- From Members of the Public
- From Councillors
Minutes:
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount: Good evening my Lord Mayor, good evening Council. Can the Cabinet Lead for Regeneration offer latest information concerning the developments for the Invincible public house on Sturdy Road?
Councillor Osman: Thank you my Lord Mayor, can I thank Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount for that question and can I just reiterate that the Council is committed to the redevelopment of The Exchange and municipal sites? in partnership with the owners of the Invincible site. The redevelopment would see the demolition of the Invincible and the provision of new shopping centres on that site and this would allow the Exchange to be demolished and a great range of housing to be built in its place. This is a scheme which local people supported in public consultation events earlier this year and I know Councillor Rory Palmer and others have been actively involved and we are committed to that as a Labour Group.
Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount: Thank you Lord Mayor, thank you Councillor. You have mentioned that it is still proposed to demolish the site and incorporate it within the Exchange Shopping Centre for the new development. There has been no news other than what was stated in the Leicester Mercury in December of last year that news would be coming later within the Spring. Is there still a timescale in the pipeline for residents to be happier with dates, so the development can move on a lot quicker?
Councillor Osman: Yes I can give reassurances that the delay was due to the global recession we were having nationally and internationally, but things are on track and in terms of consultation we have had 90% of the residents who have supported the scheme and I can reassure Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount that this will go ahead this year.
Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount: Can the Cabinet Lead for Libraries advise why only Freemen residents were consulted regarding plans for the Pork Pie Library when the ward boundary places the library in Eyres Monsell ward?
Councillor Bhatti: Thank you my Lord Mayor. I would like to answer both questions together, both 7.2 and 7.3, they are related.
Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount: Before we continue Sir, I’d like to withdraw question 3 if that is possible my Lord Mayor?
Councillor Bhatti: That’s fine. It was explained in the response to the previous council questions on this subject, that was made at the January Council meeting, that a full public consultation including issues around the future role of Southfields Library was to have taken place once the project had brought just beyond the initial stage. It would have been, at this point, that the people of both Eyres Monsell and the Freemen Ward would have been fully consulted. I should point out that the residents of Eyres Monsell were consulted by Councillor Palmer and the matter was raised at both the Freemen and Eyres Monsell Ward Community meetings. The project however has not progressed beyond the initial stage. Mr Kennedy-Lount may now be aware that the project will no longer take place as the NHS were unable to make the financial commitment that they had initially planned. This information was released recently to the media.
Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount: Thank you sir for that answer. In slight terms there was a contradictory response to what was given previously at the Council meeting in this Chamber on the 25th January when it was only stated that Freemen ward residents were consulted on the proposals to move the Pork Pie Library to the Newry within 3 years and close the library. Historically the Pork Pie Library has served the greater communities of Aylestone, Eyres Monsell and Saffron, why should the situation have changed if the information given on January 25th in this Chamber was that only Freemen ward residents were consulted?
Councillor Bhatti: I will struggle to respond to your supplementary at this stage as I am not privy to have that information. A response will be provided in writing to that one.
Mr Scott Kennedy-Lount: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Can the Cabinet Lead for Children advise to what stage the developments are for the building of a Parkour “urban free-running site” on the Hilsbury Road, Sturdy Road Park in Eyres Monsell?
Councillor Dempster: Yes, thank you for your question. This is a development that is costing £47,000. £7,000 of it is coming from corporate sponsorship, but £40,000 is actually coming from a fund called Yoppital Wonga, that’s the name that the young people have given to a fund. This is a fund from the Youth Opportunity Fund and the Youth Capital Fund and together those funds total roughly £500,000 a year that we get from the government and for the city and for the young people of this city to make the decisions on, and so the panel met and made the decision to support this project. I understand the construction will start very shortly and will be finished by the end of April this year.
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS
Councillor Grant: Thank you Lord Mayor. I would first of all like to congratulate the new Leader on his position and on the occasion that Council is addressed for the first time by a Leader who’s heritage is Asian, can I ask does the new Leader intend to have a fresh look what the authority does to ensure equality at all levels of its workforce, and would he consider inviting an independent view of this issue from an independent external organisation such as the Equality Commission, given the failure of the Council to deal with this so far?
Councillor Patel: Thank you Lord Mayor, and I thank Councillor Grant for his comments and his question. As Councillor Grant is aware in my role as lead member with responsibility for Human Resources I have actively championed the issues around equality in the workforce. I see no need to deviate from the approach pursued over the last year, which has seen a number proactive strategies to increase representation, through recruitment, investment in Black workers staff groups, targeted programmes of ‘growing our own’ such as Reach Higher and active mentoring and coaching programmes. Such approaches, I am confident will address some of the representation challenges faced by this and indeed many other local authorities. Indeed this council should be aware that in this week one of our Black staff wrote an article which appeared in the Guardian Public Sector section highlighting the good practice of this authority and the leadership being shown in tackling the issues. I can give Councillor Grant a key assurance that should there be a need that I will not hesitate for an open and independent review.
