Agenda item - Oral questions from Councillors

77.1.      The Mayor noted that 11 oral questions had been received and that 30 minutes were set aside for the duration of the item.  She also noted that since the publication of the agenda, she had been informed by Councillor Wares that he wished to withdraw his question.

 

77.2.      The Mayor then invited Councillor Mac Cafferty to put his question to the Leader of the Council.

 

77.3.      Councillor Mac Cafferty asked; “It’s my understanding the fate of Hove library and all of the library service is tied to the budget and vice-versa under those circumstances don’t we need to hear about  the library and the library service before the decisions are made through Budget Council. As far as I understand the consultation closes on the library service in the middle of this month we’ll then have budget council but we won’t have a decision on the future of the library service until March. To me that doesn’t make sense and that’s why I’m seeking clarification from the Leader of the Council.”

 

77.4.      Councillor Morgan replied; “I’m not certain whether Councillor Mac Cafferty is asking me for information on the timetable or whether he’s asking for legal constitutional clarification on the timetabling of decisions.”

 

77.5.      Councillor Mac Cafferty asked the following supplementary question; “I think it’s about what way we are supposed to do things and in what order because for me the decision about the libraries and about the budget all comes back to Budget Council.  So therefore it seems contrary to the spirit of Budget Council that we make a decision about what happens to the libraries and the library service at another meeting. I hope that’s clear.”

 

77.6.      Councillor Morgan replied; “Obviously if the savings are agreed or not at Budget Council then the consultation and decision making process around that will have to adapt to it subsequently. That is the same with any budget decision.”

 

77.7.      Councillor Bell asked; “Last month I asked a question and I hope you have received my emails and the letter which I’ve sent you and I would like you to answer it please. I didn’t want to do a repeat of last month but it is about the intervention of officers and the executive directors having a direct influence on or trying to influence political decisions by elected Members.”

 

77.8.      Councillor Morgan replied; “As I said at the last council meeting Councillor Bell didn’t ask his question then and hasn’t asked it subsequently. He indicated the subject of it which I’ve invited him to discuss with officers which he has declined, so it’s very hard to answer a question which hasn’t actually be asked. If he could be a little more specific, I believe it relates to licencing which I have no control over as Leader of the Council, it’s quasi-judicial. So I’m happy to pin that down if he can be a little more specific.”

 

77.9.      Councillor Bell asked the following supplementary question; “The reason why I declined to meet officers is that I asked if I could have a meeting with the Leader of the Council and he has declined to meet with me personally. So now I will ask him in front of full council. I am asking the Leader of the Council to meet with me and then after that I am happy to meet with officers.”

 

77.10.   Councillor Morgan replied; “I would be happy to meet with Councillor Bell and if it’s about officers then it would be appropriate to meet with the Chief Executive as well. I have not declined a meeting with him and I am really not sure where he’s got that perception from perhaps if he could be a little more clear and direct with his question then we could deal with it in a more clear and direct way.”

 

77.11.   Councillor O’Quinn asked; “Given the proposed works by Network Rail to clear vegetation from the Hove rail cutting and the fact that the rail company does have overall responsibility for the management of the land, will the council seek assurances from the company that residents directly affected by the work will be properly and fully informed and consulted, and their concerns listened to at a public meeting with Network Rail.”

 

77.12.   Councillor Barradell replied; “I’m hoping you’ll accept my earlier response to Ms. Millie Fergusson, a resident affected by this and so allowing us to move more swiftly onto the next question.”

 

77.13.   Councillor Sykes asked; “As we know this council faces the biggest cuts in its history and these cuts according to the administration’s own impact assessments are going to impact heavily on low income and vulnerable groups around the city. At the same time public engagement in the budget is being sharply curtailed at a time when the Administration should be involving people more. When did the finance lead come to the conclusion that it’s easier to impose his own solutions on the overall budget than to speak to people involved?”

 

77.14.   Councillor Hamilton replied; “Well first of all can I say I don’t agree that we have curtailed it because we have put it online and said any one who wanted to could have a paper copy. We have more self-selecting people reply this time than we did last time although I agree we didn’t have the chosen sample that we’ve done in the past. Now with regard to this obviously what I really want to say is that on February the 8^th we will have a Budget Review Group meeting. I know that Councillor Sykes has not been happy with the way that we’ve carried out the consultation on the budget. This is the first time we’ve tried something a bit different. It’s is open to him and anyone else of course who is on the Budget Review Group to come along Monday week and see for themselves the layout of the consultation, the results of it and to suggests ways it might want to be carried out. I’m bound to say we do it partly on financial grounds because last year the budget consultation cost £8,000 and this year we only spent £2,000 on it. It may seem like a small saving but I think it was a point to make but I do think anyone who wanted to could have put in their submissions.

