Agenda item
TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The questions which have been received from members of the public for this Council meeting are set out in the attached report. A maximum period of 20 minutes is allocated to this agenda item.
Minutes:
The following questions and in each case supplementary questions were put and were responded to by the Mayor or relevant Executive Member:-
6.1 Question on Poplar HARCA Parking Charges:
Mohbub Ali
Will the Mayor intervene directly to stop unjustified and extortionate increase in residential parking permit for residents by Poplar HARCA?
Ruhul Tapader
Is the Cabinet Member aware of the major increases in parking charges that Poplar HARCA has implemented – and does the cabinet member have view of these?
Response by Mayor John Biggs:
I am a disappointed as you are with the massive increase in parking charges, also in the charges for pram sheds and for garages. This evening a number of you presented this petition to me which has got a massive number of signatures on it which shows the level of disquiet on this issue. My starting point is that HARCA are generally a good Landlord. They have got a good reputation, charge relatively low rents, provide a good community service and have an ambitious programme of building new homes. They have been massively affected by the government rules saying they have to cut the rents by 1% a year over the next four years which has knocked a hole in their business plan. They have to achieve savings or increase income without being allowed to put up their rent. That in no way in my view excuses what they have done. I think their behaviour has been clumsy and it has been excessive. There are a number of people in the chamber and in the gallery this evening who have come to show their displeasure and the number of signatures show how unhappy people are with this issue.
I have been meeting with Steve Stride and Paul Brickell the Chief Executive and Chair of the HARCA as have my Members and we have made it quite clear to them that we think it is not good enough. This has been very damaging to their reputation and the confidence of tenants and leaseholders as well. We have informed them that we want them to reverse these changes. They have made a proposal to us and we need to continue talking to them about that. There may be a motion on this matter on the agenda and if that is brought forward we can discuss this matter further.
Supplementary question from Mohbub Ali and Ruhul Tapader:
Poplar HARCA might be good but the fact is there has been a lack of consultation with the residents and this keeps on coming up. We would not be in this situation if they had consulted with us or consulted with the State Board who represent the residents, this is why we have to contact the Council now to try to get it reduced. Will the Mayor ask the government to allow residents of Housing Associations to ballot every 10 years to choose their Housing Association, this way they will have more accountability?
Mayor John Biggs’ response to the supplementary question:
Yes I strongly support the proposal. This is being promoted by Jim Fitzpatrick your MP in Parliament, for the Government to change the law to allow people to sack their Landlord and replace their Landlord with a new Landlord, we have several Landlords in the Borough who are annoying their tenants and their leaseholders and if this power existed it would give a better balance of power.
There is an offer at present from the HARCA which is that the car parking charges were £1.96 and they had proposed £7.00. They are now suggesting that they can reduce that to £4.00 from £7.00. I appreciate that you will be unhappy with that but I have a duty to share that information with you.
Procedural Motion
Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed moved and Councillor Rajib Ahmed seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.3 the order of business be varied such that item 12.2 Motion regarding the Poplar HARCA be taken as the next item of business.” The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
Following consideration of the motion, the Speaker adjourned the meeting at 21.05pm. The meeting reconvened at 21:15pm
6.2 Question from MD Sumsul Talukder:
How much savings did the Mayor made by cutting burial subsidy for poor residents in his budget?
Response by Councillor David Edgar, Cabinet Member for Resources:
The burial subsidy scheme was established a few years ago in recognition that there were not enough burial places in the borough. It was seen as a good thing to do to subsidise the costs of burial, particularly as those costs could be higher as they might be if they were in the borough. The actual scheme itself was closed by the Commissioners on the basis that these subsidies were grants, the Commissioners were given authority to deal with this and decided to suspend the scheme as they did not think that it was an appropriate scheme. What happened is that the Council bought a burial site in Kemnal Park, which is a site available and subsidised. We have moved to a situation where there was an original need for a burial subsidy scheme, to one where there is an actual burial site which is subsidised. One of the things we do need to do is to make sure that people are much more aware of that option and that we increase the number of people who are able to use that site.
On the particular question on savings that have been made, the savings made were £20,000 from a scheme which had in effect already been closed by the Commissioners.
Supplementary question from MD Sumsul Talukder:
Was there consultation about the closing down? Was there communication with the residents and what action did the Mayor take?