Councillor Grant: Thank you Lord Mayor. I acknowledge that there is much work going in the Council in many areas across all parties, but does he not feel that in many groups and communities that they have lost faith in the Council and that the only way that we can win that faith back is to have an independent view which would advise us but also give them faith that we take this seriously?
Councillor Patel: Thank you my Lord Mayor, I take Councillor Grant’s comments very seriously, however we are leading the way in tackling this issue and have done openly and transparently with considerable independence in the process, including the engagement of staff, regular reporting through Cabinet of progress and with scrutiny examination. The premise of the question is one of failure to deal with this issue, this incorrect. I believe Leicester is leading the way both across the sub-region and nationally and indeed is recognised to be by the IDeA. The Council has also been externally validated in equalities work by the Centre for Local Policy Studies and has achieved level 4 of the 5 levels of the Equality Standard. The Council is working towards external validation against the excellent category early next year and we’ve also recently refreshed our approach on equalities through an away day held with equalities groups, equalities staff and the Corporate Equalities Strategy Group identifying some new priorities and drafted a new equality strategy that includes workforce representation as a key objective. I do hope that Councillor Grant accepts that it is clearly my intention that should I feel there is a need I would talk to the Cabinet Lead Councillor Dawood and will not hesitate for an independent review. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: How much did it cost to create the webpages dedicated to the former Leader of the Council?
Councillor Patel: No money was spent outside of the council. The site was developed in house by council staff. It was not a major piece of work and has delivered an end product that can be re-used for other key civic roles. Thank you, my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: Will he undertake, unlike his predecessors, to support the work of other members of the Council. Certainly I had a meeting with the former Leader and asked whether he would support development of scrutiny and I was told that was a resource issue and that he would go away and look at it. To my surprise I then found that he’d got the very swish new Leader’s pages, so will he undertake to support all members of Council?
Councillor Patel: My Lord Mayor, I am happy to give this consideration and I will speak to Councillor Grant on this matter, but I do have intentions to support his proposals. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: Will the new Leader of the Council adopt a more open approach to the public about his work than his predecessor, for example by making meaningful information about his diary available online?
Councillor Patel: Thank you my Lord Mayor. As Leader of the Council I accept accountability to the city in how I undertake my role and to this end accept the need for council and the public to understand my day to day commitments in so far as they relate to my role as Leader. However as well as being Leader of the Council I am also the Leader of a political party and as such have an obligation relating to my party. These political diary commitments will not be a matter for open disclosure. In addition from time to time as Leader I will be involved in issues that relate to the commercial sensitivities of individuals or third parties that it would be inappropriate to disclose and as you are aware Councilllor Grant these are already covered within our arrangements to treat certain matters in private. However Councillor Grant I will give you an assurance that there will be no matters discussed in private unless there is justification to do so. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: We welcome the Leader’s much reported era of openness, in helping to shine some light on the previous leadership will he expedite the disclosure of the former leadership’s diaries which are now the case of the Freedom of Information request as the former Leader refused, even after some consultation and some negotiation to disclose any of his diary?
Councillor Patel: My Lord Mayor I hesitate to speak with regards to the former Leader. I have responded in terms of what I would disclose as part of my diaries. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Porter: My question is will the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act say how many authorisations the authority made under the Act from April 2007 to April 2008?
Councillor Naylor: Lord Mayor, the answer is 41.
Councillor Porter: Yes thank you Lord Mayor, and thank you for the brief answer. I did forget to congratulate Councillor Naylor on his new appointment, so I’ll say congratulations now and I’ll move to my supplementary question which is can the Cabinet Member say if the Council used their powers under the act to spy on people who were lawfully protesting against the demolition of the Bowstring Bridge?
Councillor Naylor: I think the best thing I can do is as I am new in the chair is to actually get a response back for you. I will make sure that you get that information.
Councillor Porter: Okay my second question is, with plans to build 53 new council houses in Humberstone and New Parks what assurances can the Council give that these new homes will be let to hard working families who pay their own rent and council tax?
Councillor Westley: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Is Councillor Porter asking me to discriminate against disabled people, homeless people, unemployed people, is he also seriously asking me to discriminate against people who have suffered racial harassment, anti-social behaviour or domestic violence. My Lord Mayor, the question I am asking myself is whether Councillor Porter is speaking for the Conservative Group or the Conservative Party. Is he saying this is what the Council policy would be if we were unfortunate to have a Conservative administration running this Council. If so, it is a disgrace. I know I speak for all my colleagues on this side of the Chamber when I say we will never discriminate against vulnerable people and against those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances and who need council accommodation. I hope his supplementary, Councillor Porter, will make it clear that this is not the Conservative Group’s policy to discriminate against vulnerable people, if he does, we know where they stand.
