighton.”

 

49.19   Councillor Morgan replied, “This is dealt with in a cross-party way. I do hope that Councillor Barnett isn’t trying to make a party political issue from Remembrance events in whatever form they take we must continue to respect and mark the sacrifice of those who gave their lives in conflict and that should never be an opportunity to score party political points. This is something we took forward through officers with the Legion on an absolutely non-party basis.”

 

(f)     Housing Maintenance

 

49.20   Councillor Mears asked the following question, “Will the Chair of Housing bring forward a cross party review of the housing management contract following on from the concerns she has raised publicly that the 10 year contact let under our Conservative administration is in her words a ‘light touch contract’. In my view a worrying statement and I’m sure something she would want to look into in more detail.”

 

49.21   Councillor Meadows replied; “Councillor Mears you have thrown me as someone who did set this contract up, as a light touch contract. I am aware that it was some time ago and you may have forgotten. As you know the services for repairs and improvement are under a 10 year contract valued at around £20million per annum so I have no problem with the procurement board as a cross party group looking at this contract in its usual due course process.”

 

49.22   Councillor Mears asked the following supplementary question, “I would just like to remind Councillor Meadows that I did actually do some very detailed checking when she started making these comments and I also checked with our previous Chair of Housing who was very concerned with the statements now being made and who is very clear that the details of the contract ensured that safeguards were put in place including that pre and post inspections would be undertaken by council surveyors not as it appears now by the contractor and I would hope the chair of housing would agree that all the elements now need to be looked at by Members including over payments.”

 

49.23   Councillor Meadows replied, “I quite agree Councillor there have been a number of concerns around the Mears contract and I do know that when that contract is due the procurement cross party advisory board will be looking at that contact extremely closely.”

 

(g)   Tourism

 

49.24   Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked the following question, “Would the Chair of the Economic Development & Culture Committee advice the council how the city utilises visitor numbers data to introduce/ revise tourism policies?”

 

49.25   Councillor Robins replied;

 

            “I am baffled by some of the data we get particularly about day visitors, I’m not 100% certain about how many day visitors we got and at present I am trying very best to pick it to pieces to find out how they do come up with the figures. I mean how do they know we had 10 million people in 2014 and 9.1 million people in 2015? The data is provided by Visit South East who tell me they use something called the Cambridge model which even when you see it is difficult to understand. I got a feeling they talk to coach operators and organised visitors and then multiply that up to say how many people we had visiting and if that’s true we really need to understand the data and how it’s provided to what we do to do to use that data to making it a better visitor offer. So at the moment I am quite like you a bit in the dark but I am doing my very best to try and find out.”

 

49.26   Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked the following supplementary question, “On the 13 October Councillor Robins was advised by officers in this council ‘we don’t have a breakdown by season or month on the leisure side of tourism, I’m looking into whether we have business tourism data by month and will follow up with this information as soon as possible’. I think that is very important in having data unless we do something with it. Could I ask if Councillor Robins would please undertake within the next few months to come back with a detailed response and maybe a plan as to how we use the data?”

 

49.27   Councillor Robins replied, “I thought I did say that is what I was going to do. At the moment we are trying to analyse exactly what the data means because there is no point doing something if you don’t know what you’re doing. We are trying to fully understand the data so we can know how to best use it.”

 

(h)   Affordable Homes

 

49.28   Councillor Wares asked the following question, “Would the Chair of Housing & New Homes confirm that contrary to officer’s comments yesterday commuted sums from developers will not be used to build the first 500 council homes promised by Labour during elections? For example the council yesterday agreed to take £1.2 million from Quest homes in lieu of them providing 8 affordable homes on their private development. Would it not therefore be reasonable for us to expect that we will now have 508 new council homes built being as the original 500 promised plus the 8 we are taking the cash for? Of course the more commuted sums we take the more Council homes over 500 we should expect.”

 

49.29   Councillor Meadows replied; “I can confirm that the 266 that are in the pipeline at the moment towards our 500 council rented homes are not through commuted sums. However I understand that at planning yesterday –of which I am not a member- it was discussed the commuted sums could in the future be used on any development. So yes of course we could possibly use it and get 1508 homes with our new joint delivery vehicle as well.”

 

49.30   Councillor Wares asked the following supplementary question, “I am grateful for the Chair for effectively confirming that in making its promise to build 500 council homes Labour clearly had no idea how it would do it and is now going to be relying on developers to pay this council cash to fund that original 500. Perhaps Councillor Meadows would be so kind as to confirm that in all honesty unless this council takes millions from developers in return for them not having to provide affordable homes the promise by Councillor Morgan to build 500 council homes cannot be met?”

 

49.31   Councillor Meadows replied, “The council have been using and borrowing money outside of the section 106 money on planning policy and we have had not had to use any commuted sums at all however we do want to continue with our wonderful building programme and if we can use that money effectively to build more council rented home of course we will do so.”

 

(i)     Major Works

 

49.32   Councillor Bell asked the following question, “Would the Chair of Housing confirm that following on from real concerns from lease holders right across the city at the excessive charges that are expected to be paid to the council for major works that she will call for a full and transparent review of major works?”

 

49.33   Councillor Meadows replied; “We have major works that are billed to lease holders that are subject to a higher level of scrutiny by quantity surveyors both in Mears and in house than responsive repairs and any contractor employed in subject to a quotation system where they are assessed for value for money. Costs and final accounts are scrutinised by quantity surveyors before recharging lease holders. The council operates transparently when it comes to billing lease holders. The interim charge is solely for repair for the year ahead and does not included provision for future capital costs. This ensure that the interim charge is low and stable rather than variable as you may know when major works are planned a fully compliant consultation process is carried out and lease holders are notified of the estimated charge to them for that work separately. It is for the lease holders to put money aside if they wish to do so and not give it to the council in advance however we have in place flexible payment options for resident lease holders who have difficulty in paying for high cost works for the major works process the council asset tram provides an initial brief for a major works project and requests a quotation from consultants for a feasibility report. The initial brief and the request for the quotation is then sent to the Brighton & Hove City Council’s specified consultant. Once received this quotation is forwarded to both the council’s asset team and the quantity surveyors for approval, if approved the consultant will then write and submit a feasibility report. If the feasibility report is approved and the project as a whole is approved they then hand it over to the housing contract compliance team for management. Once a quotation has been confirmed and approved work on the specification begins with the council’s quantity surveyors. Once the specification is approved it is also used to tender works prior to an agreement of an agreed maximum price and a section 20 lease holder consultation. Once a section 20 lease holder consultation is completed a task order is order is authorised and pre-start resident meetings are arranged and works are quality managed at every stage and costs are reviewed monthly.

 

            I’m not sure what extra could be added to that process Councillor Bell”

 

49.34   Councillor Bell asked the following supplementary question, “If the answer I have just been given was actually implemented then we wouldn’t have the issues or the problems we have throughout the city. These are only a sample of the emails which Councillor Meadows has received. I’ve had complaints about the way lease holders are being treated, about works being carried out, inspected and signed off by Mears which are either incomplete or not of a satisfactory standard and this is throughout the city.

 

            I would be very interested to know if the Chair of Housing is prepared to set up a group just to look at major works or perhaps even via the Chief Executive that this should be done to take a delegation from us to discuss this. These are our city tenants and tax payers who are being abused. I would like a report on this and would Councillor Meadows please answer the emails which she has been receiving.”

 

49.35   Councillor Meadows replied, “There is a very clear and equally thorough complaints process and those people could also go to a tribunal. There are processes in place for each and every stage of their complaints.”