Agenda item

Questions

Questions to be asked by Members of the County Council of the Leader of the Council, a Cabinet Member, or a Chairman of a non-Scrutiny Committee. The question will be answered by the relevant Member and the Member asking the question may then ask a follow up question which will also be answered.

Minutes:

Mr. John Francis asked the following question of Mrs. Gill Heath, the County Council’s spokesperson on the Staffordshire Police Authority:

Question

(i) Why have the cells in the Stafford Police Station been closed, meaning prisoners are now transported to Watling Street, removing the arresting officer and possibly an escort from the streets of the Borough of Stafford for considerably longer than it would have been the case had the detainee been taken locally to Eastgate Street. The journey to Watling Street also impacts on the environment through extra carbon emissions and increased fuel costs and vehicle wear and tear?

(ii) What was the cost to recently furbish the cells at Stafford station, only to be subsequently closed?

(ii) What is the true cost of relocating from the Cannock Road site to the Weston Road and Beaconside Technology Park sites and, will the now reduced value of Cannock Road site, when eventually sold, actually cover the cost of the move, including the cost of the new and refurbished building work required?

The decision to centralise the management of the Force’s custody suites was taken by Staffordshire Police after a lengthy and thorough research project to examine opportunities to deliver more effective and efficient custody services. Previously, in the event of staff absences or during peak times of detainee numbers, the Force had to fill the gap with frontline officers taken from response and neighbourhood policing duties for a whole shift. Prior to centralisation, this occurred on 22% of occasions.

The Force now has three 24/7 facilities based at the Northern Area Custody Facility (NACF) in Stoke-on-Trent, Burton and Watling Street, which are all modern, well equipped facilities. There are now dedicated staff that run the custody provision, managing five shifts of nine officers spread over the three sites, with the flexibility to float between sites to meet demand. By taking a more flexible approach and increasing resilience, the percentage of shifts where other officers have had to be taken from their primary role to cover custody duties has fallen to 6%.

It is important to point out that a number of custody suites remain available to cover peak times and to provide a fall-back in the event of a primary site being unavailable. The Police Authority took the decision to expend a total of £220,000 on the custody suite of Stafford Police Station to bring the suite up to national standards for the safe detention of persons in custody.

With regard to the relocation of Police Headquarters, the relocation budget in the Capital Programme is £16.178m. In 2008, when the decision to relocate was taken, it was estimated that the value of the Cannock Road site was around £20m. It is clear that the impact of the recession has meant a fall in land values. The position is being very closely monitored and the Police Authority will act in accordance with its statutory duty to secure from any sale of land the best consideration reasonably obtainable by Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972.

A more detailed response has been provided to Councillor Francis

Supplementary Question

When are the Police going to develop the site; how long will it remain derelict; and what security measures are in place to prevent access to the site for the protection of my constituents?

I would refer you to my answer to your written question. The site will be marketed when the economic conditions are right in order to get the best deal.

Mr. David Nixon asked the following question of the Leader of the Council:

Question

(i) How much money per year does Staffordshire County Council give to the Local Government association?

(ii) Seeing that the only purpose of this organisation is to try to get more money out of central government surely this is money ‘not well spent’?

(iii)The Chief Executive of the Local Government association has received a £70, 000 pay increase. Should Staffordshire County Council abandon the L.G.A to fund a cut in council tax?

In 2010/2011, Staffordshire County Council’s subscriptions to the Local Government Association was10% lower at £109,054. The Local Government Group (LGG) as it is now known allows the local government sector to campaign nationally and be represented as a single voice. Baroness Margaret Eaton is the Chairman of the LGG and is a workings peer, giving local government a real voice at the national table.

Securing extra monies from central government is not the sole focus of the LGG. With the growth of localism and the devolved approach to inspection, the LGG gives central government the confidence that local government can be trusted and can keep its house in order. LGG is a key player in developing a new national performance framework for the sector which allows local priorities to flourish, limits bureaucracy and stops over the top performance management arrangements through meaningless target setting and endless external monitoring. If the LGG didn’t exist it is likely that the coalition government would not be in as good a position to implement reforms such as localism and devolved powers and we would not want to return to the restrictions (and expense) of the previous top heavy regime of Comprehensive Area Assessment and Use of Resources Judgement.