 

        With regards to the outcome of the consultations there were several things that were put forward pointing at the various savings that were going to be suggested and obviously at the present time we haven’t got a budget paper available. We will be discussing this again at the Budget Review Group next Monday week and then when it comes along to the council it is entirely up to the 54 people here to decide whether they agree with budget. Other parties can each put down six amendments and then as you know we see what happens and we take it from there. Believe me I’m not the sort of person who would try to insist or dictate how things were happening that way. I think we’ve done this in a fair and open way. It is open for discussion and if you’re not happy with it we can discuss it again and see if we can make any changes to suit Councillor Sykes’ requirements.”

 

77.15.   Councillor Sykes asked the following supplementary question; “The fact is we do not have the statistically robust evidence from the people of the city because we don’t send out a questionnaire anymore. The online consultation was frankly cursory, it’s about 30 seconds worth of work and so it really wasn’t very in-depth but want I found most shocking was the lack of scrutiny process, there was no scrutiny process. Will the finance lead undertake to prepare a full written response to the paper consultation which the voluntary community sector has submitted and that the older people’s council has submitted and make that available to everybody in lieu of the scrutiny process which we don’t have this year?”

 

77.16.   Councillor Hamilton replied; “Well I must dispute your assertion that there was no questionnaire I’ve got a copy here of a draft of some of the outcomes with answers to some of the questions that were asked. As far as I’m concerned if you’re asking questions of the people that is a questionnaire. As I said we are quite prepared to take representations from any organisation, or any groups. There used to be system where we actually did do this in greater detail, there used to be a system where we had to consult all businesses rate payers and as I say perhaps this is something we need to look at. I know that there has been a meeting with the Older People’s Council and I know there have been some representations and some meetings with some community sector groups. All of those things will be taken into consideration because they have been fed back to us as and when they happened. As I say I am entirely willing to make this process as open as possible and have tried to do so but there is a meeting on Monday week where Councillor Sykes can come along with any suggestions he would like implemented next year and we’ll give him full consideration.”

 

77.17.   Councillor Barnett asked; “Whenever there is an unauthorised traveller encampment in one of our city parks or open spaces repairs to any damage cause are funded out of city parks budget rather than against the travellers budget could Councillor Mitchell clarify if the council is trying to hide the amount spent on travellers, does she not share my view that money spent on the parks budget should be spent on maintaining our much loved parks and gardens rather than on traveller issues?”

 

77.18.   Councillor Barradell replied that she would provide a written response; “I’m going to have to get back to you as I am not aware of that bit coming out of the parks budget.  I don’t think it does, I think it comes out of the travellers budget but you’ll find one that does but I’m going to come back to you and I’m happy to copy that to all councillors.”

 

77.19.   Councillor Barnett asked the following supplementary question; “The annual budget for the travellers this year is more than £600,000 approximately £25,000 of the parks budget has been spent on making good damage caused to our parks since 2014. Surely this sum should be set against the travellers budget and the city parks budget should not be used in this way.  Would you agree and if not, why not?

 

77.20.   Councillor Barradell replied, “The overall costs with travellers and clean-up are actually coming down and the bit that you refer to in your first question I will find out and get back to you. The cost will be coming down partly because this year we will be having the permanent travellers site up and running and that is going to enable us along with the city public space protection order to move people off and again reduce those costs and give the police extra powers. We obviously want to reduce the costs across all council services where we can but in terms of you saying there’s something coming out of the park’s budget I will get back to you on that.

 

77.21.   Can I also use this opportunity to encourage people to respond to the public consultation which is up on the website now about the public space protection orders because the more people who engage with that process and also encourage your residents to?”

 

77.22.   Councillor Phillips asked; “Since Moulsecoomb centre opened in 1967 it has provided decades of invaluable support for our young people in the city and helped thousands of youngsters to access the support they have needed and to see a brighter future as a result. Would Councillor Bewick agree that in a time when we are seeing a rise in self-harm and mental health problems among young people it is vital that we continue to provide services that give all young people an opportunity to access peer support and social opportunities?”

 

77.23.   Councillor Bewick replied; “In relation to the Moulsecoomb centre I think it’s just worth placing that within the wider context of the youth service review. I mean this Administration is comprehensively reviewing the youth service to provide a stronger, much more joined up offer to our young people in the city and that will include those that access the Moulsecoomb service. Without responding to draft recommendations also of an independent employer skills taskforce which has called for a new integrated youth and employability organisation for the city and indeed the wider city region. The youth review group which is chaired by the Director of Children’s Services concluded this work on the design principles of any future service last autumn and my committee which Councillor Phillips is a member of course received a report from the group in November, where it was agreed to authorise the Executive Director to consult further with staff, with stake holders and importantly with young people on a number of options including the reconfiguration of the youth collective contract delivered by the voluntary sector.”

