Issue - meetings

To deal with any questions on notice from Members of the Council, in the order in which they have been received.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107