Minutes:
Question 1
From Councillor Mullane
“In light of the recent press stories regarding the tragedy that has occurred in Rotherham, including allegations that elected Councillors have been criticised for not undertaking an active role in ensuring safeguarding of the Boroughs children, does the Leader of the Council feel this Council has all safeguards in place to ensure this cannot happen in Barking and Dagenham?”
Response
Councillor Rodwell, Leader of the Council, thanked Cllr Mullane for raising the very important report from Rotherham and stated that strong leadership was essential in making sure that the Council did all that it could to put in place the necessary safeguards to protect children in the borough. Councillor Rodwell referred to the assurance received from OFSTED following its inspection of the Barking and Dagenham Children’s Services last year, which concluded that:
“The multi-agency work in relation to missing children is effective, there is good multiagency working and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) has clear oversight of the issue via its Child Sexual Exploitation subgroups, which are chaired by senior representatives from the Police and Adults Services.”
He also alluded to a joint review by several Government departments in April this year which concluded that:
“The Leader has made focusing on eliminating violence and abuse against women and children a priority for the council and the focus on child sexual exploitation sits within that context. The Council has been run by one political party for some time and the Leader is keen that scrutiny arrangements are robust to ensure there is proper challenge from both scrutiny committees and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board.”
Councillor Rodwell also referred to the role of the Child Sexual Exploitation Champions, multi-agency working and the requirement for all staff, volunteers and school governors who work with children to have a disclosure and barring service (DBS) check. He added that as all Members had a role as ‘corporate parents’ and in view of the potential to have access to detailed information on young people, Members may want to think about strengthening their own leadership role and undertaking DBS checks.
Question 2
From Councillor Young
“Could the Cabinet Member for Environment please outline the exact costs to the Council incurred due to the ongoing industrial dispute including but not exclusive to security costs, overtime payments, agency staff and landfill payments?”
It was advised that Councillor Twomey, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Central Services, would respond to all questions that related to the industrial dispute with the GMB Union, as he was the Council’s lead spokesperson on the matter.
Response
Councillor Twomey advised that the current budget position showed a net underspend of £47,920. The salaries not paid during the dispute amounted to £128,600, which was offset by £80,680 of additional costs relating to temporary staffing and recruitment, security, communications, vehicle costs, extension of opening times of Frizlands depot and miscellaneous equipment costs.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Young asked whether the additional costs relating to staffing were for current agency staff or new agency staff.
Councillor Twomey clarified that only existing staff had been used to cover for those drivers that were involved in the dispute.
Question 3
From Councillor Gill
“Could the Cabinet Member for Environment please confirm if the Council will be providing a Council Tax rebate to residents for the non-collection of refuse and lack of services provided during the on-going strike?”
Response
Councillor Twomey advised that the Council would not, as the Council Tax was a statutory tax which helped to pay for a range of services of which the refuse service was a very small part.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Gill asked for further details as he felt that refuse collection was a basic service and the Council had recently increased the Council Tax.
Councillor Twomey responded that the Council had taken a unanimous decision in February to raise the Council Tax for 2015/16. The amount of rebate, if it were possible to make one, would represent approximately 30p per week per household and he referred to the Council’s overall package of savings amounting to £29m which had to be made for 2015/16, which included the reduction to the pre-start arrangements. Councillor Twomey also spoke on the details of the dispute and the extra measures being taken to mitigate the effects of the strike and advised that the Council had recently made a third offer to the GMB Union in an attempt to bring the dispute to an end, which he believed was very fair.
Question 4
From Councillor Gill
“Could the Cabinet Member for Environment please advise why refuse collections for Longbridge Ward were missed out on non-strike days as part of the west-to-east collection strategy even though neighbouring wards received a collection?”
Response
Councillor Twomey advised that despite the exceptional circumastances, a service was continuing to be provided across the Longbridge area through an established pattern of collection on Mondays, with domestic grey bins emptied by the early shift and recycling brown or green bins collected on alternate Monday afternoons. The pattern operated from west to east.
Councillor Twomey also elaborated on some of the interim waste collection arrangements that were in place and the days lost to date as a consequence of the dispute.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Gill suggested that there were no advertised collection details for the Longbridge area and, in respect of the interim collection arrangements that had been introduced at various points in the Borough, enquired how pensioners and those without a vehicle could be expected to deliver their household waste to those points.
Councillor Twomey acknowledged that not all residents were expected to use the collection points and some additional, assisted services were available alongside the collection services that were running. Additional services were also being provided to deal with any increase in fly-tipping.
Question 5
From Councillor Mullane
“Does the Cabinet Member for Housing feel, in this financial climate with rents having been increased and Council Tax too, that removing a caretaker from the Ibscott Estate in Village Ward, with poorer standards witnessed by the three ward councillors already, that officers must start listening to residents and elected councillors and reinstate the caretakers to three?”
Response
Councillor Ashraf, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing, advised that the allocation of resources, including staffing, was solely a matter for officers to decide, within the financial parameters agreed by Members as part of the budget setting process.
Supplementary Question
Councillor Mullane clarified that she had been told that a Housing officer had made the decision and asked Councillor Ashraf if she would be prepared to meet with the Village ward councillors to discuss the decline in the caretaking service since the changes were introduced. Councillor Ashraf agreed to the request.
Question 6
From Councillor Mullane
“Can the Cabinet Member explain why councillors’ emails regarding casework are generally being ignored?”
Response
Councillor Twomey stressed that Members’ casework should not be ignored under any circumstances and should also be dealt with within the stated timescales. He encouraged Members to report any failing directly to the relevant Chief Officer.