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 matter has been listed in the agenda papers.

51.1         The Mayor reminded the Council that councillors’ oral would be taken in the order as listed in the council agenda and that a period of 30 minutes was set aside for the item.  Should any questions not be reached at the end of the time period, those councillors would have the opportunity for their questions to be carried over to the next council meeting.

 

51.2         The Mayor then called on Councillor Mears to put her question to Councillor Duncan, as the Council’s representative on the Police Authority.

 

51.3         (a) Councillor Mears asked, “What representation has Councillor Duncan made to the Sussex Police Authority about squatting and/or van dwelling in the city over the last year?”

 

51.4         Councillor Duncan replied, “There have been a number of events and briefings and so on that I have attended through Sussex Police Authority that are really about scrutinising the police’s response across Sussex to these issues but on this specific question of what specific representations have I made, I have passed on all the information that I have ever been asked to do from this Administration which is precisely nil, Councillor Mears.”

 

51.5         Councillor Duncan Mears asked the following supplementary question, “Just to come back on the first point: I think, Councillor Duncan, we have had Notices of Motion, they have come from Council.  I would have assumed you would have taken them to the Police Authority but if that’s your way of representing the Council, that’s quite odd.

 

            My second supplementary is can he confirm what the position of the Green Party is in its terms of supporting the squatter movement in the city?”

 

51.6         Councillor Duncan replied, “Well, I’ll be absolutely clear, I think when it comes to squatting what the real issue is a lack of affordable housing.  That’s the issue that we really should be addressing. 

 

            I have on several occasions mentioned to the local police and the Police Authority at appropriate points in the agendas of those meetings, I’ll be quite happy to refer you to minutes where that’s appropriate, mentioned the issues of squatting and what I believe to be a slight misuse, if you like, of police resources dealing too much with squatting and not enough with the issues that neighbourhood police think really matter to most people in this city. 

 

51.7         (b) Councillor McCaffery asked Councillor Mears, the Leader of the Council, “My experience on the Permanence Panel, which is the Adoption Panel, as the elected Councillor suggests that this authority is one of the best in the region regarding looked after children.  However, this authority has not been without child tragedies in the past. 

            While I hope such an event will not occur in the future, would the Leader please inform this Council who carries the ultimate responsibility for the safety of children in our care?”

 

51.8         Councillor Mears replied, “I would also like to make reference to Councillor McCaffery’s commitment on this committee, she works tirelessly, so I do respect her views.

 

            As Councillors we all have corporate parentings, we are all corporate parents, but it is the Cabinet Member of CYPT and the Strategic Director, People in combination with Head of Service, Children & Families – James Dougan, who have the required social care qualification, who carry ultimate responsibility.”

 

51.9         Councillor McCaffery asked the following supplementary question, “Thank you, Councillor Mears, for your answer and thank you for your comments about my commitment. 

 

            I would like to say that the recent unannounced Ofsted inspection noted nine areas of, shall we say, development, one could say improvement, but they use the word ‘development’.  These indicated delays in seeing children, protection plans of variable quality and on occasion incomplete plans.  These all accord with some of our experience on the Permanence Panel. 

 

            Would the Leader inform the Council how much more time in person-hours will be allocated to experienced front-line social workers in order to keep our children safe and to achieve the developments referred to in the inspection?”

 

51.10    Councillor Mears replied, “I’m very grateful to the Councillor for raising these points.  At this moment in time I can’t answer in detail but I will most certainly have it looked into and make sure the Councillor is written to.”

 

51.11    (c) Councillor Kitcat asked Councillor Mears, the Leader of the Council, “Will Councillor Mears, now that we have an answer on the pay multiple for officers working in this council, will Councillor Mears agree to making that multiple a regularly reported monitoring statistic that is published on a regular basis to the public and to Councillors?”

 

51.12    Councillor Mears replied, “I’d heard, actually Councillor, that you had changed your question because I was quite concerned that you had put in a written question and then asked exactly the same question in an oral question.

 

            As for openness and transparency that is quite acceptable.”

 

51.13    Councillor Kitcat asked the following supplementary question, “Well, I am delighted with that commitment to publish the pay multiple.  Will Councillor Mears agree with me that we should work to reduce that pay multiple and that it is unacceptably high at the moment?”

