Agenda item

This report sets out the Members’ questions received for this meeting.

Question A – Councillor Pearce asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Does the Leader of the Council believe the Member of Parliament for Rochester and Strood should respond to constituent emails and letters from residents in my ward?”

 

In response Councillor Maple said that at the General Election, Medway had  elected three new MPs to represent the local community in the Houses of Parliament. After having been in the spotlight for a number of weeks campaigning in advance of the election, the new MPs effectively had to set up a small business as that was the reality of becoming an MP.

 

All three local MPs were working hard for their constituents, but there were some challenges in finding the relevant staff and officers, which was a work in progress.

 

Councillor Maple considered it fair to say that there had been zero handover between the three outgoing MPs and the three incoming MPs. All MPs should respond to emails and letters, and all MPs were responding to emails and letters, as well as being present in the Houses of Parliament, attending the  Chamber and Westminster Hall debates. These colleagues had made interventions there and other Kent MPs had hosted Westminster Hall debates.

 

Lauren Edwards MP held an adjournment debate on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. She was working hard, highlighting the work she had done as a Council Cabinet member, which Councillor Mahil was continuing. Her office had responded to over 900 emails already. This was compared to at least one example where a constituent didn’t get a response for more than three years from the previous MP. The former Leader of the Council had not responded to an important employer for close to four years.

 

Councillor Maple said that when he and the Chief Executive took up their posts they had responded very quickly and quick responses would continue. He was proud of the work that all three local MPs were doing for the residents of Medway.

Question B – Councillor Perfect asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Can the Leader of the Council please update the Council on conversations surrounding devolution?”

 

Councillor Maple thanked Councillor Perfect both for the question and for the conversations that had been had at their cross-party Leader’s meetings, which had been helpful. There had been a number of conversations surrounding devolution. An important Kent Leader’s meeting had taken place in Maidstone,  There had been a number of individual conversations between Councillor Maple and the Leader of Kent County Council, Roger Gough, and their teams.

 

Councillor Maple had spoken to a number of Labour Group Leaders and Council Leaders and had undertaken other conversations with key stakeholders. One example of that was meeting with the Senior Leadership Team from the University of Kent. It had been made clear that all fourteen voices of Local Government from Kent and Medway should be around the table and at the appropriate time conversations would be had at Medway Council meetings, which may require a special Council meeting.

 

There would be different views on a Mayor/non-Mayor, on priorities and of what should be devolved. Those conversations continued and Councillor Maple paid tribute to Medway’s Chief Executive, officers and Corporate Management Team. A number of conversations were happening with, for example, the Chief Executives across the County of Kent to ensure that Leaders know what each other is doing and to ensure that action is taken at the appropriate time when deadlines are tight. There had been an appetite to get that in place and colleagues would be kept informed.

 

Question C – Councillor Hackwell asked theLeader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“Even though the previous Conservative administration left your Labour administration over £16M of reserves, of which you have already spent £6M to support the 23/24 financial year, and your administration is planning to use £14.7M of Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) to attempt to balance the budget for this year, with a further £16.3M in 25/26, what is your plan to return to a balance in the black, with restoring reserves to their previous amount, and when will this happen?”

 

In response Councillor Maple said that the situation inherited by the current Council administration was a budget based on reserves that was using additional budget to balance the books, a situation which was not sustainable. Some difficult decisions had been taken in the early months of the new administration. The important decision had been taken to utilise CIPFA, which provided the Council with a strong report including some key recommendations, one of those was the addition of the Financial Improvement and Transformation (FIT) Plan, which had been published to ensure transparency. Delivery of the Plan was being worked on with there continuing to be difficult conversations in relation to the current and future financial years.

 

Budgetary pressures in a number of areas were increasing, which was not unique to Medway. Four key areas were Adult Social Care, Children’s Social Care, Special Educational Needs and Temporary Accommodation. As a unitary authority, Medway had to deal with all of these areas and pressure was mounting year-on-year, sometimes rapidly.

 

The Council had the FIT Plan, there were conversations around Exceptional Financial Support, CIPFA had been brough back in and a report was awaited which would also be published in order to be transparent and to demonstrate the professional advice and guidance received, which would be carefully listened to.

 

Question D – Councillor Kemp asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:

 

“Although the much-derided motoring restrictions in Rainham have been in place for several months, I have first-hand and a wealth of anecdotal evidence that the rules are continuously being flouted. For example, traffic illegally turning right from the A2 into Orchard Street; Cars and Lorries parking with all four wheels on the pavement; and cars parking in the loading bays whilst drivers use the ATM machines. There is a growing perception amongst residents that the regulations are not being enforced.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, release the information appertaining to Rainham, how many PCNs have been issued, including the corresponding amount of revenue that has been accrued since the inception of the scheme?”

 

Councillor Paterson said it was regrettable that some opposition Members had previously sought to undermine measures such as the Red Routes in Rainham, with a campaign that seemed to back selfish motorists, rather than standing up for the law-abiding majority. He hoped that this public expression of concern at a level of enforcement represented a three-point-turn and a recognition of how illogical and indefensible that position was.

 

Councillor Paterson said he was grateful for the opportunity to highlight the number of contraventions, the need for these interventions and that the culprits were being punished. There had been enforcement of the right-turn ban from the A2 onto Orchard Street since 5 February 2024 and the ANPR camera was fully operational. Between February and August, warning notices were issued to drivers who ignored the restriction. Since August, 1,347 Penalty Charge Notices had been issued and this had generated £30,675 in revenue to date.

 

The Red Route scheme had been introduced in May 2024. The ANPR cameras were fully operational, and offences reviewed by a specialist team. Between May and November, warning notices were issued to drivers ignoring the restrictions, and therefore no revenue had been accrued from Penalty Charge Notices. 95 warning notices had been issued to date. From November 2024,  Penalty Charge Notices would be issued to drivers contravening the red route restrictions.

 

Question E – Councillor Spring asked thePortfolio Holder for Housing and Homelessness, Councillor Louwella Prenter, the following:

 

“The Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, stated on the 12 August 2024 that British people will not be given priority for social housing in favour of those who arrived in the UK illegally. This is not about being inhumane, it is about equality and fairness.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder please confirm to the Council that Medway Council will not give priority to those who arrived in the UK illegally ahead of those residents of Medway who are in need of social housing, such as pensioners or those who are unable to go into the private sector?”

 

In response Councillor Prenter said that the announcements made by the Deputy Prime Minister had been around effectively scrapping the previous government’s proposals in respect of eligibility for housing waiting lists, therefore maintaining the existing status quo.

 

Medway Council’s Allocations Policy detailed the eligibility criteria to access social housing and only those with recourse to public funds were permitted to join the housing register. Those without a status from the Home Office were not typically eligible for social housing.

 

Question F – Councillor Joy asked the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs, the following:

 

“Following the major issue with the Medway Test English paper, for which you stated:

 

“This is the first year the English exam has been included within the Medway Test, alongside the Mathematics and Reasoning elements. The questions for each of the tests, and the amount of time required to answer them, is set by our provider GL Assessment. The English test is 30 minutes this year.

 

However, we appreciate that the guidance around the timing of the English exam could be clearer. To ensure this is the case moving forward, when we write to parents and carers to confirm the arrangements for their child’s test, we will also include advice on how long each test will last.”

 

It was also stated that as all children had the same issues that this year’s test would not be reviewed, even though children from outside Medway were not sitting the test for a further three days.

 

The advice which was issued on timings stated that no test paper would last longer than one hour, (although not specifying a time). However, it was mentioned that GL Assessments were delivering the test, and their website was stating 50 minutes.

 

With Medway not being able to prioritise Medway children on this test, as found out by your predecessor, the then Councillor Martin Potter, and the fact that although Medway Council does not condone the use of tutors, although they are aware that this practice does take place, giving the children outside of Medway an unfair advantage over Medway children, can the Portfolio Holder please explain how they are going to ensure that Medway children do not suffer from this incident in the knowledge that the Council has not reviewed this immediately and knowing that some children will benefit from advance knowledge of the timing of the test?”

 

In response Councillor Coombs said that there were many resources for 11+ papers online, but it was not claimed that any of these resembled the Medway Test. The website of the resource mentioned in the question made no reference to the Medway Test and explicitly stated that timing of questions and number of questions may differ by area or Local Authority.

 

Medway’s website stated that tests were written specifically for Medway. It was important to understand that Medway Grammar School’s admissions criteria prioritised local children, because apart form a very small number of exceptions, grammar school places were offered based on the distance a child lived from a school. This meant that Medway children who achieved the minimum score would be offered places before children living further away, no matter how highly they may have scored. Councillor Coombs said it was unfortunate that no action had been taken by the previous Council administration to make sure that this happened.

 

The cut-off score to be eligible for a Medway grammar school was determined by the performance of Medway Children, and until this year had been adjusted each year to ensure that 23% of the Medway year 6 cohort would be eligible. A number of places were held back so that a further 2% might get through in review. In practice, the majority of these additional places went unfilled by Medway children, and instead went to out of area children. This had been changed, moving away from a flawed process which the previous administration had persisted with, and instead increasing the proportion of Medway children who met the minimum score to 25%. This had resulted in, during the current year, more Medway children than ever achieving the minimum score. This was 936 pupils, compared with 847 in the previous year.

 

Question G – Councillor Clarke submitted the following to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple:

 

“Could the Leader of the Council please advise if he expects Portfolio Holders to respond in a timely manner to emailed questions from opposition Members?

I have not received any responses from Portfolio Holders to the enquiries I sent on 9 May (SC re moving traffic offences), 6 August (two - SC and VM re moving traffic offences), 22 August (VM re Rochester Airport) and 3 September (LP and AP re traveller encampments). Said enquiries related to resident matters in the Fort Horsted ward and were not political in their nature.”

 

As Councillor Clarke was not present, the Mayor announced that he would receive a written response to his question, in accordance with Council rule 9.1.

 

Question H – Councillor Gulvin asked the Portfolio Holder for Education, Councillor Coombs, the following:

 

“There is now a critical shortfall developing in the capacity of Medway’s schools to meet the needs of Medway’s children. A recent article in the Medway Messenger stated that there will be an estimated 207 too few year seven places in Medway’s non-selective schools and a further shortage of 260 in the year after.

 

Children living in Lordswood are already being sent to Holmesdale School in Snodland because of the lack of school places in Medway. This is resulting in an unacceptably long school day for them which can be overwhelming for many students.

 

What is the Portfolio Holder doing to ensure that there are sufficient places in Medway’s schools for Medway’s students?”

 

In response Councillor Coombs said that any child living in the Lordswood area who is a Medway resident would not have been allocated a school in the Kent County Council area through the Medway admissions process. Any Medway child attending Holmesdale School would be there not because they were sent there, but because the parent had named the school on the application. Both Greenacre Boys and Walderslade Girls schools, which were the most local secondary schools to Lordswood, had places available in year 7, as did a few other schools around Medway. Parental preference was the reason for these placements.

 

There were some children living in Lordswood who were Kent County Council residents, and these children would have been placed by Kent County Council. Meanwhile, the Council was working with secondary school colleagues to create bulge classes and permanent expansion to provide sufficient school places, as set out in the Annual Review of the School Place Planning Strategy, which was due to be considered later in the Council meeting.

 

Councillor Coombs thanked school colleagues and said she was making sure that the demand for future housing from the Local Plan was aligned with school places through the infrastructure delivery plan, which educational officers were fully involved in. The Council would continue to explore all options for creating additional, appropriate school places to meet demand where and when required and place planning conversations with the Department for Education took place twice a year.

Question I – Councillor Wildey asked theDeputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, the following:

 

“Do you agree with the Labour MPs that voted to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance, and that Labour MPs should have had the courage to vote against this cut to our most vulnerable in society given this will lead to deaths?”

 

In response, Councillor Murray said that the winter fuel allowance changes had already been discussed at length earlier in the meeting and that she was surprised that opposition Councillors were not taking responsibility for the state of the economy.

 

Councillor Murray said that Labour MPs who supported means testing the fuel allowance understood that tough decisions to rescue the economy while still protecting the most vulnerable pensioner households, were necessary.

 

Councillor Murray suggested that time could be better spent supporting the local campaign to ensure that those pensioners in Medway who may be entitled to pension credit and the fuel allowance but were not yet claiming came forward to be helped to do so.

 

Question J – Councillor Campbell asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Maple, the following:

 

“What is the Council doing to encourage the sign up of Pension Credit among pensioners?”

 

In response, Councillor Maple said that the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Murray, had written to hundreds of Medway residents directly to encourage them to sign up for Pension Credit. All the normal methodologies through traditional, and also social media were being used to advertise that, in particular, the event taking place on Monday 21 October. Members were encouraged to share details through social media and other local networks.

 

Councillor Maple considered that the Council had done a great job. He put on  record his thanks to Council officer, Gemma Gilley, who had stepped up and gone above and beyond. He also recognised Becky Waller, the Department for Work and Pensions Stakeholder Manager who had made sure that the event would be well supported. The local MPs offices were involved as were a number of fantastic voluntary sector organisations who supported the Medway community. In a short period of time, Medway was stepping up to the challenge to make sure that all possible support was available. This work sat alongside the existing support of the Household Support Fund and the recently updated Cost of Living Plan.