My Lord Mayor, with all new council houses it will be let in accordance with our now agreed published housing allocation policy. Our policy is based on housing need, it is not a requirement for our allocation policy that tenants need to be in paid employment, nor do we exclude people who receive housing benefit and council tax. These homes will be let to households who are currently overcrowded, in insecure or temporary housing accommodation, have health needs, or are sharing facilities or who are actually homeless. I am delighted to tell you that these properties will be let through our new Leicester Home Choice which will start on the 21st April. Leicester Home Choice will allow people to choose their homes that they want to bid for and give feedback to customers about how homes were allocated. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Porter: Thank you Lord Mayor, I am delighted to hear that Leicester City Council and the Cabinet Lead plans that he will not discriminate in the allocation of these homes. A senior Labour Councillor of this Council said, and I quote “that these new homes will go to Labour supporters”. What my question Lord Mayor is, what promises can the Cabinet Member for Housing give that this will not happen?
Councillor Westley: Well, it’s Councillor Porter so I’ll accept that. But no there is no first come for Labour. We are not Shirley Porter in Westminster on this side of the Chamber. I intend to review the allocation policy this summer and all elected members will be welcomed to express their views on who should have the opportunity to rent all council housing and housing association properties homes in this city, Councillor Porter.
Councillor Porter: Thank you Lord Mayor. The Council has stated in reference to Leicester and Leicestershire that Leicester is not at the bottom of the recycling tables. Therefore can the Cabinet Member for the Environment please clarify how Leicester "the Environment City" with the lowest levels of recycling is not at the foot of the recycling table?
Councillor Russell: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Councillor Porter has asked this question now at the last two Council meetings, so for the third time answering this question, I would like to extend the offer that if he feels that I haven’t fully answered a question for him that he please come and see me in between Council meetings. I will clarify, what we said was that, the question he first asked was whether Leicester was at the bottom of the recycling tables in the East Midlands, so that is the response you got. In terms of Leicester and Leicestershire, yes we are, its not rocket science, we are a city with a very, very dense urban population, with a massive churn in terms of population and actually getting out the message around recycling and how important it is, is really difficult in those circumstances and it is something that we are working with the recommendations from the Task Group on that members of your Group took part in to look how we can address it during the review period of the contract with Biffa. But the figures speak for themselves. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Porter: Yes thank you Lord Mayor and for a point of clarity I never mentioned the Midlands, it was about Leicester and Leicestershire being at the bottom of the table, but I am delighted I have finally got a straight answer which is that the Council is at the bottom of the table. She also says that Leicester obviously has a very dense population and she has identified that there are problems in certain parts of the city; basically, she is comparing what happens in Leicester and Leicestershire.. She seems to have identified that there are problems within the city and she makes a comparison with the County Council and leafy suburbs. My question is, if it is down to the location and the type of housing that we have got in the city centre, how come it is that Derby with similar types of housing manages to recycle 43% of their waste and the most densely populated borough, major city in the country, managed to recycle almost a third of their household waste and they also have their bins emptied twice a week.
Councillor Russell: There was a whole stream of different things in there Lord Mayor, so give me some chance to unpick them if you will. In terms of our comparison with Derby, we are currently hitting about 40%, 3% difference they have a fortnightly collection which we have put through for? scrutiny report and through various discussions with Members within various parts of the city identified at this point that isn’t what members of the public want. This is coming back to us on a regular basis that people in the city continue to want a weekly collection. Now a lot of that is because we have flush fronted terraces with little storage and people are uncomfortable with the idea of having multiple bins to be able to store their waste in, what we are looking at is if we can provide some alternative solutions to be able to increase their recycling rates, but at this stage I am not prepared to say that people have to go to a fortnightly collection. I don’t think that’s right for our city and that is the feedback I am getting from residents.
In terms of the comparison with another Borough that he didn’t mention, as he didn’t mention specifically which one it is, I am quite happy to……….?
Councillor Porter: Kensington and Chelsea
Councillor Russell: Kensington and Chelsea again! We’ve been here before again my Lord Mayor. I think there is certain factors which do come into particular things, my guess is, and I am guessing because that obviously wasn’t included in the main part of the question, that Kensington and Chelsea have a fairly stable population. As we know in the city we have a continually changing population, we have two major universities, we have a high number of rented accommodation and actually that does have an impact on how you get the message across in terms of recycling. If Councillor Porter even had the interest to sit and listen to my response it would be nice…………I’ll just wait until I get some respect, thank you my Lord Mayor. If Councillor Porter would like to know more about recycling in the city, Councillor Porter is always welcome to come and talk to me about it in the same way that Councillor Porter is able to put forward scrutiny reviews, in the same way that he would have been able to take part in the scrutiny review that Councillor Grant took part in that has recently been concluded after some delay. All of these things have been taken into account and fed into the review period with our contact with Biffa. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: I am worried Lord Mayor, the new Leader seems to have already lost a member of Cabinet, but the question is will the new Cabinet Lead for Culture and Leisure tell us his priorities for the coming year?
