Decision details

Three questions on notice had been received which were taken in the order received. Councillor S. R. Peters clarified that his question was intended for the meeting of the Council to be held in April 2010.

1.                  Question submitted by Councillor P. M. McDonald to the Leader

“What action will the Leader be taking regarding the Audit Commission being given false information by this Council? I refer to the ‘Dads and Lads Allotment Project, Prisoners Released into the Foyer and miss allocation of £2.2m Capital spent on the SPATIAL Programme.”

The Leader replied that he had not been able to find out who had spoken to the Audit Commission about the ‘Dads and Lads’ project but  he had asked the Director of Policy, Performance and Partnerships to hold a specific officer meeting in future to consider the accuracy of the draft Audit Commission report.

With regard to the Foyer Project he referred to a statement previously issued by the Council: “The Council would like to stress that the recent statement made in the CAA Organisation Assessment document, that refers to the Foyer Project as ‘a hostel for young people to move into straight from prison’ is incorrect and misleading.” The Audit Commission had accepted that the statement had been incorrect and misleading. 

With regard to the Spatial Project the Leader responded by referring to the approach taken by HM Revenues and Customs whereby such cost should be treated as capital. Officers had been working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Audit Commission and were expecting to hear by 31st March 2010 that the Council’s stance in treating the expenditure as capital had been vindicated.

Councillor P. M. McDonald reiterated the first part of his question as to what action would the Leader be taking regarding the Audit Commission being given false information?

The Leader replied that it was difficult to take action when it was not known where the information had come from. It may have come from an outside body but it had not been possible to track down the source of the information.

2.                  Question submitted by Councillor E. J. Murray to the Leader

“Does the leader feel spending £45,000 on solicitors to carry out investigations is value for money? In the light of the Council’s legal department has increased fourfold in as many years.”

The Leader replied that Members should get their facts right and not pass on misleading information in a public forum. Under part 5 of the Code of Conduct such action could potentially bring their office and the Council into disrepute. It was misleading to say that £45,000 was being spent on a seating row when the money was having to be spent due to the behaviour of certain Members in the Chamber on 29th July 2009 who had tried to disrupt the democratic process. Complaints about Member conduct had been considered by the independent Standards Committee to be serious enough to warrant investigation and there was a need to provide funds to the Monitoring Officer to pay for an external investigation. It was not possible to do an internal investigation as senior Members were involved and officers had been witnesses to what had happened. Also there was insufficient staff to cope with the extra work of an investigation within an appropriate timescale. The Legal Department had not increased fourfold. The staffing costs had increased from £252,000 to £321,000 over a four year period, an increase of 28% over four years.

Councillor Murray did not ask a supplementary question.

3.                  Question submitted by Councillor S. P. Shannon to the Leader

“Will the Leader of the Council in relation to his incompetence that led to 2000 plus residents missing out on recycling be now thinking of resigning his position in the light of the purchasing once again of unsuitable vehicles and the added expenditure now incurred of £65,000?”

The Leader replied that the figure was 1995 not over 2000 and he would not resign. Nobody had missed out as the service had been changed and the costs had not increased over and above the percentage service coverage that the Council had aimed for. He then explained a graph which was displayed electronically to the Chamber in relation to the cost of the recycling service and percentage coverage. To cover 88% of the dwellings in Bromsgrove required five of the chosen vehicles at a cost of £160,000 each, amounting to a total capital cost of £800,000, with each vehicle having a crew of three. This size vehicle was chosen to minimise the number of trips to the Depot to offload the waste collected. To have chosen the next size down vehicle to achieve a coverage of 90% would have required seven vehicles at a cost of £120,000, at a total cost of £840,000, with a requirement for seven crews, equating to an increased capital and revenue cost. He had listened to the public who were upset at missing out on the recycling service and had asked officers to look at the matter. The Council was now aiming to achieve 93% coverage in the coming year with the box collection continuing in the relevant areas. Thereafter, the situation would need to be reviewed further as to achieve 100% coverage would require the Council to spend another £250,000 on small vehicles. He stressed that officers had made the right decision with regard to the vehicles chosen.

Councillor Shannon asked a supplementary question as to how much would the extra vehicles cost to rectify what had just happened with regard to the withdrawal of service to residents and where would the money come from?

The Leader replied that he had just answered the question and that there would have to be a bid for funding as part of next year’s budget process, together with a business case. If that proved to be the right thing to do then the money would be spent.