Some of the more tangible benefits include increased opportunities for Staffordshire County Council to influence and shape future national policy developments through membership of the LGG’s Boards; growing Staffordshire’s national reputation for innovation and quality across the local government sector as well as learning from “best of class” elsewhere; full involvement in the County Council’s Network; receiving advice and central pay bargaining (when applicable) from the Local Government Employers arm of the LGG; the provision of research, improvement guidance and training through Local Government Improvement and Development (previously IDeA) ; free events for elected members; member training and membership of the Local Government Regulation Group (previously LACORS) which supports our regulatory work.

Negotiations with the LGG regarding membership costs for 2011/2012 will commence shortly and the county council will be lobbying for a reduced rate to reflect the current financial environment. Notwithstanding the outcome of this process, it is my view that the subscription provides value for money and membership provides real benefits. I am aware that John Ransford, the LGG Chief Executive is currently reducing the LGG staffing costs by 30% and creating a smaller executive team to reduce senior management costs.

John became Chief Executive in 2009 (previously Deputy Chief Executive) for an initial twelve month period. The move to the higher grade represented an increase of £66,000 in his salary. He did not accept any other benefits and chose not to take the annual pay settlement increase. His contract was initially extended until 31 December 2010 with the existing remuneration package and this has been followed with a further short term contract until the summer of 2011. For this final stage, John will receive a reduced package of remuneration with no pension contribution.

Members of the county council will be aware that Cabinet announced at its meeting in November that Staffordshire residents will benefit from a zero percent increase in Council Tax levels for 2011/2012

Supplementary Question

How can the Leader say that the LGG limits bureaucracy when we have new rules, regulations and directives from the EU and Central Government every day?

There are many sources of bureaucracy, Brussels is one, London is another and there is also County Council bureaucracy. The Local Government Group reinterprets many of these regulations and directives. I take your point but you still do not appear to understand that the LGG fights on behalf of the Local Government Sector.

Mr. Ray Easton asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Infrastructure

Question

With regard to the reported opposition of the Council to a High-Speed Rail Line through Staffordshire:

(a) What estimates have been made of the number of jobs that building and operating such a line would create directly and indirectly in Staffordshire?

(b) What assessment has been made of the impact of opposing the line on the prospects of obtaining a station on it in Staffordshire?

The Leader has said the County Council will continue to listen to Staffordshire people and will be holding a full council debate on this issue. During this meeting, the usual political 'whip' will be removed giving each county councillor free reign to express the views of their local community.

(a) To date no such estimates have been made. HS2 Ltd has estimated that the construction of a new high speed line over seven years could generate up to 10,000 new jobs. However, HS2 Ltd has acknowledged that they are unable to apportion this figure or indeed any of the economic benefits that they have claimed for the provision of the route to specific localities. Recalling the experience of the construction of the M6Toll, there was a substantial ‘construction village’ to the north of Shenstone to house workers (presumably non local) that disappeared on completion of the building.

(b) While the government is talking of a high speed rail network linking London with the Midlands and Northern England and then on to Scotland, only the London to Birmingham section (HS2) is currently the subject of detailed route and station consideration. HS2 extends into Staffordshire to rejoin the West Coast Mainline just north of Lichfield.

The essence of the high speed route concept as currently promoted is one of intercity links with very few or no intermediary stations. The HS2 proposal includes only one station between London and Birmingham at the NEC/Birmingham Airport Interchange.

If HS2 is completed there is the prospect of an extended high speed route through Staffordshire towards Manchester. Currently a station in Staffordshire is considered extremely unlikely; however, the Secretary of State for Transport has said, in response to a question from the MP for Stoke Central that he would expect the case for a station in the North Staffordshire Area to be considered as part of the HS3 development proposal.

Full detailed consideration of the implications of the possibility of an extended high speed route (HS3) through Staffordshire are not being assessed until the case has been prepared and submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport with regard to the concept of high speed rail provision and the route between London and Birmingham, including the connection to the West Coast Main Line to the north of Lichfield. Details of the HS3 route in Staffordshire are unlikely to be known until early 2012 after the Secretary of State has considered the responses to the HS2 consultation which will be carried out during 2011.

Supplementary Question

Can the Cabinet Member give me an assurance that the County Council will remain open-minded with regard to the high speed rail line?

We need to look at this from the Staffordshire point of view. As this proposal stands at the moment, there is going to be very little benefit for Staffordshire residents to weigh against the obvious environmental impacts arising from the construction of the line, particularly in the Lichfield area. That is why, at the moment, the County Council is opposed to the proposal.