Councillor Patel: My Lord Mayor, it was my intention to answer irrespective of whether Councillor Wann was here or not because I think the response to this question and the following 5 questions and question 24 is best conducted in one response.
As the Leader my priority is to lead this city to be the most economically successful city in the country, where its citizens want to live because of the good quality of services on offer and where people can find ready access to employment, skills development and training. I also want this to be a city where the inequality gap is narrowed and where people feel they belong and have a say in what happens. Those were the priorities for this Group when it faced the electorate and were voted into power. They remain the priorities of the Group today. Our service priorities are strongly articulated in our Community Strategy ‘One Leicester’ and are restated in our Corporate Plan. We will continue to be strong and resolute in implementing those priorities, which were after all drawn from a clear analysis of need and taking action on issues that most affected our citizens, thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: Thank you Lord Mayor, well we can see that the new era of openness hasn’t lasted very long as half the Cabinet has already been gagged or is not trusted to answer questions. The supplementaries that I had anticipated I’ll ask. Will on highways, will he listen to OSMB and indeed his new Whip who presumable speaks on behalf of the Labour Group in giving higher priority to maintenance of our roads. Giving the pressing need to resolve Job Evaluation, can he say when he expects to conclude that issue, bearing in mind the former Leader said that he had resolved it within weeks of coming into power and has left us with a legacy of costing us millions of pounds and I think that will suffice Lord Mayor.
Councillor Patel: My Lord Mayor Councillor Grant questioned the openness and transparency. We have just elected a Cabinet this evening, he cannot expect ourselves to shape our priorities at the same meeting. The One Leicester vision doesn’t change, the Community Plan doesn’t change but we still have to shape our priorities, we will look at highways and Councillor Osman will look at that. In terms of Job Evaluation, Councillor Grant I suggest you speak to your colleague Councillor Scuplak who will be invited or has already been invited to a Member Reference Group on Monday.
Councillor Grant: Will the Cabinet Lead responsible for the City's markets inform councillors of the strategy for markets, including the timescales and cost of the improvements recently unveiled in the Leicester Mercury and reported on BBC Radio Leicester?
Councillor Russell: Thank you my Lord Mayor, that got around to me quickly again. Right in response to Councillor Grant’s question, the press coverage that the market had in the last week comes from two things, one was the scrutiny review conducted into markets started by myself and Councillor Naylor and concluded by Councillors Newcombe and Hall which I understand Councillor Grant had full sight of at the Overview & Scrutiny Management Board and endorsed as did the Cabinet. One of the proposals in there concluded the demolition of the indoor market at a point when it was feasible given the other things that would be required to happen in terms of where traders could be relocated and how that could sit within the overall redevelopment of the market at its site in the centre of the city.
The other part of news that it came from was the setting up through the Capital Programme of an earmarked reserve. This has been common practice, as is my understanding, in the Council when the Council is trying to build up reserves for a specific project to hit an earmarked reserve so that money, as it becomes available can be put in there rather than into the general reserve to build up a specific fund to be able to carry out those improvements. What we have not done is formalised any specific plans, we are intending to be able to consult with traders, members of the public, all stakeholders regarding the market and look at what people really want from the market for the long term future there in the heart of the city. What we didn’t want to do was be able to get all that feedback back from people, be able to come up with plans and then not have the money to deliver them, so what we have tried to do is to interact the two, be able to find out what people really want to be able to develop the market in the heart of our city and keep it where it is, the jewel of our crown, long into the future and have the money to do so. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: First of all may I congratulate her on being one of the few Members of Cabinet trusted to answer questions this evening. Can she clarify that we do not have sufficient funds to undertake the demolition replacement of the indoor market at the moment and certainly do not have £10m as reported?
Lord Mayor: Councillor Russell
Councillor Russell: Thank you Lord Mayor, I can indeed confirm that, which is why we set up the earmarked reserve so that we didn’t come out with promises of what we wanted to do with the market and raise people’s expectations of what we were able to deliver for the market prior to full consultation with the traders and us putting the money together to be able to do something useful. Thank you.
Councillor Grant: Will the Cabinet Lead for Culture and Leisure tell us if they still intend to go ahead with the City Gallery project?
Councillor Osman: Thank you my Lord Mayor, can I thank Councillor Grant for that. The replacement of the former City Gallery on Granby Street with a new contemporary Art Gallery on New Walk has been the subject of considerable debate and revised plans have been drawn up to respond to the concerns raised about the impact of the original design on the character of New Walk.
These revised plans were considered by OSMB as you can appreciate Councillor Grant, at its meeting on Monday and were generally supported. However, whilst we remain committed to increasing and improving access to contemporary visual arts services for all our communities in the city, we will wish to ensure that this project is able to deliver fully on its objectives and provide value for money before making a final decision.
Councillor Johnson: Will the relevant Cabinet Lead give Council an update on the condition of New Walk Centre and progress on CLABs?
Councillor Patel: Thank you Councillor Johnson, thank you my Lord Mayor. The Council have been considering the future of New Walk Centre for some time and to help this over the last few months a team of structural engineers has been carrying out an extensive survey of the building’s physical condition, this being the most detailed and comprehensive survey we have ever had of the buildings.
The interim report on the study identified a need to make changes to weight distribution across all the floors and a programme of activities to achieve such weight redistribution remains ongoing.
The structural engineers have completed a further phase of
intrusive testing and their final report is expected by the end of
April. In the light of the conclusions
of the report the Council will then examine its options for the
future of its office accommodation in the city centre.
Council will be aware that the future of our headquarters is one element of a wider rationalisation of our CLABs buildings which has been ongoing for some time and has resulted in the move of Members to the Town Hall, the refurbishment of Phoenix House, Sovereign House, 16 New Walk and parts of Greyfriars and New Walk Centre which, coupled with improvements to our use of space, has enabled rented buildings at Mansion House and Welford House to be released from the portfolio.
The future of our remaining portfolio of offices will be considered within the option appraisal of New Walk Centre. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Johnson: It is interesting to know that I was on the Council when we moved in and it looks as though I’ll be on the Council when we move out, but will the Leader of the Council assure us that he will keep us posted, while appreciating that there will be commercially sensitive material, I think it is such an important thing that all parties are kept informed of what is happening.
Councillor Patel: Lord Mayor happy to accept that request. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: Firstly apologies to Councillor Osman for not congratulating him on also being trusted to answer questions this evening. Will the Cabinet Lead for Regeneration tell us if he thinks spending £68million on a bus centre is affordable, achievable or a priority?
Councillor Osman: Thank you my Lord Mayor, can I say that this is a scheme that we have prioritised and is primarily because of the forecast increased demand on the transport system due to the growth in housing and the need for a step change improvement in public transport to underpin Leicester’s future. So all I can say at this stage is yes we are committed and we are prioritising it my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Grant: Will the Cabinet Lead for Finance tell us if he can achieve the savings outlined in the budget this year for 2012/13 without job losses?
Councillor Patel: Thank you my Lord Mayor. The budget that was agreed recently at February Council, shows planned reductions across a number of services in each of the years 2010/11 to 2012/13, some of which have staffing implications and will inevitably mean job losses estimated to be around 273. These are clearly shown and were included in the papers at the Budget Meeting.
In some cases, specific post reductions are identified whilst for other savings and reviews are envisaged, the results of which cannot currently be determined and so it is not possible to provide Councillor Grant with an accurate number of job losses at this time. In any case, figures may change by the time we reach 2012/13.
Councillor Grant: Thank you Lord Mayor. Could I ask the Leader was the former Leader therefore disingenuous in briefings when he implied otherwise particularly in comparison to the County?
Councillor Patel: My Lord Mayor all responses by the former Leader and myself who work on the budgets collectively were reported in the media. Thank you my Lord Mayor.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor. What priority will the new Leader of the council give to meeting the needs of all of Leicester’s communities?
Councillor Bhatti : Thank you my Lord Mayor. The reasons for the existence of the local government is to meet the needs of its residents and Leicester is no different from that. This Administration has always worked to meet the needs of all communities as a priority, this is evidenced in our clear need assessment work underpinning our commissioning strategies, this will remain the case.
Councillor Gill: Can I thank Councillor Bhatti for that reply, I was actually looking for the Leader’s view and vision of meeting the needs of all of the city’s communities, but I take it that Councillor Patel is still the Leader. The concern I have is that Leicester as a city historically had a very good reputation which is beginning to diminish recently in terms of looking after the needs particularly of newly arrived communities that have joined us in the last 5 to 10 years, whether they are from community groups in Somalia, whether they are community groups from Eastern European countries and I think that we haven’t been working on this as we ought to have been. Can the Cabinet Lead give a commitment that you will carry out a new piece of work looking at how we are meeting the needs of newly arrived communities and to identify any gaps.
Councillor Bhatti: Thank you my Lord Mayor. I think this question you have raised in the past quite a number of times, the response has been provided to you. My understanding is that a lot of work has been done with the Somali Community and East European communities, but still we are analysing the need and the prioritisation of that need and we are working on that and will carry on working on that.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Can the Cabinet Lead tell us which groups and individuals were consulted in relation to the extension of the Gilroes Cemetery and how long was the consultation carried out for?
Councillor Bhatti Thank you my Lord Mayor. The consultation with the residents of Heatheley Park started in July 2009 and is still going on with the Councillors Westley and Vi Dempster. The explanatory letters issued to the residents regarding project proposals that was done, the residents meeting was attended by Councillor Dempster along with the Council officers. A residents’ petition to full Council was presented in November 2009 and an additional letter issues to residents in January 2010. There was a residents meeting to discuss project proposals February 2010 attending by the Ward Councillors and Director of the Environment Services. Leicester City Council of Faiths and City Head of Equalities has also been consulted.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Given the very strong opposition that there is within the public to this proposed extension will the Cabinet Lead give a commitment at least to delay any decisions relating to proposals that will come before us later today in order for those representations to be fully considered?
Councillor Bhatti: As I said that in my previous answer, the consultations are still going on, it has not been concluded yet, the question of this doesn’t arise as well, so I don’t know how long it is going to take to finish before the decision is taken.
Councillor Gill: What other locations have been identified to meet the cremation needs of Leicester’s minority communities over the past few years, why has progress not been made and what have been the barriers?
Councillor Bhatti: Thank you my Lord Mayor. We have always tried to ensure that Gilroes crematorium meets the cremation need of ALL communities, as best we can. However, we are aware of a desire within sections of the Hindu community for a Hindu crematorium and the Council has provided support in looking for potential development sites.
A comprehensive review of potential development sites was undertaken in 2003 including Redhill Allotments, Beaumont Park and land opposite Leicestershire Police HQ, Enderby. Subsequent Cabinet report concluded that no site considered as part of the review was appropriate for crematorium development. Consideration was given to the potential of further sites when identified. Leicestershire County Council offered to facilitate County / City project team to progress County wide need, but this was not progressed by them. There is continuing dialogue with community interest groups such as Shanti Dham.
The main barrier is that legislation requires that any new crematorium building must be placed no closer than 200 yards from a dwelling house and 50 yards from a public road. This has always made it extremely difficult to find any such site in the city.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor, I think that reflects fairly poorly on the Administration because what people are saying is that I do understand the issues we have got with the issues in the city in terms of availability of land, but that doesn’t stop this Administration from working with the County to get a solution to the difficulties that are being faced and I think what the public are saying is that there has been a lack of support from the Administration in terms of helping seek a solution through the County or with the County and I think the reply you gave is indicative of that. Will the Cabinet Lead give a commitment to meet along with the Leader, the Leader of the County Council and resolve this problem which is very important for residents both within the city and also within the County.
Councillor Bhatti: Thank you my Lord Mayor, now this is the proposal we have pursued with the Leicestershire County Council on this issue, now that effort can be made in the future to do that, but in the meantime you may be aware of the report that is coming to Cabinet on Monday on the Gilroes Crematorium. The extension, taken them to meet the immediate need of the ethnic minorities of Hindus, Sikhs and Jains with extension of the East Chapel with the seating capacity of 106 and they wanted the video link there as well, so that’s the sort of steps being taken at the moment, so what you are suggesting, yes we can pursue that side with the County and work with us on that issue.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor, I was a bit confused by those responses because I have been informed on the one hand that there is ongoing consultation and on the other hand we have had a report in front of Cabinet….
Councillor Gill: Given that in the 2008/09 financial year the cost of external consultants to the taxpayers of this city had been a colossal £11.5m, at the Council meeting in January I asked the Cabinet Lead what the cost of external consultants had been so far for the 2009/10 financial year and what had been the highest amount paid on a daily basis to any one consultant. Worryingly, the Administration could not provide that information and the Cabinet Lead offered instead to provide a written response by the middle of February. Why is it that we are now at the end of March and I still don’t have sight of a written response, how much has been spent to date, and what has been the highest amount paid to any one consultant?
Councillor Dawood: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Thank you Councillor Gill for that question. A total of £6,561,000 is charged on consultancy codes which in April 2009 and mid-February 2010 which covers approximately 10½ months. This is a revenue spend only. Unfortunately because of consultants costs are in practice not always charged against consultancy codes, this may not include all consultancy costs. Identifying total consultancy spend requires significant financial analysis which normally occurs after the year end and when all the data has been collated across budgets, checked and thoroughly analysed. This is probably why you haven’t had a response so far. The maximum daily rate that is being paid is £1,784.00
Councillor Gill: My Lord Mayor I don’t really know where to start, £1,784.00 a day to employ somebody from outside this organisation when you are getting rid of 273 posts I think is appalling. But not to be able to identify even at this stage where we are a week away from this financial year, how much money has been spent, taxpayers money on consultants, I think is appalling. How on earth can you have a handle on the situation if you don’t know what you are spending? Now I don’t accept the reply that Councillor Dawood has given which I am sure officers have prepared.
How can the taxpayers of this city have any confidence in an Administration that doesn’t know what it is spending on consultants, £11.5m spent last year, £6.5m the Cabinet Lead thinks so far, but it could be more than that, well I look forward to a full response at the end of the financial year. Could Councillor Dawood tell me when will the taxpayers of this city get a response to this question, I’d like a date, I am quite happy with a date.
Councillor Dawood: My Lord Mayor can I remind once again to all members that my name is Dawood, not Da-wood or Dawoo, so if you can start on that please and I think in terms of the consultancy spends I don’t have the exact figures but when the opposition was cutting services when they were in power some time ago they were using consultants as well. Now, I think they were spending, but I’d love to get a figure, and what I’ve done I’ve actually answered a question, because I am not in a position to answer because as I have explained to you to get an in-depth analysis we have to wait until the end of the financial year. What I have done is given you £6.5m up until mid-February 2010.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Can the Cabinet Lead tell me how many officers of this Council are currently suspended on full pay, what was the total cost of this for the 2008/09 financial year and what has been the cost to date for the current financial year?
Councillor Dawood: Thank you Councillor Gill for that question. There are currently 28 officers suspended on full pay. The cost of paying employees on suspension for the financial year 2008/9 was £825,474. These costs were particularly high due to the fact that the council has no control over civil or criminal processes in cases where court/criminal proceedings were involved and over this period there were various cases of this kind. The cost to date of suspensions this financial year 2009/10 so far is £ 421,577 which represents a reduction of nearly 50%.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor that is almost a million and a half pounds paid over the last 2 years paid to officers suspended on full pay. Now both as citizens of this city have a right to know and expect that these officers cases are dealt with swiftly and also the officers themselves have a right to go through the process if there are some sort of disciplinary issues at a great speed to prevent these sort of costs escalating and arising. Now what assurance can the Cabinet Lead give to the Chamber today that this will not be allowed to continue during his term, the remaining year as Cabinet Lead.
Councillor Dawood: Thank you, I can say I have only been in position for about half an hour and I have reduced it by 50%. In the new disciplinary procedure that has recommended that suspensions last no more than 3 months except in exceptional circumstances, what we also have to consider that sometimes the process has been long because of safeguarding issues and we have to look after the interests of the City Council. The Council approach in terms of dealing with cases and could result in court cases has also been revisited which accounts for some of the reduction.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Taking into consideration known departures, what is now the total number of Directors within the organisation, and how many of them are female and how many are from a Black or Asian background?
Councillor Dawood: The Council employs 28 Directors in all. Of these, there are 14 males and 14 females. This gender equality at senior management level is top quartile performance. None are of BME origin currently.
Councillor Gill: Well I am very pleased at the fact we have a gender balance, can I say that this Administration has been the only one to reduce the BME representation by 100% despite the assurances that the Leader gave earlier on, articles in the Guardian about equalities record, actually the real record of this council is reflected within these figures. To have out of 28 Directors not a single one from a Black or Asian community says volumes about this Administration. Now can I say to the Cabinet Lead, I have asked your predecessors this and I will ask you, will you give a commitment to form an all Party Working Group to look very seriously at this issue. Together we can do, I am sure we can take steps which can address this which will be far better than the mentoring schemes that the Leader talked about earlier, far better than the Reach Higher Programme and frankly I think those are going to take another 20 years to see anything positive arising out of those, so can you give us a commitment today that you are happy to move forward forming an All-Party Working Group.
Councillor Dawood: Thank you Lord Mayor, thank you Councillor Gill. In the Council’s new recruitment policy the approach of executive search for suitable BME candidates has been incorporated for senior roles. However, currently the majority of candidates for senior local government roles are primarily located in the South East. The Reach Higher Programme as you have mentioned, is a programme designed to grow your own talents internally with a view to improving BME representation in senior roles. This, I must add, has also been recognised as innovative by IDeA.
Councillor Gill: Can I ask the Cabinet Lead what discussions has the Cabinet Lead for Health or their predecessor had with the NHS over the last 6 months regarding services within the city?
Councillor Naylor: Thank you Lord Mayor, I promise to say more than 4 words this time because I wouldn’t want anyone thinking I am unable to answer the questions. The previous Cabinet Lead has met regularly with the local leaders for health over the last six months; these have included regular one to one meetings with the Director of Public Health and quarterly meetings with the Chief Executive of the Primary Care Trust. As the PCT is the commissioner of ALL health services for the city, this relationship has been of vital importance in raising issues relating to service provision in the city.
Issues which have been the subject of detailed discussion have included health improvement in the city and the delivery of good prevention services at a locality level, access to dentistry, the hospital services, including quality and productivity and the commissioning of services from UHL.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor, does the Cabinet Lead and does his predecessor believe that the 700 posts that are going to be reduced by the Health Service and the nine ward closures and also the recent announcement of the new maternity ward and it’s closure are simply unacceptable for residents within this City. Can I ask the Cabinet Lead or his predecessor who is here now, so you can confer, first learn about these closures?
Councillor Naylor: I think the best thing that I can do is spend some time conferring with my colleague and to actually come back and give you a written response to that.
Councillor Gill: Can I ask the Cabinet Lead what precisely is the role and level of accountability of the Adults Safeguarding Panel?
Councillor Palmer: Thank you my Lord Mayor, I will answer Councillor Gill’s question with an element of concern given that he himself is a member of the Adult Safeguarding Panel. The Adult Safeguarding Panel was set up last year under my chairmanship as the relevant Cabinet Member to ensure that Members are engaged in adult safeguarding activity. Clear terms of reference have been created and agreed in discussion with all panel members, these allow for dialogue with a multi-agency safeguarding adults board also allowing for Members to understand the work of officers in safeguarding and support its performance management and to ensure that we have member champions for this very important agenda.
The Panel is part of a wider governance framework for safeguarding which includes the establishing of a new Safeguarding Board for the city replacing joint arrangements with Leicestershire and Rutland that will be independently chaired and pre-empted a governance announcement at the end of January that all local areas should have their own Safeguarding Adult’s Board. Safeguarding adults is a critical aspect of everybody’s work, all members of this Council and it is vital that we engage people in this agenda. The Safeguarding Adults Panel is an opportunity for members to raise issues that may concern them and to take a constructive approach to ensuring the Council and partners are well placed to keep vulnerable people safe. As with corporate parenting, the Council has a collective responsibility for vulnerable adults in our care and the panel supports the discharge of this accountability at member level through trained panel representatives.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor, yes you are quite right I am member of that panel and as far as I can remember the Panel did ask the Chair of the Panel to raise the profile of the work of the Panel amongst not just the Members within the Chamber but much wider across the city. One of the concerns I have is that when certain cases arise and information is asked for, some of the responses that are received from officers are very broad, non-definitive and in terms of, for example, how long a certain investigation may take place it’s almost open ended. My concern is that if we have a serious issue arise where this Council is at the centre of responsibility then I would like it on record now that I am not comfortable with the way that information is being withheld because if the Panel is going to be in any way accountable then it ought to be able to access the information, Panel members ought to be able to access information they need to make sure we are properly safeguarding adults within the city.
So my question is, can Councillor Palmer if not here today in the Chamber, write to me formally and tell us what the precise accountability of the Panel is, I know he gave us quite a longwinded answer there, but it doesn’t tell us anything.
Councillor Palmer: Thank you my Lord Mayor, I wouldn’t call it longwinded when I am setting out an answer to a question about one of the most serious issues that this Council deals with which is safeguarding vulnerable adults. In relation to Councillor Gills point about the length of safeguarding investigations, each and every safeguarding investigation in this authority is undertaken on it’s own merits in relation to the very specific circumstances, many of which will of course involve very sensitive, personal and confidential information, so if Councillor Gill is querying what sort of information is released to Members and others in relation to that, I would suggest he refers that to the Monitoring Officer whose obviously responsible for the discharge of information to Members.
Councillor Gill: Under the previous Leader this authority had a very poor relationship with our local police service, how will that now change under the new leadership?
Councillor Naylor: Thank you Lord Mayor. This authority has enjoyed a very positive relationship with our local Police service. The senior management team and the Police regularly meet with chief officers from the Council to plan and join task resources to tackle crime and disorder in the city and the local Police Inspector is seconded into the works with our community safety team. We are totally committed to working in partnership with the police to ensure that all citizens in Leicester feel safe within their communities and benefit from an improved quality of life as a result of partnership actions to reduce crime, disorder and substance misuse. There is regular contact between the Cabinet Lead Member for Community Safety and the local Police Commander to discuss areas of joint concern and to monitor progress in making our communities safer as well as stronger representation from the Council to the Police Authority.
Councillor Gill: Thank you Councillor Naylor for that response, will you give us a commitment that you will invite the acting Chief Constable and then subsequently the Chief Constable to this Chamber on a quarterly basis so that we can get an update on the very serious policing issues which affect this city?
Councillor Naylor: I will not do that, but what I will do is make sure that we have regular reports coming here and I will make sure that at some point during the year that there is a report brought here by the Chief Constable.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor. How many Subject Access requests have we had under the Data Protection Act for each of the last three financial years including this financial year to date?
Councillor Patel: Thank you my Lord Mayor. In 2007/08 85 Subject Access Requests were centrally logged by the Information Governance team, 73 in 2008/9 and 83 in 2009/10.
Councillor Gill: Thank you my Lord Mayor. Can I congratulate the Leader on his appointment and finally rising to answer one of my questions, can the Leader give us a commitment to review the decision that was taken last year by his administration to introduce a £10 subject access fee charge because it is a inhibitor in terms of people applying for a copy of their information and in many ways the organisation benefits from any inaccuracies that they subsequently identify, whether it’s in benefits, whether it’s with housing or whether it’s another issue. It costs this administration more than £10 to actually process that fee. Will he reconsider withdrawing that charge?
Councillor Patel: Lord Mayor the charge was implemented to cover the administration costs. Councillor Gill now informs me that it actually costs more than the charge, so I think we are already subsidising for the information that is being provided as part of the SAR.