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.

March on Stoke

What a fantastic protest today! Despite the cold, we put lots of layers of clothing on and got out there and marched. Why? Because Stoke-on-Trent City Council do not listen to us and because they have no sense and no credibility. We don't want to be plunged into debt to move the Civic Centre back to Hanley, from Stoke. It was in Hanley before, the Civic Centre in Stoke is not that old, recently refurbished and perfectly usable and money has been spent on consultants whose reports do not recommend the move. BBC Midlands Today did a good TV report yesterday and BBC Radio Stoke interviewed council leader Mohammed Pervez who admitted despite the >£40million pound cost he doesn't really know what the final sum will be. We have had great support and coverage by StaffsLive throughout.

We marched in a very long snaking procession from Cannon Place in Hanley to the Civic Centre in Kingsway Stoke. Thanks to the police and stewards for a safe transit and for stopping traffic. Thumbs up for support from motorists and sorry, as they say, for any inconvenience caused. So very well done to all protesters.

A rally was held in Kingsway. We heard from a number of speakers including the youngest, Michelle aged 16. She's not a voter yet but by the 2015 elections she will be able to vote. Points made included that it is our tax money and we don't want the council squandering it, racking up debts that we and our children will have to pay off. They should work for us, the civic move was not on the cards when we voted in 2011. We are not against regeneration, but we don't want our money servicing debt and we think the council plans are illogical and poorly thought out and they do not have their priorities right. We do have an alternative, develop all 6 towns, each with their own character and keep Stoke with its rail and major road links the centre for civic activity. It was clear people want this council out and chanted this. It was noted that it is not the entire council that decides on most issues, it is the controlling group, Labour and specifically the cabinet in charge of making the decisions. What is needed is for people to vote with awareness of the individual they select. Often there will be a good independent candidate there to serve residents only, not a political party. Even if a preferred candidate is a member of a political party, it is the consideration given in making the choice that is important. In particular, there in no need to vote 'the same way' on the local ballot paper as on the general election one. Not all of the councillors are against us, it is just that if they're not in the controlling Labour group, they can't overturn the decisions.

So, what about our Labour MPs, what do they think of our Labour council and the move of the civic centre? Coincidentally, just this morning I received a letter from my MP Rob Flello, following up a 'community conference' he had held with residents in November, which of course I attended. He says “the £40m that is being cited for the cost of the move is money that is to be found from closing some council buildings, savings from bringing staff together and borrowed, not money that is being taken away from other services”. So, why close buildings that are fit for purpose, bringing staff together perhaps means redundancies and the last point, “borrowed”, is what particularly bothers people. If the council has to spend money on interest, servicing the debt, then that surely does impact on services. Rob Flello says “I am pleased at the leadership being shown by the council”. I have to say I hugely disagree with Rob on this point.

I live in Hanford & Trentham ward, where we have embraced the independent idea, with both our councillors being independent. Furthermore, if a councillor has not served us well, we have shown we can turf them out at an election, as we did in the case of Ross Irving.

So, will this protest change the council's mind? I doubt it, but that is only part of the reason to protest. It is also about having our say and raising political awareness. Mind you, I tend to be a pessimist. I didn't expect such a large turnout today, I had thought maybe 300, but most of the figures being quoted are at least two times this. It was thrilling to see so many there, especially as I had personally put out 1,360 leaflets in Trentham. Maybe this encouraged some people to turn up, or if not, at least to know more about the issue. But as Alan Barret had said, he would march if only 10 turned up, that was my view also. Sometimes success can be had, as with the save Trentham High campaign. All the way through that I never thought we had more than a 50% chance of success, but I felt determined to have a say. We won then. What about the next local election, simultaneous with the next general election? I would predict a Labour council by a huge majority. But then, I am a pessimist, so could it be different?

What next? One of the pointers from the rally was let's be politically aware. On February 28^th the full council meets at 5.30pm to discuss the budget (cuts), one of the few decisions made by the full council rather than the cabinet. These meetings are open to the public to observe (no shouting out is allowed, but it's a chance to see how they operate). I have been observing council meetings either in person or on the web for some time, sometimes asking public questions. I have blogged on these on this blog since 8/9/11, for example on the crazy City Sentral name, approving the £40million to move the Civic Centre to Hanley, petitions against the move, independent councillor motion against the move and last year's budget council 23/2/12.  It would be good to see more who attended the rally turning up. The plan is to assemble at 5pm on Thursday, just before the meeting. See you there!

Stoke on Trent City Council Meeting 29/3/12

I didn’t go to the Stoke-on-Trent City Council meeting on 29^th March 2012 as I attended a governors' meeting at Trentham High School followed by a prize presentation evening at Stoke-on-Trent 6th Form College – which was a very good event.

I eventually found time to watch the webcast.  As usual the petitions and public questions particularly interest me.

Petitions

Philippa Brown (0:20:11) gave a loud presentation of a 112 signature petition demanding that the monopoly running the ice cream and snack bar at Central Forest Park be dismantled and volunteers reintegrated.  She claimed a previous petition had been ignored.  She said the profit making was detrimental to park users and people are being ripped off (complete with spectacular rolling ‘r’).  She quoted Cllr Mark Meredith’s election leaflet; “the volunteers have set a precedent that the council will be embracing”, “the views and ideas of park users are an essential contribution”.  But she said, on the contrary, the precedent had not been embraced and volunteers had instead been squashed, oppressed, suppressed, discriminated against, victimised and some threatened with a court injunction!  Why am I not surprised?  She said the council legal department advocates mediation before legal action, but no mediation had been offered.

Lee Martin (0:23:49) presented a 111 signature petition against extending the contract of the snack bar at Central Forest Park.  He expressed disappointment that the contract had gone to a business rather than the community group.  He accused the council of not following EU guidelines and not properly valuing volunteers.  He said it was shameful and queried whether the council knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.  He said he has respect for Cllr Mohammed Pervez but accused him of underestimating the strength of public opinion.

Public questions

The numbers given correspond to those in the document.

1.  Adam Colclough (0:28:02) had asked whether, given the serious health, social and economic impact of gambling addiction, will the council be supporting the High Streets First campaign which calls on Eric Pickles to grant communities the power to decide whether they want a bookies or a bookshop on their high street.  Personally I am opposed to gambling and agree that Adam’s question is an important one.  The response had been waffle related to planning.  Adam rather diplomatically reiterated his actual question.  Cllr Adrian Knapper (0:29:01) said there had been a reduction in betting licenses from 41 to 37 then admitted he didn’t really know about the High Streets First campaign.  Why not?  This had been referred to in the original question, so why had he not found out then?

5. Kieran Clarke (0:30:20) had asked about dog fouling penalty enforcement and obtained quite a detailed response.  He asked if this could be publicized in ‘Our City’ magazine.  Cllr Janine Bridges (0:31:29) did not give such a good answer to this as the magazine is undergoing a tender for new provision.  

6. Kieran Clarke (0:33:58) had asked about the current status of Ford Green Hall, Etruria Industrial Museum and Stanley Head Outdoor Education Centre and been told the first two would transfer to trusts but Stanley Head would not. Kieran did not believe there was authorisation to close Stanley Head as it had not been mentioned in the budget.  Cllr Sarah Hill (0:33:48) confirmed they do have authority to do this.  Yes, I’ve noticed, they do whatever they like. 

7. Lee Martin (0:34:33) had asked about council policy with relation to EU guidance on ‘Buying Social’ and been told the council is “constantly reviewing how social objectives are incorporated into its procurement processes”, which doesn’t really answer the question.  He further asked about how social benefit is measured.  Cllr Paul Shotton (0:35:17) admitted this is difficult and promised to reply in writing.

10.  Mick Williams (0:36:10) had asked (again!) who decides policy for community

engagement, but had been given waffle about ‘consultation’ with no clarity whatsoever on decision making.  Mick referred to the 3 area meetings of residents’ associations going in different directions.  He said one area had a first objective “to do what we say we will” and asked what is meant by this?  Cllr Gwen Hassall (0:39:16) said the areas are going in the same direction and did not seem to recognise the objective quoted.  She said she would talk to Mick about this.  I hope she does!  It’s way beyond time the council thrashed out the issue of community engagement decision making with Mick and actually answered his questions.

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.