Agenda item

This report sets out the public questions received for this meeting. 

(A)       Chris Irvine, on behalf of Kelly Tollhurst of Borstal, asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth, Councillor Chitty, the following question:

 

“What are the Council’s initiatives to support businesses in Medway?”

 

Councillor Chitty responded by thanking Miss Tollhurst for the question.  She stated that in spite of the need for the Council to make substantial savings the Council took its responsibilities regarding economic development seriously in Medway.  The current climate supporting local businesses was seen as very important.  She stated that the Economic Development Unit delivered a number of initiatives based on the principle that start up and established businesses require the following:

 

·        Impartial business advice – Economic Development currently had a Service Level Agreement with Business Support Kent to support this and the Council was a partner in the Kent and Medway Innovation and Growth Team who had a specialist advisor based at the Innovation Centre

 

·        Business accommodation with flexible terms – This was very important as this allowed businesses to grow in the best way possible.  The Council owns and runs 3 workspace sites totalling 107 units.  This included the new Innovation Centre, which provided state of the art IT services

 

·        Start up and growth funding – Medway Council Partners for Growth scheme provided interest free loans to establish growth businesses and since Autumn 2009 had been supporting start ups with business planning training and £1,000 grants – 43 grants had so far been awarded.  In total Partners for Growth had supported 197 businesses, levered a combined investment from the Council, the businesses and the Banks in excess of £10 million and protected and created 2726 local jobs.

 

Councillor Chitty explained that In Autumn 2009 Medway Council launched “Seeds for Business Growth” outlining 10 practical initiatives to support businesses during the economic downturn.   In addition she listed the following initiatives:

 

·        Micro Enterprise Graduate placement scheme

·        Medway Apprenticeship scheme

·        Medway Retail Champions scheme

·        Employ Medway programme

·        Transmarche Enterprise Network

·        Eco-Advantage scheme

·        Creative industries business support

 

She explained that this was designed to ensure that businesses got the support they deserved to create jobs and a good economic climate in Medway.

 

Chris Irvine asked a supplementary question about how the investment in a new apprenticeship scheme announced at the budget Council meeting on 24 February would help young people in Medway?

 

Councillor Chitty stated that this was a crucial area to concentrate on for the future and that the Council had an exemplary record for helping young people into employment and apprenticeships and had one of the lowest figures in the South East for young people who were unemployed.  She stated that the Council, Connexions and other local partners had joined to form a partnership and that Medway was one of the first areas in the country to be selected for this initiative. A designated co-ordinator from the National Apprenticeship Service was working with the partnership over 100 working days to deliver pledges by 100 Medway employers to create 100 new apprenticeships.  This was a government initiative but the Council would work towards those figures.  The launch of the initiative would be at the Historic Dockyard on 19 May and was timed to finish on 7 October.  The preparation and follow on would feature a marketing campaign to raise awareness.  The Medway apprenticeship scheme was somewhat different.  She stated that the £100,000 in the budget to support apprenticeship schemes had been match funded by European funds, although this had not yet been confirmed.  The Employ Medway team from the Council were co-ordinating, supporting and mentoring young apprentices and once in employment they would work closely with Medway Education Business Partnership.  The Employ Medway team had got 290 people into jobs via the Future Jobs Fund.  125 apprenticeships had been found in local businesses for 16-18 year olds and adult apprenticeships from 19 plus.  This assumed that the European funding would be successful.  What was important was the commitment and willingness to help young people to access the jobs market and help them to find a place in society.

 

(B)             Paul Rai of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services give an update on the Free Swimming initiative announced at the Budget meeting on 24 February 2011?”

 

Councillor Doe responded by thanking Mr Rai for his question.  He stated that it was very early days since the introduction of free swimming for local under 11s and over 60s on 1 April this year.  However he was pleased to report that so far, the feedback from the Council’s customers had been extremely positive and that many of them were in the process of applying for Medway City Cards (around 4,000 applications so far).

