Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 4/7/13

It's weather for outdoors really, but here's a shortish blog anyway. I had enjoyed a pleasant ~9 mile walk taking in Trentham, King's wood, Tittensor and Barlaston prior to arrival at the civic centre, in Stoke, to ask supplementary questions at the full council meeting. The public gallery was almost empty.

Petitions

There was one speaker, Mr Taylor (00:24:00), retiring chair of 'Friends of City Farm', for a 841 signature petition asking the council to respond to the decline of the park. Unsurprisingly since the closure of the rather good city farm facility there, the state of the park had worsened, fewer people visit and there is increased “mindless vandalism”. In my view the council needs to maintain the park in good order and the police need to round up and deal with the criminal element.

Public questions

There were two speakers having supplementary questions who had asked two public questions each.

The first was myself. My first question (question 1) had followed up a previous public question on pupil numbers in the city. I am trying to understand how the council calculates its projected numbers. It is interesting to compare the responses I got in each case. Previously the cabinet member for education was Cllr Alan Dutton. He was a bit out of his depth in dealing with my questions, but given that was the case his response was very reasonable. He had talked to me about this after the meeting and had arranged a meeting for me with him and officers to discuss the issues. This was most welcome and interesting and I had got some answers on how the council is dealing with post-16 education and training from this meeting, but did not achieve very much clarity on the pupil number projections. A suggestion at that meeting that I could be sent specific reasons for figures that appear anomalous has resulted in the current public question, because I was sent no further information. The current question simply asks for the information that I wasn't sent. The current cabinet member for education is Cllr Shaun Pender, but his answer, or one that officers may have written for him, simply doesn't provide the specific answers. The 6 specific cases I list show changes in numbers, as compared with 55 similar cases for which numbers remain constant.

I made clear in asking my supplementary question that it was addressed to Shaun Pender. To be honest I was quite shocked that he did not appear to acknowledge that I was addressing him while I spoke, in fact he gave the impression of totally ignoring me. My supplementary question was (0:28:48):

“The 6 anomalous cases I highlighted have not been explained, so I will turn the question around. With the exception of the years 2 to 3 and 6 to 7 transitions, in 55 out of the 61 transitions between years projected, the pupil numbers remain precisely constant. Why?”

I had hoped the instinctive reaction to this would be that of course these could easily be expected to stay constant and that this may help Shaun Pender better understand why I am asking about the few that aren't. But I was gobsmacked by the initial response. He said nothing at all. In the end the Lord Mayor Sheila Pitt had to insist (0:30:30) that he answered me, to which he just said (0:30:21) it was complex and he would email me. I await the email.

My second question (question 3) had arisen because I was amazed to see the contents of my green recycling box being emptied into my blue bin on collection. Cllr Andy Platt, cabinet member for green enterprises and clean city, had explained why, although this did highlight inadequacies in the vehicles used. I would like to see recycling done most effectively, as I'm sure the council would or should, so my supplementary question was (0:30:52):

“Your answer indicates that when the right vehicles are actually working, the paper is kept separate and dry. But I have heard that wet cardboard also causes problems. So why can't small cardboard items such as cereal boxes be put in the green box with the paper to keep dry?"

Now this might actually be a good idea, or else there may be a very good reason why it wouldn't be, but I didn't get an answer to this. Andy Platt was at least polite and paid attention and said there would be new vehicles, but basically said instructions should be followed with regard to recycling. I can follow instructions fine, but I think more can be done to engage the public by way of explanation rather than just preaching. The council's web site is 2 years out of date with its waste data and contains little depth. (In fact I recently had a much more informative and interesting discussion about recycling with someone unconnected with the council.)

The second speaker was Gabrielle Hoban who had asked Council LeaderMohammed Pervez (question 4) about Stoke being broke. Mohammed Pervez had talked about their 'mandate for change'. Gabrielle asked a supplementary question (0:33:25) about why the council is selling off rather than optimising on heritage buildings in the city. Mohammed Pervez said (0:34:38) he would respond in writing.

Gabrielle asked another question (question 5), of  Cllr Andy Platt, about why the Hanford incinerator will not be re-commissioned after 2013 and where a new incinerator would be located. His reply had indicated that Hanford would continue. Gabrielle asked (0:35:16) when the Hanford incinerator is going to be decommissioned and where incineration will take place after that. Andy Platt said (0:36:05) it would stay where it is because it won't be decommissioned, but would be transferred from the private company 'Hanford Waste' to the city council in 2020.

Motion against blacklisting

I won't report on this in detail, but mention it because I think it is very important. I am a trade union member, but not of Unite and not one that contributes to the Labour party. I think trade unions make a hugely valuable contribution supporting their members at work, but I dislike the Labour party. Organisations that blacklist treat workers badly because they are union members or raise important issues such as health and safety concerns. Such targeting of individuals for doing the right thing is totally unacceptable. Health and safety at work is a hugely important issue and would be important for good employers as well as employees. Good employers treat people with respect and protect their well being. It really doesn't do anyone any good in an organisation if work and effectiveness suffer because of employee ill-health or even death, due to adverse conditions at work. The webcast of the meeting is worth a watch, from (0:42:22) onwards, as councillors of various political persuasions make good points and raise significant concerns, including discussion of Kier. The motion was carried unanimously.