 

51.14    Councillor Mears replied, “The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has suggested that it should be set at 20.1.  Brighton & Hove City Council ratio is 13.1, so we are doing much better than this.”

 

51.15    (d) Councillor Allen asked the following question, “In the light of what happened this past summer, would the Leader of the Council agree with me that Pride in its present form has outgrown Preston Park and would she also agree that for a large area of the park to be out of use for at least a week at the height of the summer is not right and is unfair on families and regular users of the park?”

 

51.16    Councillor Mears replied, “I want to make it quite clear that Pride is an LGBT community event.  Clearly the council has an important role to play in facilitating the festival through the use of the park and road closures but ultimately it is for the organisers of Pride to bring their recommendations forward. 

 

            I think there is a universal agreement between the organisers of Pride and all those statutory services and the City Council that there is a need to bring some significant changes to the running of the Pride event in Preston Park.  There are a number of issues to be looked at in the shaping up of the event for next year and this is currently being done.”

 

51.17    Councillor Allen asked the following supplementary question, “Would the Leader of the Council please confirm that she would use her influence to make sure that if Pride is to take place in Preston Park in 2011 that the numbers will be controlled and, moreover, that Councillors from the two adjacent Wards, Preston Park and Withdean, plus representatives of the recently established Friends of Preston Park are involved in overseeing the planning of the event?”

 

51.18    Councillor Mears replied, “There has been some talk about ticketing but it is ultimately for the organisers to bring this forward to the council.  In coming to their decision I am sure that Pride will fully consult with the statutory agencies to ensure that all safety and other considerations are taken into account. 

 

            I fully endorse Councillor Allen’s request around local Councillors and the Friends of Preston Park who will absolutely be consulted around the planning of the event and there will also be an ongoing residents’ liaison and that includes Preston Park and Withdean.

 

            We as a city have a number of very large events and Pride is one of them and obviously it’s important that we get an absolute balance in the city.”

 

51.19    (e) Councillor Fryer noted that the question she had intended to ask had been raised by one of the public questions and she therefore did not see the point in repeating it.

 

51.20    (f) Councillor Caulfield asked “Early in the year thousands of tons of chalk were dumped on the Downs in Bevendean extending to the East Sussex County Council boundary on the Falmer Road.  Residents were unhappy that an official pathway is now blocked by chalk and despite numerous requests from both residents and Members no explanation or reassurances that this won’t happen again can be given.

 

            A few months ago in the ‘Argus’ a notice was put out for residents who wished to have a Scrutiny Panel on any subject of their choice could contact the council and the Bevendean LAT, through Councillor Marsh, asked for a scrutiny on the dumping of the chalk to be undertaken.  Can Councillor Mitchell explain why this request has been denied?”

 

51.21    Councillor Mitchell replied, “Over sixty suggestions were received and, I think, around about one-third of those were from members of the public.  The Scrutiny Committees, including OSC, were not provided with details of where those questions came from and that was done specifically to avoid any allegations of interference.  The general principle is that it’s not the Chair’s decision as to what topics were reviewed but rather that scrutiny operates through a process of consensus and reasoned debate. 

 

            Just for information, I will run through the criteria which was applied to the various suggestions and, therefore, informed those topics that were taken forward:

·         The length of the review that would have had to have been undertaken;

·         relevance to Brighton and Hove as a whole;

·         policy context and the alignment to the council and the LSP priorities;

·         service performance issues, such as the snow scrutiny; and

·         a care to avoid duplication.”

 

51.22    Councillor Caulfield asked the following supplementary question, “Given the criteria you have just described and given the environmental damage and impact this has had on local residents and its relevance to the city as a whole as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, will Councillor Mitchell now reconsider the request from the Bevendean LAT?”

 

51.23    Councillor Mitchell replied, “I am very pleased to confirm that any requests for scrutiny are always considered, as I think I have just undertaken and explained to you and, therefore, if a request was to come forward from an organisation or an individual member of the public that would be looked at in the same way.”

 

51.24    (g) Councillor Steedman asked, “Today the Department for Energy and Climate Change announced that the Warm Front budget for insulation across the country is now fully allocated for this financial year, meaning that no further applications by fuel poor and vulnerable people can be accepted for months to come.  This is a direct result of changes announced by George Osborne in the Spending Review.

