Agenda item
Questions at Cabinet Meetings
Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Written questions
To answer any written questions from a County Councillor, (or any person living or working in the county, or is affected by the work of the County Council), about any matter which relates to any item on the agenda for this meeting.
The closing date for the receipt of written questions is 4.00 pm on Thursday 21 September 2017.
Oral questions
To answer any oral questions from members of the public. An oral question may be asked by a member of the public about any item on the agenda for this meeting, provided notice of the question is given by the questioner to the Chief Executive’s representative, at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.
Depending on the nature of the questions, it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be provided as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting. Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.
Minutes:
Public Questions
No public questions were submitted for consideration at this meeting.
Member Questions
A total of 12 member questions were submitted in advance of the meeting.
Please refer to the following link to view the responses to the questions: -
If you are unable to access the document at the above link, please go to the link below and select the ‘Cabinet Questions and Answers’ PDF document at the top of the web page: -
http://192.168.220.171:9071/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=117&MId=8410&Ver=4
The following supplementary questions were asked at the meeting.
Question 1: Cllr Iain Dobie
Agenda Item 5: Financial Monitoring Report 2017/18 (Pages 1 to 14 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Dobie enquired, in cash terms, how much the council’s mental health budget had reduced by, and why there had been no re-investment in improvements to mental health services.
Response by: Cllr Roger Wilson: Cabinet Member for Vulnerable Adults and Commissioning
Cllr Wilson clarified that the Medium Term Financial Strategy was agreed by the Council in February 2017, setting out proposed savings for 2017/18. Cllr Wilson suggested Cllr Dobie meet with officers to gain a better understanding of how the budget was being managed.
Question 2: Cllr Iain Dobie
Agenda Item 5: Financial Monitoring Report 2017/18 (Pages 1 to 14 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Dobie said he was pleased with the response to the question, and the decision to transfer part of the underspend in the public mental health budget to the public health reserve. Cllr Dobie asked if other underspends would be ring-fenced for mental health?
Response by: Cllr Tim Harman: Cabinet Member for Public Health and Communities
Cllr Harman outlined details of how the underspend was being reinvested, including providing a mentoring programme, dedicated support for suicide prevention training and bereavement support. Cllr Harman agreed to provide more details after the meeting, and said, “it was not the council’s intention to make savings, but rather, to spend the council’s money more effectively”.
Question 3: Cllr Iain Dobie
Agenda Item 10: Direct Award Contract for Electronic Call Monitoring to Disability Community Care and Support Providers (Pages 103 to 110 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Dobie enquired how checks on providers would be reported back to members and at which scrutiny committee? He asked what performance indicators would be in the public domain and in published contract reports to ensure carers allowed appropriate time between visits?
Response by: Cllr Roger Wilson: Cabinet Member for Vulnerable Adults and Commissioning
Cllr Wilson endorsed the importance of allowing adequate time between visits. He confirmed this would be monitored by checking rosters set by individual providers. In addition, Electronic Call Monitoring System contracts included clauses to ensure providers charged appropriately. Cllr Wilson advised members he would be checking on how the information was disseminated.
Question 4: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 12: Property Acquisition Policy (Pages 131 to 152 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Hilton asked what land purchases the council might be considering to support business need?
Response by: Cllr Ray Theodoulou: Cabinet Member for Finance and Change
Cllr Theodoulou clarified that, until recently, the council had been in a mode of disposal, which had provided a good boost to the council’s income. The council was now in a different position, particularly in light of the recent Ofsted Inspection of Children’s Services. Responding to the requirement to provide accommodation for the vulnerable children of Gloucestershire, the council now had the stimulus from which to develop a policy to acquire land for this purpose.
Question 5: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 12: Property Acquisition Policy (Pages 131 to 152 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Hilton supported the decision not to purchase land and buildings for investment purposes outside of Gloucestershire, and asked whether this was cabinet policy or the cabinet member’s personal policy?
