Agenda item

Question 1 from Councillor L Waker:

 

“Having seen the appreciation from elderly, disabled and vulnerable tenants to having the decorations carried out in their homes that the Council introduced recently, I am seeking an assurance from the Cabinet Member for Housing that this highly valued service will continue for the rest of this electoral term of office and that there is no intention to stop or reduce this service or other front-line services such so those in flatted communal areas etc.”

 

 

RESPONSE from Councillor Ashraf, Cabinet Member for Housing:

 

"Thank you for the question.

 

This scheme commenced in September 2013.  It was previously delivered by Enterprise.  I am proud to say that since September 2013 B&D Direct Labour Organisation has delivered this service to our tenants.  Very positive feedback has been received from those tenants who have benefited with many personal compliments being passed on to the painters and decorators.  Tenants applying must be over the age of 80.  If Members want further details about the acceptance criteria, please contact me.

 

As you know, we are currently reviewing budgets and I am unable to give guarantees as this time.  However, I support the decorations to elderly persons' property scheme and want to ensure it continues to be available to as many of our elderly tenants as possible.

 

I think it is an excellent service.  However, I am very mindful of financial considerations.  I therefore hope to continue to offer elderly tenants in the borough to have two rooms of their choice decorated.  This I believe will make this important and successful scheme available to the maximum number of our elderly tenants."

 

 

Question 2 was withdrawn by Councillor Miles as he considered that the Cabinet Member for Housing in her response to Question 1 had answered his question.

 

 

Question 3 from Councillor L Smith:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services confirm and fully commit this Council to continuing to provide the residents of the borough with a weekly household rubbish collection for the next three financial years?

 

Could the Cabinet Member also give her full support to keeping all Environmental Services in-house including street sweepers, grounds maintenance and refuse collection, rather than follow the approach of many Conservative Councils to outsource front line services”?

 

RESPONSE from Councillor L Rice, Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

"This Council currently operates waste collection services on a fortnightly basis for dry recyclables in a brown bin, and green garden waste in a green bin.  All other waste is collected in a grey bin every week.  

 

In 2012 this Council successfully bid for funding made available by Government so that local authorities can maintain their weekly waste collections.  Our bid brought in £1.3 million over 3 years for us to promote waste minimisation and to maintain our existing waste collection arrangements. As a condition of this funding there is on record an existing commitment to maintaining a weekly waste collection service until 2017/8.

 

As the Member is well aware we face many difficult decisions as a Council over the coming months, it would be wrong for me to pre-empt tonight the discussions as we seek to protect our residents and staff from the impact of the decisions taken by this unpopular Tory Government.

 

This Council can be rightly proud that unlike many Tory Councils we focus on the needs of our residents. This means protecting the public services our residents rely on. But we also know that Government policies are hitting real take home pay hard and so we must also make sure that we keep our costs down and deliver services that offer real value for money."

 

 

Question 4 from Councillor P Waker:

 

“The Council's Constitution has until now been very clear that Councillors, both individually and through Select Committees, are entitled to ask for and receive "any documents" (as outlined in Article 13 of the Constitution and the Principles of Corporate Governance) that are not in draft or relate to an individual or Court cases etc (i.e. data protection).

 

Notwithstanding any changes of wording to the Constitution and noting the difficult decisions that Councillors will have to make in the next few years as well as events in Councils such as Rotherham that may not have been as open with all their documents to Councillors as they could have been, can the Leader assure the Assembly that any attempts to restrict Councillor access to documents that are not exempt will not be tolerated?

 

Furthermore, does the Leader accept that there is not an "internal" part of the Council entitled to information and an external part of the Council in LBBD that is not entitled to information and that neither officers nor Councillors should not be able to decide what is "good enough" to give Councillors and what is not "good enough”.

 

 

RESPONSE from the Leader of the Council:

 

“The Council’s Constitution at Article 13 sets out the Access to Information rules.

A Select Committee is entitled to copies of documents which are in the possession or control of the Cabinet unless (a) the document is in draft or (b) the document is the advice of a political adviser. 

I emphasised the wording here as I am quoting from the Constitution and those words are missing from your first paragraph. The appendix to Article 13 also helpfully sets out a list of exempt information for clarity.

I am not aware of any attempts to restrict member access to documents and if any Member is of that opinion they should contact the Monitoring Officer.

I do not recognise the phrases ‘internal’ or ‘external’ parts of the Council. Every Member and Officer must abide by the Council’s Constitution.  Any attempt by an Officer or a Member to circumvent this would be unconstitutional and a breach of the Employee or Member Code of Conduct."

 

Question 5 from Councillor Gill:

 

“Can the Cabinet Member forRegeneration please explain what actions the Council is taking to lobby Barclays Bank about the decision to close their branch in Faircross Parade, Barking and to also ensure that the site is not converted into another betting shop”?

 

RESPONSEfrom Councillor Geddes, Cabinet Member for Regeneration:

 

"I'm grateful for the question from Councillor Gill and I recognise that with me he has long shared a concern about the proliferation of betting shops across the borough.

 

If I can just preface my comments by saying that, as of earlier today, we hadn't heard of any proposals to change the use of the particular site mentioned in the question, either to a use that would require planning permission or to a use, such as a betting shop, that would not. That said, the local councillors might have more information on this matter.

 

I'd also like to place into context the Council's concerns about the spread of betting shops.  About a year ago we started work on two policies; one was an Article 4 Direction that would have made it harder for pubs, restaurants, take-aways and cafés to turn into betting shops. The other was an SPD (a Supplementary Planning Document) that would have made it harder for betting shops to cluster in certain destinations.  When we met with the national representatives of the betting chains, a meeting Rocky (Councillor Gill) attended, they stressed that there has only been a very small increase in the number of betting shops across Barking and Dagenham - the problem is, however, as elsewhere across the country, that the shops we have are clustering together in places like Barking Town Centre. So far, for various reasons, we haven't progressed with either of these policies and I am hoping that another development I'll mention shortly will mean we will not need to do so.

 

At this point I'd like to add that it isn't only in planning legislation where the odds are stacked against local councils and their communities. Both Councillor Channer, who chairs the Licensing Board, and Councillor Butt, the local Cabinet Member responsible for Enforcement, have expressed to me their frustration at not being able to deal with this issue. For example, at a recent board hearing, at which considerable concerns were expressed, members had to bear in mind that applications cannot be turned down even for such reasons as there being no need for yet another betting office in an area or that the building concerned didn't seem suitable for a betting office.

 

Turning specifically to the location mentioned in the question, I was aware of the local ward councillors lobbying on this matter as soon as the bank's future was in doubt. Subsequently to that the Leader has written to the bank concerned, Barclays. Now normally I wouldn't be too optimistic about the response to such a letter because we wrote to Barclays previously when their branch in the Town Centre was becoming empty.  All we got then was a polite reply, which stated that their commercial interests had to take precedence. However, we have since found out that Barclays have adopted a 'Stewardship' policy, which they interpret to mean 'leaving things better than they found them'.  I would put it to all elected members and to the local community that it will be interesting to see if they will try to justify taking away a much valued bank and replacing it with a betting shop, which would be the third betting shop within about fifty metres in this area.

 

What we have also done is to support Hackney Council's campaign to have betting shops placed into a separate use class and since we have done that over sixty other councils around the UK have also supported the campaign, which again shows the wide support that there is for something to be done on this matter.

 

Perhaps in response to this or to the Labour Party saying what it would do, we have also been consulted by the current Coalition Government on their plans to stop banks becoming betting shops without planning permission and this might be a better way to move forward, rather than potentially expensive and difficult planning legislation from local councils.  That consultation paper went to our Development Control Board back in September and they not only supported the changes suggested, but also added the concern, to which I referred earlier, about clustering.

 

I hope this demonstrates that we have been acting in a comprehensive way to try to deal with the matter for some time, but, if there is anything further that Rocky (Councillor Gill) or any other member feels we should consider doing, I am happy to discuss this informally."

 

 

 

 

Question 6 from Councillor Gill:

 

“Does the Cabinet Member for Finance believe that freezing Council Tax for a 7th consecutive year and accessing any available grants like previous years is crucial to helping local residents through the cost of living crisis unlike Tory led Havering Cabinet who are considering increasing Council Tax by 2%”? 

 

RESPONSE from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:

 

"Whilst I agree with the principle Councillor Gill raises, that we should support those who are struggling with the cost of living, I do not believe that the Council Tax freeze is a crucial element in the cost of living crisis, but is a helpful element at a time of raising utility bills, debt issues and the impact of welfare reform.

 

There is, however, a balance that we need to find between not wishing to increase Council Tax for our residents and the need to continue to provide valuable services for them, including those who are the most vulnerable.

 

What we all as Councillors need to be doing is ensuring all our residents are aware of all the ways they can access financial support and advice to help them manage their finances in these challenging times, alongside practical steps to improve their way of life.  From encouraging them to take to the third sector, including the Liberty credit union who offer more affordable support, to referring to food banks and also to the Council for assistance with Discretionary Housing Payments.

 

The Council has made use of grants in recent years, which has enabled it to freeze Council Tax, but many of those grants have, however, only provided partial or short term relief as they have not been converted into an ongoing funding stream or have only covered part of the income that could have been raised by increasing Council Tax.  If Council Tax had been raised by the maximum available without requiring a referendum, it would mean that the authority would have over £3.6m more income year on year as its Council Tax base, at a time when we have had to cut a number of services that were valued by residents and, therefore, we need to reflect on which will have the greater impact – the additional cost of a 2% increase in Council Tax or reducing or removing important services.

 

I have been fully supportive of the Council Tax freeze over the four years I have been an elected Councillor.

 

I would like to say that I believe in collective decision making and it would be presumptive of me to pre-empt a decision that is not in my gift to make."

 

 

Question 7 from Councillor McCarthy:

 

“Could the Cabinet Member for Crime and Enforcement please explain why the Council has painted double-yellow lines outside Singh Sabha London East Barking Gurdwara in North Street without any local consultation? Would the Cabinet Member agree that this is not a good example of empowering local communities and is also against the spirit of localism?"

 

RESPONSE from Councillor Butt, Cabinet Member for Crime and Enforcement:

 

"Councillor McCarthy, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with Assembly the many good thingswe are doing to make sure that we are London’s growth opportunity. 

 

As Barking grows we must ensure that there is safe and accessible parking, for all our communities, which help tackle local congestion.  It will always be difficult, when we introduce changes, but we must balance different needs if we are going to be one borough; one community.

 

Empowering local communities to look after their area and help themselves is, of course, important.  But in this instance, this is not about the needs of one group, but rather the safety of all.

 

As we have redeveloped the area, the demand for parking has grown and will continue to grow.  We have looked at the demand for parking:

 

·  from  William Street Quarter and Whiting Avenue residents,

·  from the many shoppers who will visit the new ASDA when it opens,

·  from those who will use our new Abbey Leisure Centre when it opens in December, and

·  from those who come to worship in this part of the borough. 

I know that when new parking restrictions are introduced, somemotorists will park in any available free parking space.  This is not usually in the community’s best interests.  So, when a petition was received on behalf of the Gurdwara, I ensured that an officer, who had not previously been involved in the decision to install the double yellow lines, reviewed whether the decision was the right one.  And, although the area is in my ward, and I know it very well, I went on a site visit to look at the detail for myself.

 

I am satisfied that the right decisions were made, and would remind Members that not only has the Gurdwara itself got two car parks with access directly into the building, but London Road Car Park is just a few minutes' walk away. 

 

The Director advises me, that whilst the decision to install the lines was correct, there was a lack of co-ordination between different Council teams, which led to mistakes being made over consultation with the Gurdwara.

 

Therefore, Councillor Geddes and I have asked officers to ensure that, in future, there is better co-ordination, to avoid this kind of mistake. 

 

However, there are long-term benefits for road safety and congestion in this area and that is why this decision must stand."

 

 

Question 8 from Councillor Mullane:

 

"Would the Cabinet Member for Environmental Servicesplease assure the Assembly that front-line workers covered by her portfolio who communicate with Councillors about the many issues that affect the Council will not be subject to disciplinary procedures? Could the Cabinet Member also ensure that a letter is sent to staff confirming that while the Council faces a difficult time because of the savage cuts imposed by this Government that they are free to talk to Councillors without fearing bullying, harassment or disciplinary action?"

 

 

The Leader of the Council delegated authority for the RESPONSE to be made by Councillor Twomey, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance:

 

"As the question covers issues that affect all staff and all Members, I will respond to it as I am looking at all aspects of engagement between staff, trade unions and Members.  Firstly, I can assure you that bullying and harassment will never be tolerated in this Council by anyone at any level.  In terms of disciplinary action, the current Constitution is clearly the starting point in terms of an answer and it is very clear.

 

The Protocol re Member and Employee Relations at paragraph 7.2 says:

 

  Contact between Councillors and employees should be via the relevant Corporate Director or Divisional Director/Head of Service, with the exception that all case work should be channelled through a Members' casework officer, the contact details of whom will be provided to Councillors.

 

All officer and Members need to be fully aware that this is the process which has been agreed by the Assembly.  Officers need not fear disciplinary action if the correct process is followed.  No Member should compromise an officer by requesting information directly, but go through the appropriate channels as set out in the Constitution or through Members' casework.

 

The primary role of both Members and officers is to serve the community to the best of their abilities.  This is also expressly set out in the Council's Constitution.  There is a need for greater awareness amongst members and officers around the Code of Conduct applicable to them as both Codes set out the seven principles of public life identified by the Nolan Committee and endorsed by the Council in the Constitution.

 

Members and officers are of course free to talk to each other in order to work together.  What is not appropriate however, is for Members to either involve themselves in or try to dictate day to day operation of any part of any service.  Any Member wishing to do so should remind themselves of the Member/ Officer Protocol and ensure the boundaries between both roles to not become blurred.

 

Conversely, if any officer in any department has any issue that they think affects the Council, then they should bring it to the attention of Members through the appropriate line management channels."

 

 

 

Question 9 from Councillor Bartlett:

 

"This Council has consistently opposed the academisation of schools in Barking & Dagenham and has been fully committed to comprehensive education. Could the Cabinet Member for Education and Schoolsplease provide an assurance that this Council will continue to oppose the academies agenda and will fight any attempt to remove any schools from local authority control?"

 

RESPONSE from Councillor Carpenter Cabinet Member for Education and Schools:

 

"Thank you for your question Cllr Bartlett.

 

This question is about my vision for our education service in Barking and Dagenham. 

 

We’ve just agreed the vision and priorities: One Borough, One Community, London’s Growth Opportunity.  Education is embedded throughout the whole vision. 

 

We are all on a learning journey from birth to old age.  Before becoming a councillor, I worked for over 20 years in local authorities in Manchester and London supporting schools and colleges.  To help create an integrated service where all could thrive - children, young people and adults - to unlock their potential and achieve their aspirations.

 

I am totally opposed to the ferocious fragmentation imposed by this government on education services and schools.  We worked hard to support the Warren School which we partnered with Robert Clack, one of the best schools in the country.  We learnt from the judicial review of Warren, however, that even the strongest case can be overruled by the Secretary of State.

 

We have been under ferocious scrutiny by the government.  Did you know that over the past 2 academic years, there have been 78 OFSTEDs and monitoring visits?

 

I say, bring it on OFSTED!

 

I am proud of our schools, our teachers, pupils and their parents. We have seen improvements.  We are now above the national average on most of the main measures at 5, 7 and 11.

 

At secondary level, our Borough has held on to its best performance at GCSE in spite of significant drops elsewhere.  A level results have improved too. 

 

However, there is still much to do.  I want all our schools to be good or outstanding.  I know you want this too.

 

There was an inspiring Governors’ conference last Saturday where the large hall of Manor Junior School was filled to overflowing with governors keen to prepare for the new academic year. One of the most popular workshops was on partnerships between schools. How an outstanding school is helping another drive up standards.  I am grateful to Cllr Phil Waker for leading this workshop.

 

While I am education and schools portfolio holder, I shall fight the fragmentation of our education service here in Barking and Dagenham.  Partnerships between schools supported by the local authority is the way forward.

 

Thank you again for your question Cllr Bartlett.  Let’s work with schools to build on the partnerships now in place.  Let’s realise the vision of One Borough and One Community.  Let’s position the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s education service to face the future."

 

 

Question 10 from Councillor Young:

 

Does the Cabinet Member for Finance believe that maintaining the current terms and conditions of front line staff and doing our best to ensure there is no loss of income for the poorest paid council staff is vital to their morale and helps ensure they continue to do the good job that we expect of them?

Furthermore, as many of those staff live in the borough, does the Cabinet Member accept that this will help to maintain average income levels in Barking and Dagenham, already low in comparison to other areas of London, and will also assist the economy in difficult times?"

RESPONSE from Councillor Twomey, Cabinet Member for Finance:

 

"I believe that just looking to maintain employee terms and conditions when we should be striving to improve upon all aspects of our employees' conditions within the workplace, whether that be terms and conditions, pay, training or developmental opportunities is probably short sighted of my colleague.  As all of these things significantly impact on staff morale and as we know that the quality of our services is a result of the ongoing commitment and skill of the people who work for us, we will ensure that both staff and trades unions continue to play an active part in shaping future terms and conditions as they have successfully done over the last four years.

 

We are already trying our best to protect our lowest paid employees in terms of outstripping the London living wage by awarding our lowest paid employees over £9 per hour and also protecting as many jobs as possible amongst the backdrop of the savage funding cuts imposed on us by the Tory/Lib Dem government.

 

Having just short of 50% of our staff living in the borough does, I am sure, assist the local economy in difficult times.  However, we need to ensure that we offer our residents choice in where to spend their money and this will only be achieved by being an outward looking borough, which encourages significant growth and regeneration opportunities.

 

Finally, I would like to address the point of average income levels within the borough.  I would say just trying to maintain average income levels that, as you rightly point out, trail many parts of London is again short sighted, and I believe as an employer the Council needs to raise average income levels as much as possible, which is why regeneration of the borough is key to our future success in terms of aspirational housing, regeneration and new business growth."