Agenda item

5.1

Public Questions in respect of Public Involvement in Local Housing Meetings

Martin Brighton asked the following questions in respect of public involvement in local housing meetings:-

1) Why did the Council decide not to allow members of the public to attend as observers at the HANAP meetings?

2) When was the removal of the right to attend what were previous Housing Management Board meetings, given prior consultation with and received consent from tenants?

3) Where can the minutes of HANAP meetings be found on the Council’s web site?

4) Why did the Council decide not to allow members of the public to ask questions at Housing Area Board meetings?

5) When was the withdrawal of this facility, that existed previously, given prior consultation with and received consent from tenants?

In response, Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, commented that he had answered Mr Brighton’s’ questions at the Full Council meeting in January 2015 and the questions and answers at that meeting were a matter of public record.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Public Questions

Martin Brighton asked what the Council’s policy was with respect to extending the restrictions upon citizens’ availability to ask questions to hold the Council to account?

Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, commented that the Council endeavoured to create many opportunities for the public to ask questions and to hold Councillors to account, such as the Local Area Partnerships, Cabinet in the Community and Full Council.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Cabinet Member Responsibilities

Martin Brighton asked was it not an admission of not being on top of one’s brief when in answer to questions, over an extended period, to repeatedly say ‘I have no personal knowledge of this issue’?

Councillor Julie Dore responded that if a Cabinet Member had no knowledge of an issue referred to, she would find the response acceptable.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Code of Conduct

Martin Brighton asked the following questions in respect of Code of Conduct matters:-

1) The Council Leader has publically said that she would remove from office any Cabinet Member found to deliberately mislead. In one case, it has been repeatedly shown that one Cabinet Member had deliberately misled. Why was that Cabinet Member not removed from office?

2) Council records also show that the political advisor to the above Cabinet Member also deliberately misled, and Council officers attempted a futile cover up. Why were the officers and political advisor not removed?

3) It has also been shown that when the Council inadvertently issued information demonstrating that the performance of the department of the above Elected Member had not just failed, but was in truth an absolute disaster, there was a concerted effort to bully and gag this citizen. Why does the Council support this behaviour?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the issues referred to by Mr Brighton were currently being investigated by the Information Commissioner and, as such, she was not able to answer and she would let the legal process follow its due course.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Relationship with Contractors

Martin Brighton asked whether this Council, or individual officers claiming to speak on behalf of the Council, have the right to instruct third parties such as contractors who they are allowed to speak to, and if so, why?

Councillor Julie Dore responded that the Council did not tell contractors who to speak to. They may advise contractors where there were issues of confidentiality or health and safety when dealing with the public and this was the same in any walk of public life.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Council Policy

Martin Brighton asked why did this Council consider that coercive control imposed so as to falsely claim ‘consent’ is acceptable, and also refusing to record massive rejection of a Council Policy, and at the same time engineer a claim of consent from an ineligible ‘vote’ on another issue?

Mr Brighton added that he had been told of this pattern of Council behaviour by a number of individuals across the City who had informed him that the Council had told them if they didn’t follow Council Policy, sanctions would be imposed upon them.

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she had no knowledge of the issues referred to by Mr Brighton.

5.7

Public Question in respect of the Community Infrastructure Levy

Nigel Slack referred to item 10 on the agenda for the meeting which was a report on the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Mr Slack believed that, in principle, this was a good idea and worth supporting. He was concerned that it was supported and promoted by the current Government and it might be considered suspicious on that basis alone.

Mr Slack commented that he would appreciate some further clarity on the way spending decisions on the ‘Neighbourhood Portion’ will be made. For those areas with Parish Councils and those with developing neighbourhood plans, the proposals are apparent, but in other areas it is less so. The Council will hold the funds but what will be the mechanism for setting priorities? How will ‘neighbourhoods’ be designated? And who will make the decision on individual infrastructure projects?

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, commented that original proposals for the CIL had been developed by the last Labour Government. The Cabinet report set out the statutory requirement in respect of neighbourhood plans. The Council had jurisdiction on whether the Council could increase the 15% non-statutory element without neighbourhood plans and a policy would be developed in this respect.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Public Questions

Nigel Slack stated that some months ago he had commented on his concerns over the potential abuse of the public questions item on the Full Council meeting agenda through the use of planted or stooge questions. On this first occasion, it was asserted by Council that it was a spontaneous question and not prearranged.

Mr Slack added that, at the last Full Council meeting, a question was asked by the same individual ‘member of the public’ that was involved in the first occasion, a Labour Party member and previous candidate for election as Councillor. A second occurrence of a question clearly designed to provide the opportunity for a detailed ‘Party Political’ response, from the same protagonist, made Mr Slack question that assertion. Did Cabinet Members have any comment?

Councillor Dore responded that generally anyone in the Public Gallery in the Council Chamber, whether party member, ex-Councillor or member of the public were classed in the same way – they had a right to ask a question. Councillor Dore accepted that what Mr Slack referred to did take place in every Chamber across the country, even Prime Minister’s Questions. Although Councillor Dore did not remember the specific question referred to by Mr Slack, she believed that this happened across all parties. She accepted that and actually welcomed it if it presented Members the opportunity to explain Council policy and that it worked both ways, if the opposition wanted to challenge the Administration and hold Members to account, this was also acceptable.