Response by: Cllr Ray Theodoulou: Cabinet Member for Finance and Change
Cllr Theodoulou confirmed, unless for a specific purpose, there were no plans to seek large scale acquisitions to benefit from huge returns. It was not cabinet policy.
Question 6: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 12: Property Acquisition Policy (Pages 131 to 152 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Hilton asked if there were plans to reduce the rural estate even further ?
Response by: Cllr Ray Theodoulou: Cabinet Member for Finance and Change
Cllr Theodoulou confirmed that the policy was to reduce the rural estate and that this had been the council’s intention for some time. The council would be working with tenants to reduce the rural estate to 6,500 acres.
Question 7: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 13: Interim Residual Waste Disposal Arrangements (Pages 153 to 164 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Hilton questioned some of the statistics referred to in the response to his question. Noting 85% of the value of the waste contract related to landfill tax, Cllr Hilton sought clarification on the response he had been given, including projected savings over 25 years from the processing of household residual waste at the Javelin Park Incinerator.
Cllr Hilton also sought clarification on the costs to the council from extending the waste contract.
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor: Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure
Cllr Moor noted that Cllr Hilton’s original question related to the extension of the waste contract but agreed to provide a detailed answer to the supplementary question after the meeting.
Question 8: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 13: Interim Residual Waste Disposal Arrangements (Pages 153 to 164 of the agenda pack)
Cllr Hilton asked what tonnage of waste would be processed and what savings might be anticipated during the first year of processing household residual waste at the Javelin Park Incinerator.
Response by: Cllr Ray Theodoulou: Cabinet Member for Finance and Change
Cllr Theodoulou agreed to provide Cllr Hilton with a detailed answer after the meeting.
Question 9: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 13: Interim Residual Waste Disposal Arrangements (Pages 153 to 164 of the agenda pack)
Expressing concerns about the issue of ‘queues’ and ‘congestion’ at the Hempsted Landfill Site, Cllr Hilton enquired whether it was time to consider proposals for a new landfill facility to service Gloucester.
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor: Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure
Cllr Moor confirmed that the date for the anticipated closure of the Hempsted Landfill Site was 2020. Use of the site after this date was dependent on Cory investigating whether there was gas present at the site. Cllr Moor stated that, closure of the landfill facility provided an opportunity for reorganising the site. He hoped this would make a big improvement.
Question 10: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 6: Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service (GFRS): Draft Integrated Risk Management Plan 2018-21 (Pages 15 to 70 of the agenda).
Referring to the need to make £18.5m savings across the Council, and with the 2018-19 budget process underway, Cllr Hilton enquired whether further cuts would be made to the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service?
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor: Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure
Cllr Moor informed members that GFRS was a valued service and a number of capital bids had been put forward to support the Service. The bids had been considered at the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee meeting on 20 September 2017.
Question 11: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 6: Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service: Draft Integrated Risk Management Plan 2018-21 (Pages 15 to 70 of the agenda).
Referring to the success in recruiting female fire-fighters to the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service, Cllr Hilton enquired whether the council would be setting a target to increase the number of women and people from a BME (Black Minority Ethnic) background over the next 5 years?
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor: Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure
Cllr Moor confirmed that one of the council’s key objectives was diversity. His view was that the setting of specific targets was not particularly helpful and advised that the council would continue to look at the capability of the individuals coming forward and appoint on merit when recruiting new members of staff.
Question 12: Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Agenda Item 6: Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service: Draft Integrated Risk Management Plan 2018-21 (Pages 15 to 70 of the agenda).
Cllr Hilton supported the decision by the Fire and Rescue Service to use social media as part of the IRMP (Integrated Risk Management Plan) consultation process and suggested it might be helpful for everyone to look at the benefits of using social media during public consultations. Cllr Hilton requested a proper analysis of the use of social media by the council.
Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor: Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure
Cllr Moor supported Cllr Hilton’s comments and said he agreed it was important to share the good messages relating to the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service. He acknowledged that the current consultation was very different to the IRMP consultation undertaken 3 years ago.
Supporting documents:
PDF 77 KB