 

77.24.   Councillor Phillips asked the following supplementary question; “I’m unsure whether Councillor Bewick agrees with me or indeed whether he answered that question at all. But my supplementary is as follows and I’d be grateful if he did answer this question. Could Councillor Bewick advise the council how with £400,000 less funding open access youth services will continue to meet the needs of as many young people as at present allowing us to act to prevent young people getting into problems in the first place?”

 

77.25.   Councillor Bewick replied; “For the avoidance of doubt I absolutely did agree with the aspect of Councillor Phillips’ question about the importance of supporting young people in the city and the importance of having a joined up integrated offer.  But once again the lead Member for the Green Party comes with a question which is sort of in a sense coded and fragmented. It doesn’t really address some of the real challenges that our young people face and I’m proud to be part of the Labour Administration here for example which is putting the interests of young people front and centre as we look to develop this new youth offer. When we come to Budget Council in February you’ll notice that we’re protecting the funds that are earmarked to the community and voluntary sector that delivers on our youth services. That is a sign of our commitment but at the same time we’re also going to be robust and rigorous about ensuring we deliver better outcomes for young people as well.”

 

77.26.   Councillor Mears asked; “Can the Chair of Housing confirm that her Administration is fully committed to full consultation with tenants in light of the Hyde meeting convened Tuesday morning with tenant reps and the complete lack of consultation on the housing revenue budget which pays for housing repairs and maintenance and the proposed cuts by this Administration to the tenant movement in the city which they have not been consulted on?”

 

77.27.   Councillor Meadows replied; “Regarding the tenant participation structure of course the tenants have an opportunity to look at our budget proposals and that has happened since September last year. The asset management group, home improvement group and various other groups have in the tenant participation structure look at our asset management strategy and how we are spending the housing revenue account budget and how we prioritise repairs and maintenance so to say that they haven’t had that opportunity is a little misleading. It has been the usual way that has been done through your Administration some time ago, the Green’s Administration last time and this administration it has been no different. However you did request at the last Housing & New Homes Committee to have a meeting so tenant chairs could be informed as well and that did happen and I’m happy to say many of tenant reps that I spoke to afterwards were very pleased with it although rather surprised to find someone had insisted that they attend.”

 

77.28.   Councillor Mears asked the following supplementary question; “Just a point of clarity for Councillor Meadows, under our Administration we had the Housing Management Sub-Committee where tenants where fully briefed on the budget and actually at the meeting on Tuesday it was interesting to talk to tenants because they were not aware of the Administration’s cut to area panels, to the estate budget and to the City Assembly. Also I’m not quite sure where that information went. There is a report later in the proceedings with regards to overpayment by the contractor paid for by tenants. What reassurances will the Chair of Housing give to tenants that their money is being well spent and that they will be fully consulted?”    

 

77.29.   Councillor Meadows replied; “This relates to the item further in the agenda which is around the Mears overpayment on the contract and I am happy to go through this twice. The overpayment of that amount has been through the Housing & New Homes Committee as you know so well Councillor Mears and it was agreed that we will have a report back to the committee every 6 months.  I requested that report because we were assured that the council’s monitoring processes and Mears’ own monitoring processes would be more robust but I want to be assured that the tenants’ money is safe and so we are having that report back. With regard to consultation of course tenants will be consulted but we consult through the tenants’ own participation structure as you know if this is not adequate we will review that and find out why tenants feel this is not adequate and we will change their consultation as part of that review.”

 

77.30.   Councillor Page asked; “This is about support bus routes which are very important for isolated communities. There’s the 37B in my ward, there’s the 37 that goes up to Meadow View, the 47 goes to Rottingdean and Saltdean, The 56 goes to Knoll, Hollingbury and Patcham, the 66 or 16 goes to Hangleton & Knoll and I’ve missed one out of Woodingdean and I do apologise. In the budget savings two months ago that were published the whole of the subsidised bus service was said to be cut and then I was told it’s not quite like that we’re meeting with the bus companies we’re trying to get them to take one or two routes commercially. I’ve been trying to get information, I’ve asked in various ways. I’m sorry Councillor Mitchell is not well and I wish her a speedy recovery but can whoever’s going to answer my question tell us whether these negotiations are finished yet with the bus companies and are we to expect all the other subsidised bus service to be scrapped next September?”

 

77.31.   Councillor Barradell replied; “These discussions are obviously ongoing with the bus companies to see which services can be run commercially and which will still require a subsidy. At the moment no decisions have been made and like you I would also like to know, my daughter uses the 37B to get to school. I can assure you that when considering subsidised routes, issues of geographical isolation, gradient and availability of other bus services are all actually taken into account.”