 

            Would Councillor Caulfield join me in condemning this short-sighted move which will leave thousands of households in Brighton and Hove choosing between heating and eating as the snow returns tonight?”

 

51.25    Councillor Caulfield replied, “No, I’m afraid I can’t join you in that because we as a council take fuel poverty and reducing our CO² emissions very seriously and we are actually going to pick up the shortfall there from our budget and, in addition, Warm Front is not the only way that we are helping either fuel poverty or reducing CO² emissions.”

 

51.26    Councillor Steedman asked the following supplementary question, “Well, as you have indicated fuel poverty and climate change can very much be tackled together, particularly in the domestic setting around housing, but in a written answer to a question on this very topic in the papers today you failed to set out how your housing policies would allow us to meet our adopted targets for cutting carbon emissions, which are a 42% cut by 2020 and an 80% cut by 2050. 

 

            Will the Cabinet Member, therefore, commit to setting out in a report to her CMM how you propose to hit these targets?”

 

51.27    Councillor Caulfield replied, “It’s a shame that Councillor Steedman didn’t come to the Central Area Panel that I chaired a couple of weeks ago where we set out clearly our vision for reducing CO² emissions across the city.  We are, actually, working with our partners, energy companies and our neighbouring authorities in order to reduce CO² emissions and setting up an energy company to do so which we believe will bring in about £1M a year over 25 years from our feeding tariffs.

 

            I know your request and in your written question to me you asked if the council would be prepared to work with architects in Birmingham to work on reducing CO² emissions.  Well, this Conservative Administration believes that we have the skills locally to do that and with our ‘be local, buy local’ ethos we would prefer to use the expertise and skills locally, to use the local labour force and the local knowledge that we have here, which is second to none in the country, and we do not believe in paying for consultants from Birmingham to teach us how to suck eggs.”

 

51.28    (h) Councillor Barnett asked, “There has been a lot of misinformation surrounding the recent Standards complaint involving Councillor Kitcat, in particular the allegation that the whole process was driven by the Conservative Party for political reasons.

 

            As Chair of the Governance Committee could Councillor Oxley clarify the position for the council please?”

 

51.29    Councillor Oxley replied, “I am aware that there has been a lot of discussion around this case and I am happy to set out the position.  Firstly, the initial complaint was submitted by a Member of the Conservative Group as an individual, not by the Group or on behalf of the Group.  I believe it’s the moral duty of every Member who genuinely believes that there has been a breach of the code to draw it to the attention of the Monitoring Officer and the Standards Committee.  That was exactly what the Member was doing and, in fact, until recently it used to be a mandatory obligation on all Members of the Council to report if they believed there had been a breach of the code.

 

            Secondly, it is only if an Assessment Panel decides that a complaint should be investigated that it is referred for investigation.  The Assessment Panel in this case was chaired by an Independent Member and I can confirm that it had no Conservative Members.  Therefore any allegation that the process was influenced by the Conservative Party cannot be correct.

 

            Next, the Hearing Panel that heard the complaint consisted of an Independent Chair and two other Councillors.  Again, there was no Conservative Member represented on the Hearing Panel.

 

            Further, all the Panel wanted the Member in question to do was essentially to apologise and attend some training agreed with the Monitoring Officer.  Suspension was not what the Panel wanted as they made it clear when they both announced their decision and afterwards.  It was only if Councillor Kitcat chose not to apologise that he would have been suspended.”

 

51.30    Councillor Kitcat moved a point of personal clarification and stated that hewould have been suspended for a period up to six months if he failed to apologise and if he failed to submit to retraining.

 

51.31    Councillor Oxley noted the point of clarification and stated that in addition, contrary to press reports, it was not the council that took the Member to court it was his decision to appeal to a court rather than issue the apology.  The Council was left with no option, therefore, but to defend the proceedings.

 

            Finally, the Tribunal made no criticism of the process or of the Council’s handling of the matter.  They made a ruling on the narrow technical issue of whether what happened amounted to an abuse of resources and also whether it amounted to treating others with disrespect as intended by the code.  In fact, they rejected the appellant’s argument that he was not acting as a Councillor and that his action was intended to inform.  If they had felt that the complaint should not have been lodged or that the Council or the Standards Committee acted in any way improperly, they would have said so and what is more they would have used their powers to require the City Council to pay costs.  They did neither.  The Council, of course, accepts the decision of the Tribunal.  I hope, Mr Mayor, that this is both helpful to Councillor Barnett and the Council.”

 

51.32    (i) Councillor Duncan asked, “What assurances can the Leader offer this Council that Notices of Motion accepted and adopted by this Council but without the support of her minority Administration are implemented with exactly the same level of enthusiasm as those supported by Members of the Conservative Party?”

 

51.33    Councillor Mears replied, “I would like to start out by pointing out that there is no such thing as implementing Notices of Motion.  One does not implement Notices of Motion, only resolutions when passed by the body responsible to make the decision which in most cases is the Cabinet.  Most Notices of Motion passed at Council are declaratory and ask the Chief Executive to write to the relevant government department or organisation expressing the Council’s view and asking for action.  If such Motions are passed the resolution is implemented, without exception, by the Chief Executive writing to the relevant body.

 

            Occasionally Notices of Motion ask the Cabinet to take steps outlining the Motion.  In the last six months Cabinet has had two Notices of Motion.  One on the Connexions Service and another on youth services generally. 

 

            In the case of the Notice of Motion relating to Connexions, which was agreed by Council unanimously, it was considered by the Cabinet on 11 November when Councillor Hawkes was given the opportunity to speak to her Motion.  It was agreed that a report would come back to the Cabinet after the announcement of the spending review and after all the relevant consultation was completed.  Councillor Hawkes was satisfied with the response and I am not sure what else Councillor Duncan was expecting Cabinet to do.

 

            The second Notice of Motion on the youth service was simply a long list of loosely connected complaints about the Government.  What Government was proposing regarding youth related services.  It lacked focus and I don’t believe what Councillor Fryer was saying would have taken us forward, it was therefore noted. 

 

            I can assure Councillor Duncan that every Notice of Motion passed by Council receives serious consideration by the Cabinet or Cabinet Member.  However, ultimately it is the Cabinet or Cabinet Member who has to make the decision and we make what we believe to be the right decision.  The legal and constitutional power and responsibility for making these decisions vests with the Cabinet.  If Cabinet were to turn itself into a rubber stamping machine of what comes from Council then it would not only be failing in its duty but potentially unlawful.”

 

51.34    Councillor Duncan asked the following supplementary question, “I thought after we heard Maria Caulfield earlier use some weasel words and not really know the difference between vision and targets, that would be the end of it but I’ve heard it all now if we’re really being asked to accept that we don’t implement Notices of Motion.

 

            You gave a couple of examples there and in my supplementary question I’ll give another example and to ask specifically about the progress of a Notice of Motion and you don’t have to take my word for it, it’s in the papers tonight.  On page 48 of the papers we’ve got tonight, the minutes that we’ve adopted from the last meeting, we see that we passed a Notice of Motion, a Notice of Motion entitled ‘Support for Neighbourhood-Based Policing in Brighton and Hove’, despite the opposition of Conservative Party Members who presumably don’t support neighbourhood-based policing in Brighton and Hove.  Amongst other things, and I am referring to point 4, paragraph 4 on page 48 of the minutes we’ve agreed, it contains the request that officers explore ways this council directly funds PCSOs in light of the massive proposed job losses at Sussex Police.

 

            Can Councillor Mears, and you asked for the question, here it is, give us an update on how officers work in this regard dealing with the request that we adopted last time, two months ago, how that work has progressed over the last seven weeks?”

 

51.35    Councillor Mears replied, “Could I just correct the Councillor, I don’t think he listened to what I said at the very beginning.  What I said was I’d like to point out that there is no such thing as implementing Notices of Motion.  One does not implement Notices of Motion, only resolutions when passed by the body responsible to make the decision.  I thought I’d made that quite clear at the beginning.

 

            Actually, Councillor, I found your second supplementary when you got to it very interesting.  Bearing in mind and as a Member of the Police Authority and you are engaged with the budget rounds within that Authority and the restraints they are going through and we are hearing some of that, not from you, unfortunately, but there is a whole process going on.  It is in hand because obviously it’s through this organisation we need to do that.  It would be very useful, Councillor, if you would like to bring some thoughts back from the Police Authority to assist in that but that’s where we are.”

 

 

51.36    The Mayor thanked the Members for their questions and moved to the next item on the agenda.