UPDATE 3/8/13:

I received an email on 26/7/13, not from Cllr Pender, but from Paul Gerrard:

Response to supplementary question to Cllr Pender at the City Council on 4 July

“Why pupil numbers were constant in relation to 55 out of the 61 transitions referred to.”

The answer to this question is set out in the earlier responses. The degree of movement tolerated within year groups reflects the nature of the model used – not all transitions will show changes under all models.

So I am no further forward!  I still do  not understand the pupil number projections because they remain unexplained to me.  I would really like to know "the nature of the model used" but it seems this is to remain a dark secret.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council Meeting 8/9/11

I observed the city council meeting from the public gallery.  It is also webcast and I refer to times in the webcast.  As an ordinary member of the public I comment on some of the highlights from my personal perspective.

Petitions

I always like hearing the petitions and public questions as I'm particularly interested in the grass roots aspects of democracy.

Lisa Meredith (0:23:03) did a fantastic job of presenting her petition, signed by 102 people, asking the council to take action to combat the anti-social behaviour in the alleyway between Dairyfields Way and Brianson Avenue in Moorcroft, by means such as reinstating the foliage, shrubs, railings and/or gates to the alleyway.  She was very angry and accused the council of 13 years of empty promises and said that £100,000 for the area seemed to have gone missing.  I really hope Lisa and her fellow residents get a suitable outcome, though from the history she gave and the council response I don't hold out much hope.

Tracy Brennan (0:26:51), 158 signatures, asked the council to relocate the "Welcome to Penkhull" signs at the end of Gresty Road/Honeywall to a location at the bottom end of Honeywall and spoke about the need for an inclusive discussion to resolve this.

Roy Naylor (0:29:31:), 891 signatures, asked the council to provide a School Crossing Patrol outside the Ormiston Sir Stanley Matthews Academy (Blurton High School in old money - council web link to school is broken), Beaconsfield Drive, Blurton, especially following the tragic death of 12 year old Courtney Holdcroft in June.  Roy said a crossing patrol would be the quickest solution for a dangerous road but also asked for a scrutiny committee to consider a more permanent crossing.  I agree, it is a very valuable part of a student's general education to participate in after school activities, as Courtney was.  School crossing patrols provide a good service but do not cater for those staying after school.  My experience of unsuccessfully asking for a crossing years ago in a different area led me to believe the council needs deaths before properly considering these, which is awful.

Another petition on the list, which did not have a speaker, was one to increase the annual intake of Ash Green Primary School from 60 to 75.  I am interested in this as the school is in my area and my children attended it.  I have long thought the intake should be increased as it is a highly popular and successful school and with high birth rates we need plenty of primary school places.

Public Questions

The council now provides the initial responses to public and members' questions on the website.  This is a great improvement.  Supplementary questions may be asked at the council meeting.

Tracy Hall, question 5, had asked why the problem of livestock on the loose causing damage in Packmoor had not been resolved over many years.  Council Leader Mohammed Pervez had replied "The City Council is actively dealing with a number of livestock related problems in this area."  This is a bland response typical of him.  I suppose we'll believe it's been dealt with if it ever happens.  Tracy (0:33 :51) asked why the council rents out fields with substandard fencing.  Mohammed Pervez (0:34:57) explained that the fields were being used illegally.

Kieran Clarke, question 7, had asked what is being done to bring the woefully inadequate bus information at bus stops up to date.  Cllr Adrian Knapper, cabinet member for planning & transportation, had replied that they were working on a "Bus Information Strategy"  (for goodness sake just have a bus timetable at bus stops, it's not rocket science) but to be fair to him he did say the information would be updated by the end of this year!  Kieran (0:36:18) said he is not so sure the council is capable of getting this right (as a former councillor I guess he knows) and cited cases of bus information being 3-6 years out of date.  It was more of a statement than a question and Adrian Knapper (0:37:58) said officers would contact him to sort it out.  We'll find out who is right in January then.

Mick Williams, question 10, asked specific questions on the council's policy relating to its duty to inform, consult and engage.  The response from Cllr Gwen Hassall, cabinet member for housing & neighbourhoods, had been vague in the extreme; how determined? - "normal processes", resources? - "spread across directorates", timescale? - "ongoing", monitoring? - "existing arrangements", means of local groups to have their views registered and acted upon? - "currently being finalised".  As a committee member of a residents' association I would be interested in that last issue but won't hold my breath.  Mick (0:38:30) said that the decision to close the Community Empowerment Network was undemocratic, made by 3 people out 75 and asked whether the council had participated in the DCLG consultation, if not why not and will it act on the results?  Gwell Hassall (0:40:38) said the vote was 6 for dissolving and 3 against and spectacularly failed to answer the questions on consultation.  (Why am I not surprised?)

Community Hall Management

Cllr Paul Shotton (0:56:40) reported that nominations for community halls were suspended but are now reinstated.  It would be interesting to hear from anyone who knows more about the shenanigans behind this.  On the face of it, it looks like nominations were suspended while Labour feared losing control... surely not!  Labour had produced a list of names for the management teams.  Cllr Ann James (0:58:12) proposed an alternative independent list for Packmoor.  She made the point that if Labour were really interested, those proposed could have joined the committee, whereas those on the independent list were already committee members with important roles.  I am with Ann James on this one.  We need committed active people at the grass roots (and on the council!), not Labour names only there to serve party dominance.  Needless to say Labour won the vote.

Moving Council Meetings to the Evening

Council considered a Notice of Motion (1:31:28), moved by Cllr Paul Shotton and seconded by Cllr Tom Reynolds:

“That this City Council notes that great strides have been made towards ensuring that full Council meetings are viewed by the widest possible audience following the introduction of the webcasting facilities.  Council resolves that:
• in order to give greater opportunity for members of the public to attend the City Council meetings and
• to attract high calibre candidates with diverse backgrounds to stand in local elections,
the normal starting time for those meetings will in future be 5.30 p.m.
Council also confirms that changes to the starting times of the meetings of any of its committees are matters for those committees to determine.”

I agree with the first bullet point above but find the second blatantly disingenuous!  What local elections?  Labour outrageously and dictatorially did away with our annual elections (by thirds) for the next 4 years, contrary to our council's vote, by getting their then Labour government to impose the new election system on us!

Amongst the lively debate on this I pick out just a few examples from many.   

Cllr Paul Shotton (1:31:45) cited Shropshire council where a public petition had requested a move to the evening and Lewisham council which wanted a move from evening to day and were accused of stopping public protest.  He also said daytime meetings make it difficult for the working public to contribute and observe and thinks it is more difficult to find childcare during the day.  I agree on the first point, I have asked public questions in the past and have had to delay them to a month when I had a chance of getting away from work on the day to attend and then bust a gut to get there on time.  It is less important to attend to observe now it is webcast, although there is a different perspective when attending.  I have not been to a council meeting for a while because of work and only attended this time because I was on holiday.  I disagree on the second point.  Having been there and done that; it is easiest to get childcare during the day, difficult but sometimes possible to find a babysitter for later in the evening but virtually impossible around the 5.30pm 'teatime' they are planning for.  Furthermore that is prime time to spend with your children, after school and before their bed time.   

Cllr Paul Breeze (1:35:23) gave a lively and entertaining rant that was nothing like watching paint dry, accused Labour of self interest, referred to 24 Labour voting fodder stooges and suggested Mohammed Pervez should ditch his day job.   

Cllr Andy Platt (1:43:22) said evening meetings have been Labour policy since the 1980s.  So it's taken them over 20 years to implement this then!  Typical Labour.   

Cllr Randy Conteh (1:45:57) and Cllr Ann James (1:48:55) pointed out they think it is a full time job being a councillor and it is important to attend meetings with residents in the evenings.  I agree on these points.  The reason I have not stood for council is because I would not be able to do both that job and my existing job.  I would not be prepared to let residents down or leave important commitments in my other work unfulfilled and I need the money the existing job provides.  Actually on my planet it would be very different.  There would be much more devolution to local communities and many more people involved from the grass roots.  There would be more councillors, but unpaid, making each role manageable alongside other work.   

Cllr Mohammed Pervez (1:55:27) made an amusing comment, getting his own back on Paul Breeze by inviting him to join the Labour group.  I do take exception to his suggestion of attracting high calibre candidates to stand for election.  Fine, but again, what elections?  And diversity?  Labour don't want diversity, they want Labour and have gone to great dictatorial lengths to get it.   

Cllr Tom Reynolds (1:59:32) asked if people show disdain for parliamentary democracy.  Actually I think I do, I would prefer a more representational democracy with less party politics.  There was then a named vote to ensure Labour councillors were thoroughly whipped. 

Even Lord Mayor Terry Follows said (2:07:10) surprise surprise the motion is carried.

Labour Dominance

Cllr Debra Gratton (2:09:50) said she was at a ceremony at Thistley Hough High School relating to new school building.  Cllr Randy Conteh (2:10:36) asked a very pertinent question; why wasn't he as councillor for the ward invited?  Debra Gratton treated him terribly.  First, after finishing her gloating, she didn't even afford him the respect of listening to him and he had to repeat himself.  Then she didn't apologise for his exclusion and dismissively said she didn't know why he wasn't invited.  Well, if she engaged brain she would realise the elected councillor, given the mandate from the people, should be involved in ward events.  So either she didn't think or it was a deliberate act, either way it's a poor show.  To me it looks like intentional sidelining and exclusion of non-Labour councillors of the sort that I believe has been going on for years.  I think it is to con the public into thinking Labour are doing the great things and others can't be bothered, whereas in my experience it is for the most part the other way around.  Where I live we had problems with some of our Tories instead, but again it's a large party problem.  We've done the sensible thing now and voted in independents who actually care about the community above party politics.