 

In terms of figures, between 1-9 April, he confirmed that junior swimming had increased by 15% compared to the week before.  He anticipated that the increase would continue to grow with Easter and the summer holidays coming up.

 

The most interesting figure was for senior swimming, which had shown the most dramatic increase since the introduction of free swimming on 1 April which saw an increase of 51% when compared to the week immediately before.

 

Councillor Doe said that despite budget pressures this showed that the Conservative Administration had a commitment to public health and was discharging this extremely well.

 

Mr Rai asked a supplementary question by querying which Councillors had supported this excellent initiative?

 

Councillor Doe stated that this was an interesting question.  He stated that as part of the budget everyone except the Labour group and Independent group supported it.

 

(C)             Isaac Igwe of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

 

“Conservative Councillors in Strood South ward have implied in a recent publication that if Council-subsidised bus routes are not used, they will become unprofitable and services are in danger of being withdrawn.
 
What does the Portfolio Holder regard as an unprofitable bus route and should profit be the determining factor in providing vital public services?”

 

Councillor Filmer responded by thanking Mr Igwe for his question.  He stated that the Council did subsidise a number of bus journeys at times or places where there was less demand if it was considered there was a social need for a service but no operator was prepared to provide it at their own commercial risk.

 

Whilst the Council did not consider the ‘profitability’ of the services that they supported financially they do rank the performance or value for money of all the subsidised bus services against a number of indicators.  These included passengers per journey, cost per passenger journey, prime journey purpose and availability of alternatives both geographically and by time.

 

The Council’s supported services serving Strood varied from single journeys per week to full day, Monday to Saturday services.  There were 11 subsidised bus service contracts that serve the Strood area together with a further 4 operated in partnership with Kent County Council.  The performance of service was comparable with other supported bus services in Medway.

 

He stated that, working with officers, he would continue to review the performance of financially supported services to ensure that they offered value for money.

 

Mr Igwe asked a supplementary question by seeking clarification about how many bus routes in Medway are being or had been amended or scrapped and with this potential reduction in services how the Council would ensure public satisfaction with local public transport?

 

Councillor Filmer stated that Medway Council had not scrapped any subsidised buses in this financial year.  He stated that when looking at amended timetables there was some alterations relating to money  Arriva received from the Department for Transport via the Council but he had every intention to keep the residents in Medway fully aware of bus routes and would minimalise the affect on residents.

 

(D)             Wendy Purdy of Gillingham asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

 

“A recent survey by Which magazine reported that Medway’s car parking charges are amongst the cheapest in Kent.  Can the Portfolio Holder confirm that this is true?”

 

Councillor Filmer responded by thanking Mrs Purdy for her question.  He confirmed that a Which magazine survey in February 2011 said that Medway’s car parking charges were amongst the cheapest in Kent.  It cost as little as 50p to park in Medway compared to one pound in Canterbury or 90p in Ashford.  This had come about because of the three year freeze on parking charges.  The Council had also introduced free parking in the run up to Christmas and frozen residential parking permits for two years, which represented excellent value for residents of Medway.

 

Mrs Purdy asked a supplementary question about the reports that some local authorities were getting rid of the 9am start for concessionary bus fares and asked whether the Council had any similar plans?

 

Councillor Filmer responded by stating that there had been a lot of concern because Kent County Council had changed to a 9.30 a.m. start for concessionary fares.  Notices had recently been placed in buses to explain that Medway Council had taken a decision to stay at a 9am start.

 

(E)              Josie Iles of Strood asked the Portfolio Holder for Front Line Services, Councillor Filmer, the following question:

 

            “How much money is the Council proposing to invest in repairing potholes over the next financial year?”

 

            Councillor Filmer responded by thanking Josie Iles for her question and stating that the over the past two years Medway Council had invested an additional £4m to improve roads, which helped resurface 96 roads and 91 pavements.  The total budget was approaching £13m, which included capital investment.

 

            Josie Iles asked a supplementary question relating to the amount that the Council had invested in the last two years and how many roads and pavements had been resurfaced?

 

            Councillor Filmer apologised for not responding to Mrs Iles’ previous question and explained that the Council had protected the budget for highway repairs and added an extra £750,000 for this year and the government had given an additional £500,000 so she could rest assured the potholes would get sorted out very quickly.

 

(F)              Naushabah Khan of Gillingham asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks, the following question:

 

“Given that 3,314 students received the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for the academic year 2009/2010 in Medway, how many fewer 16-19 year olds will receive grants through the government's ‘enhanced learner support’ scheme, which has a budget of only £180 million compared to the £540 million for EMA?”

 

Councillor Wicks responded by thanking Ms Khan for her question.  He stated that the Educational Maintenance Allowance had never been the responsibility of Local Authorities.  In fact the scheme had always been managed by the Learning and Skills Council and more latterly by the YPA where Capita had handled the administration.

 

Medway Council had always been concerned to ensure that young people were not deterred, due to financial concerns, from continuing in education and training post-16.

 

He stated that the EMA scheme was closed to new applicants from the end of December.  The Department for Education published its consultation ‘Financial Support for 16-19 year olds in Education or Training’ on 28 March; the deadline for responses was 20 May so it was not yet known what the final scheme would be.

 

Under the proposals the most vulnerable would receive a guaranteed bursary of £1,200 a year, which was more than the current EMA.  This group comprised children in care, care leavers and those on income support like teenage parents or young people with severe disabilities.

 

The remaining £165m would be distributed to schools, colleges and the Council’s training providers – the consultation asks for views on three criteria for deciding how to award funding.  These were the historic EMA, take up of free school meals at 15 years and using Index of Multiple Deprivation.  Until the details of the actual scheme was known it was not possible to calculate how much would be allocated to each provider and thereby how much would be available to each young person.

 

Ms Khan asked a supplementary question requesting assurances that 16-19 year olds participation in education would not fall in Medway.

 

Councillor Wicks said that the Council had a good record for young people going onto post 16 education but he could give no guarantees at this stage.  He did advise that funding of £75,000 had been provided for research into the effects of raising the school leaving age to 17 in the year 2013.  

 

(G)             Chris Irvine of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

“Thanks to the Conservative led government, Medway Council has been able to freeze Council Tax this year.  Are there any plans to repeat this excellent scheme?”

 

Councillor Jarrett responded by thanking Mr Irvine for his question and stated that thanks to the Conservative government the Conservative administration in Medway had been able to freeze Council tax this year and that would mean that households would benefit from up to £55 each year.  He explained that the Labour Group had opposed this measure and Councillor Burt and Stamp, which was in contrast with some of the Labour literature, which suggests that Labour had frozen the Council tax.  He condemned this statement.  He said that the Conservative government had given assurances they would repeat this in future years. 

 

Chris Irvine asked a supplementary question by asking how much lower Medway’s council tax was compared to others?

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that the council tax was the lowest in Kent by some margin, on average £130 less and people in Medway welcomed that.  It was also considerably less than that charged in Labour or Liberal run authorities such as Bristol, which charged its residents £1,338 at Band D and Nottingham which charged £1,332 some £200 higher than in Medway.  He stated that Labour had forced up Council tax by over 100% and that the Conservative lead government in its first year had provided the means to freeze council tax.  This proved that Conservatives provided lower council tax, better services and particularly in Medway’s case, better value for money.

 

(H)             Tristan Osborne of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Adult Services, Councillor Mason, the following question:

 

“Given the cuts announced to care for the elderly in the Medway Conservative budget, can I ask how many fewer people will receive free Council care as a result of the Council cuts in 2011/2012 when compared with 2010/2011?”

 

Councillor Mason thanked Mr Osborne for his question and stated that the Council had allocated sufficient funds to ensure that vulnerable elderly people were safe and well supported in Medway.  Adult social care was considered to be ‘performing well’ by the regulator, the Care Quality Commission, and the Council intended to continue to provide high quality services.  Older people who were eligible to receive free care last year would still be eligible to receive free care this year.  The position had not changed in the new budget.