 

77.32.   Councillor Page asked the following supplementary question; “These discussions are going on and on and on and Budget Council is in four weeks’ time. I’m not just concerned about the one in my ward; I’m concerned about several other wards and have we any indication whether it’s going to be 100% cut in the budget depending on the outcome of the bus companies meetings or will we get one before the budget?”

 

77.33.   Councillor Barradell replied; “I certainly hope we will get one before the budget and I think Councillor Mitchell has just met with them or is meeting with them early next week and hopefully by then we will have some answers.  Obviously I’m not going to start divulging even if I know what those discussions were going on with the bus companies because obviously we want them to take on as many routes as possible.”

 

77.34.   Councillor Gibson asked; “My question is building on what’s been said already that the well-attended consultation forum to address the brief set by the Housing committee which was to give feedback on the proposed capital and revenue budget so as to help inform Members when it goes to Policy & Resources. At the moment the Housing committee has not approved the proposed budget and we wanted more feedback and there was no consultation on the revenue budgets at this event. So I’m asking if Councillor Meadows is satisfied with the consultation and how she will ensure that as instructed by the Housing & New Homes Committee, we have a proper consultation on the revenue cuts?”

 

77.35.   Councillor Meadows replied; “The meeting on Tuesday with the chairs of tenants’ reps actually went exactly as described in the minutes and in our meeting. You may have had an understanding that it may be more but it went exactly as described and at that meeting the tenants were given information and asked for their opinion on the priorities that were set. They were given information about and asked their opinions on how we have spent their money in the past. They were given information and asked their opinion on a number of other things to do with the Housing Revenue Account.  Now for some reason some of the tenants believe they were rather misled. They thought they would be commenting on the whole of the council’s budget rather than just the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund and I felt that that was rather misleading from certain colleagues. The tenants were there to be consulted on the money that is derived from the income from their rents and they are not there to discuss City Clean, they were not there to discuss Children’s services, they were there to discuss specifically the Housing Revenue Account and the General Fund and that is how it was put to them and that is what they were asked their opinion on.”

 

77.36.   Councillor Gibson asked the following supplementary question; “At that meeting they were given information about the draft asset management strategy which is something in the future there was no information given about the proposed cuts to the Revenue Budget and no opportunity to discuss these. There was very limited information about the changes to the capital program and that information was wholly inadequate and I will just repeat my question to the Chair; please can you rectify the failure to follow the resolution that was passed by the Housing Committee?”

 

77.37.   Councillor Meadows replied; “The draft asset management strategy is a draft because it needs to go to the Housing & New Homes Committee before it is approved and consultation allowed tenants to participate in that draft strategy prior to it being approved. We have to set a balanced budget in the HRA and the general fund and that is why they were given a view of the whole of that budget and not just specified certain elements that you wish to concentrate on.”  

 

77.38.   Councillor Druitt asked; “I’m aware that the council’s previous policy of procuring energy from renewable sources only was dropped because the cost was too high. Now I sympathise with the problem in times of austerity it is very difficult to agree extra money for extra energy and so for energy procurement when so many essential services face cuts.  However, when the world is finally waking up to the dangers of climate change we’re going in exactly the opposite direction. Can Councillor Hamilton assure us that this isn’t the beginning of the unravelling of our commitments to sustainability, to the living wage, to animal welfare and to other aspects of the procurement process?”

 

77.39.   Councillor Hamilton replied; “Sustainable procurement is a very big issue and I have managed to make 16 pages of notes on it. Councillor Druitt is right, I believe when the Government moved the goal posts that it was found out that it would cost us another £60,000 for our energy and at that time I think the procurement services said they could do it under their own delegated powers anyway but I was informed of it.

 

            The government have changed the funding and incentives for renewable energy and this has affected the attractiveness of solar PV installations but we will continue to monitor this situation. Our electricity contract is however based on 100% renewable sources and can also use green certified sources provided it is not more expensive that the 100% renewable price. There is an ongoing project to replace heating oil feeds with gas anywhere this is possible.

           

            I will try and get an update for this; it does seem to be that we have now got a Member Procurement Advisory Board with a Green Member on it. It says in my brief that the Members of that particular body are to review and advise with due regard to the council’s core procurement strategy and the council’s core priorities. So it seems to me that that could be raised with that body which meets every couple of months. But I have the question from Councillor Druitt and I will check back with the proper services to see if there’s any update on this. I think we all here want as far as we can to agree with our sustainable procurement policy. It is a good policy; I think it was set up by the Green administration in about 2012 and it is renewed on an annual basis I understand.”