Mr. Ray Easton asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Infrastructure

Question

(a) How many cases are outstanding where a breech of planning control has come to the attention of the Council either through complaint or by the expiry of a temporary permission and the Council has not taken a decision what to do about the complaint within two years?

(b) How many of these cases are in Cannock Chase District

(a) The County Council has made a decision on every case that has arisen from complaints or from the expiry of temporary permissions, for which it has the responsibility.

(b) There are no cases in the Cannock Chase District that have yet to have a decision on how to proceed.

Supplementary Question

I am aware of three such cases in Cannock Chase District alone – Brereton Tip, Elwell’s on the River Trent flood plain and the illegal use of Flaxley Green Waste Tip. Why, therefore, was your answer that there were no cases?

I chose my words very carefully. As indicated in my reply to you, the County Council has made a decision on every case. This does not mean that the County Council has to determine every case as in some cases the County Council may decide to take no action for the time being. I am familiar with two of the cases to which you refer, with regard to Brereton Tip, although we have taken the site operator to court and won on two occasions, the Magistrates on both occasions chose to impose low fines. In the case of Elwell’s, we are working with the site operator to try to find a satisfactory solution. A planning application by the Company is likely to go before the Planning Committee in March 2011.

Mrs. Christina Jebb asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Adults and Wellbeing

Question

Considering the proposed Health & Wellbeing Board for Staffordshire -
On 31st August 2010, the prison population in England & Wales was reported as 85,600 and over 90% of prisoners had at least one mental health problem. The majority of those had several mental health problems, some of them complex. How advanced are your plans to scrutinise and hold to account GP Consortia, in their commissioning of health and mental health services, with reference to prisons and places of police custody?

Responsibility for prison health presently rests with Primary Care Trusts. Under the NHS White Paper proposals, this responsibility will transfer to the new NHS Commissioning Board. This national body will have a regional/local infrastructure but, in common with much of the White Paper, the details of how this will operate are still to be decided.

The same uncertainty around detail applies to the Health and Wellbeing Board. However, it is clear that it will have a key role in coordination and oversight of local Health and Social Care Commissioning including, we anticipate, the local operation of responsibilities delivered by the NHS Commissioning Board

In Staffordshire, the County Council, in conjunction with NHS colleagues, has decided not to wait for further Government guidance, but to seize the initiative and to plan now (on all fronts) for these new arrangements. In particular, we are already engaging positively with the merging GP Consortia.

Supplementary Question

At the moment, funding for mental health care in prisons is currently only a third of that for equivalent problems outside of prisons. Early intervention is crucial if treatment is to be effective. Will you therefore commit to the programming of scrutiny of mental health care in prisons as an early topic for the Health and Wellbeing Board?

The County Council, along with the Isle of Wight, is ahead of the game and is doing more than is statutorily necessary in bringing together NHS work in prisons and social care work in prisons. In short, the answer is yes, the Board will be asked to scrutinise this area.

Mrs. Christina Jebb asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Assets, Performance and Organisation

Question

The Transformation process will undoubtedly lead to a smaller employee establishment in order to achieve its cost saving aims:

(a) How many employees were working for Staffordshire County Council on 1st June 2009 and 1st June 2010 - individuals and also Full Time Equivalent (FTE)?

(b) How many do you expect there to be on 1st June 2011, and when the transformation process is complete?

(a) The figures are as follows:

	June 2009		June 2010
	Headcount	FTE	Headcount	FTE
SCC ( Excluding Schools )	13497	9003.6	13322	8833.7
Schools only	18784	12598.9	19166	12892.8
SCC (including Schools)	32281	21602.6	32488	21726.5

(b) Unlike many other local authorities, the county council has no specific targets relating to reducing employee numbers for either the 1^st June 2011 or the end of the transformation process. We recognise that our employees are our most important asset and we are committed to avoiding redundancies wherever possible. As part of the transformation of the county council we will be seeking every opportunity to maximise income through trading and sharing our services; to support officers in establishing alternative forms of service provision such as social enterprises and where commissioning services from external providers exploring the potential for transfer of our staff.

We will be working closely with our partners, as part of the Staffordshire public services family, to ensure that together we all use our resources as effectively and efficiently as possible, irrespective of organisational boundaries. The most important objective is to continue delivering the vital services required to support Staffordshire families, communities and increase prosperity.

Supplementary Question

How many of those who have left their posts to date received redundancy notices; and regarding the significant increase in school employees, what is the nature of these additional roles?

I do not have the relevant information to hand and will therefore respond to the Member in writing.