 

Mr Osborne asked a supplementary question about the pledge that Shaws Wood in Strood would be retained and asked whether any publicly owned care homes would be privatised over the next four years?

 

Councillor Mason responded by stating that he did not have a crystal ball and stated that the Council wanted to give value for money and be responsible for tax payers’ money which was the responsibility that the Council had been charged with.

 

(I)                 Tony Jeacock of Rainham asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, Councillor Doe, the following question:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder please tell me how much the Council will save in 2011/2012 by removing the Empty Homes and Efficiency Team Leader and two full-time employed Empty Homes and Efficiency Officers?”

 

Councillor Doe thanked Mr Jeacock for his question.  He stated that the Council was delivering a saving of £100,000 as a result of this change.  This was a dedicated team located within the Private Sector Housing Service, which worked with owners to help bring their empty properties back into use and to provide energy efficiency advice to households.  The team was particularly involved in administering loans previously funded by the Regional Housing Board to help owners bring properties back into use.  This funding was no longer available.

 

Mr Jeacock asked a supplementary question about what the subsequent cost to the community and council would be with the inevitable result of homes being left empty for much longer thereby denying homeless families and inappropriately housed families access to decent accommodation and rendering such properties as magnets for anti social behaviour?

 

Councillor Doe stated that he did not recognise the basis on which the question was framed.  He referred to work being undertaken by the government and energy companies promoting energy efficiency.  The Council still had legal duties to keep properties secure where they were open for access and dealing with hazards.  There was a target in 2010/2011 to bring 100 properties back into use and that had been achieved.  There will be a target for 2011/2012 to bring 120 properties back into use while achieving a saving of £100,000 so the way in which the question was framed was misleading.

 

(J)               Tristan Osborne of Rochester asked the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Wicks, the following question:

 

“Given the lack of clarity in the Tory budget over the funding of Sure Start; can the Portfolio Holder clarify the figure in cash terms for Sure Start provision in 2010/2011 and in the current budget for 2011/2012 and whether this has been an increase or decrease in cash terms and by how much?”

 

Councillor Wicks thanked Mr Osborne for his question but stated that he found the question ill-founded and clarified that in the Conservative budget the Council is maintaining Sure Start centres and not closing them unlike many other local authorities including Labour run ones.  He stated that in fact there were only two authorities in the country that were not cutting their Sure Start budget, Medway and Northamptonshire.  It was also clear from the budget papers who did not support the continuation of Sure Start funding in Medway and who voted against the continuation of Sure Start funding.

 

Mr Osborne asked a supplementary question and asked if there was a £4,000 cash reduction or cut and £281,000 real terms cut in Sure Start provision.  He asked how much of the disabled children access to childcare budget and every child a talker programme budget would be cut this year?

 

Councillor Wicks responded by saying there were no cuts in the Sure Start programme and the centres and services that went with it.  The budget was very substantial £6.93 m for Medway and remained unchanged from last year.

 

(K)             Tony Jeacock of Rainham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Deputy Leader, Councillor Jarrett, the following question:

 

“Now that the courts have ruled under the ‘Advertising Standards’ that Medway Council must remove any referenced logos and other unauthorised references to “Medway City Council” from their stationery and to desist from newly applying it elsewhere, can the Portfolio Holder tell me the total cost of putting the said references and logos in place in the first instance and the subsequent disposal of all such headed stationery?”

 

Councillor Jarrett thanked Mr Jeacock for his question and stated that he was unaware that the words Medway City Council had been used on any literature and because of that he was unable to answer the question.

 

Mr Jeacock asked a supplementary question by asking what justification Councillor Jarrett and his party thought they had in instigating the exercise in the first place and how they felt they could justify applying for City status when as a result of budget cuts under the current financial situation vital staff were being made redundant which would mean that empty homes would remain empty longer thus denying access to much needed rented accommodation at a time when the demand was on the increase?

 

Councillor Jarrett stated that the supplementary question was unrelated to the initial question and that Councillor Doe had already answered his supplementary question adequately earlier in the meeting.