Mayor John Biggs’ response to the supplementary question:
The grant was cancelled by the Commissioners who were appointed by the government so we could not stop it. What I did say I would do during the budget, this needs to be in this year’s budget is to review the various subsidies and support we give to bereaved families, whether that is by better promoting the new burial ground on the Sidcup By-pass in Bromley or whether it is by re-introducing a subsidy scheme, in which case we would have to persuade the Commissioners that it is a fundable scheme. I am happy to take it away. I promised we would look at this and we will do that.
6.3 Question from Jamir Chowdhury:
Is it wise to spend £100k for Head of Mayor's office, £25k for personal publicity and £60k for new vanity manager in his office - on top of £100k for Head of Marketing while the Mayor cuts vital services and whacks up Council Tax by record 4%?
Response by Mayor John Biggs:
I am very pleased you asked this question because it is a question that the opposition members quite like asking as well. I am pleased to say that we have made a saving of over £300,000 on the cost of the Mayor’s office from the previous Mayor. The suggestion that we spend £100,000 on the cost of the Head of the Mayor’s office – he does not get anything like that sum of money. We will continue to look at the costs, my office gets about 2000 emails a week and we need to have staff to respond to those, we need to have people to liaise with the policy section of the Council to make sure that we are carrying out things like the HARCA. In answer to the question we need to make sure we have a properly staffed office in order to serve you effectively. I will make sure that we do not have staff in that office who are not doing any work. If I find any I will sling them out immediately.
Supplementary question from Jamir Chowdhury:
In the past Mayor Biggs criticised such spending as unnecessary. How is this different when he is spending £605k on his personal office in addition to £25,000 on personal publicity? Is this not hypocrisy? Why are those who opposed it silent now? Is it because the Mayor got into power due to Tory votes as publicised by a local blogger?
Mayor John Biggs’ response to the supplementary question:
I am very happy to respond to that, the difference is that first of all I promised and I agreed and I am to be very transparent as Mayor and to be open about how my office is funded. I am willing to share that information and publish it. Councillor John Pierce (who is sitting between you and me), chairs the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and has produced a scrutiny report on transparency. I will make sure that this information is published. Secondly, an example of lack of transparency is that the previous Mayor had about half a dozen staff in his office who he pretended were not in there. He had them funded by parts of the Council and that cost about £200,000. When I came in I could not understand who these people were or why they disappeared, how they were funded or where the money had gone. In the end we realised that there was a bit of laundering going on if you like, which allowed people to be employed in one place whilst they pretended that they were not working in the Mayor’s office. I am transparent and happy to be transparent. I am happy to meet you and discuss it with you. I do not need anything in return from you.
Procedural Motion
Councillor Marc Francis moved and Councillor Sirajul Islam seconded, a procedural motion “that under Procedure Rule 14.1.5, Rule 13.1 be suspended to enable an urgent motion regarding the future of Old Ford Housing Association to be considered”. The procedural motion was put to the vote and was agreed.
6.4 Question from Ms Tahera Ayazi:
Regarding the Incontinence Laundry Service, what has the council done to make sure people can make alternative arrangements, and can it say what measures are now in place to guarantee that no-one requiring help is left without assistance?
Response from Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs, Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Services:
I want to reassure you that people with assessed incontinent needs who are using that service up until now will not have that service stopped until an alternative is in place. To give you a bit more detail those who are currently receiving their incontinence laundry service should have been seen by the NHS to ensure that the reason for their incontinence is properly established and that they are given the right incontinence products such as pads and other things if they need them. Additionally those who are receiving the service at the moment are being assessed and reviewed by our social work teams, some of those assessments have happened and for the others they should all be done by the 31st March 2016. Where an individual has clear needs that relate to incontinence, those needs might be addressed through the social work assessment, through such things as a one off payment to buy a washing machine or additional home care support – so that is people going into the home and supporting that person. As I said in the beginning the service will only be terminated once those assessments have happened and once alternative assessments are in place for their assessed needs.
Supplementary question from Ms Tahera Ayazi:
A washing machine is insufficient because they have long-term needs, they cannot even do their own washing, somebody has to come in and do the washing for them. How do you propose that their needs can be met?
Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs’ response to the supplementary question:
I cannot comment on each individual because the way the assessment works is that it is different for each individual. Where someone needs additional support to manage their washing or any of their other day to day needs they would be given home care support as well, that is where people going in and do day-to-day support with the family and provide that care. All of that gets done in the assessment and as much support as they need through that assessment, will be provided.
6.5 Question from Emma Adams:
I have had a letter from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)asking if they can close my son’s CAMHS support for the time being. When he was first diagnosed with autism in 2013, when he got his diagnosis I was told he would have a CAMHS support worker until he reached 16 and then it will go over to the adult mental health services if he needed it.
I want to know:
- How many other parents have had similar letters like mine?
- Has there been a sudden change of policy to what support Autistic children get from CAMHS?
- Is the proposed change to my son’s support related to the £200,000 council voted cut to CAMHS funding on 24 February?
Response from Councillor Rachael Saunders, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Education & Children’s Services:
Thank you for coming and thank you for waiting so long as well. We do not have access to all of the detailed information that you have asked for because the service is delivered by the East London Mental Health Foundation Trust. I would be really happy to work with you if you wanted to contact me directly to speak about your son’s particular service needs. I am afraid that we do not hold that information whether anyone else has been affected in the same way. In terms of the reduction in CAHMS funding it is part of a significant change programme which is intended to make sure that the service is better at supporting the borough’s most vulnerable children, the reduction hasn’t yet been made so your son’s service is not being affected by that particular reduction because the reduction has not yet been made yet. I will be happy to speak further outside the meeting if we can give any support at all in talking to the Foundation Trust and to CAMHS about your son’s service.
Supplementary question from Emma Adams:
The CAMHS worker my son has only deals with Autistic children, she works in Phoenix School as well and she deals with other children with developmental delays. Does that mean when these reductions get taken off, she will have more workload from other CAMHS cases?
Councillor Rachael Saunders response to the supplementary question:
We work in partnership with the Foundation Trust to try and improve the CAHMS service so I am not personally responsible for the delivery of the service because it is a contractual issue with the Foundation Trust. I would suggest that if you wanted to work with me we could talk to them together and get some detailed answers. I am really sorry I am not able to give you that information right now.
6.7 Question from Jack Beaken:
Hereford Estate is part of Tower Hamlets Council's new build infill programme. The consultation process run by Tower Hamlets Homes has been seriously flawed and inadequate: incorrect dates, cancellations of meetings with no notice, incorrect information and ignoring resident's concerns.
In view of the flawed consultation process, will Tower Hamlets Council intervene and restart the process so ensuring residents’ views are given a proper hearing?
Response from Councillor Rachel Blake, Cabinet Member for Strategic Development:
At the Mayoral Assembly a couple of weeks ago the Mayor has agreed to revisit this scheme and pause the scheme in order to have a closer look at it. I know that there was a workshop last weekend to consider the scheme itself. The scheme going forward will be subject to full consultation with you and the organisation that you have now set up.
Supplementary question from Jack Beaken:
Tower Hamlets Homes wishes to create a working group with the residents to discuss landscape and gardening matters, we as a residents association and as an estate feel that it is completely inappropriate to set up a working group about gardening when the residents have very important outstanding concerns. Just a few being: a proposed roof terrace, the size of the new build and anti-social behaviour and these are just a few of the concerns. Will the Council intervene and ensure that this proposed working group when set up deals with the important issues, a few of which have just been raised rather than very superficial issues such as gardening and landscaping? I was even asked will I prefer an apple tree to a pear tree. We want to get to the core of the issues that the residents have.
Councillor Rachel Blake’s response to the supplementary question:
Yes I am aware of some of those more detailed issues that you do want to know more about and I have asked that you should have a clear response on those prior to the workshop going ahead. In addition to that there is a concern about how you approach Vallance Road and the overall access to the building, the passive surveillance that you are looking for around access to Vallance Road. What I would add is that I do think the landscaping issues are important and we get them right should there be some new schemes on there. I don’t want them to be entirely dismissed as superficial but I would say that I recognise those real concerns that you have about passive surveillance of the building, about anti-social behaviour, about how all residents will be affected by the new build. Yes we will get you a response on those prior to that workshop.
Question 8.6 was not put due to the absence of the questioner. A written response would be provided to the questions. (Note: The written response is included in Appendix ‘A’ to these minutes.)
Supporting documents: