Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Cabinet Members on any matters within the powers and duties of the Cabinet, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice. (Questions must be submitted no later than 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting on the card provided. These are available at the meeting. You can also submit via the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions)
Minutes:
Members of the public were invited to submit questions to the Chair on any matters within the powers and duties of the Cabinet, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Six public questions were submitted.
(i) The first question referred to the £4.714m surplus on the Council’s 2017/18 budget outturn as reported to the last Cabinet Meeting on 12 June 2018, and asked why in the context of reducing Government Revenue Support Grant and increasing hardship for residents the money was being used for activities such as investment in town centre regeneration, infrastructure investment, offsetting financial risk and preparing for the 2019/20 budget when it could be spent on alleviating cuts to services benefiting the poorest in the borough.
In response, the Leader of the Council explained the nature of the surplus and how it had arisen, namely that it was on the non-cash limit budget (for non-portfolio specific activity) due to a number of costs being lower than anticipated. In relation to cash-limit budgets that paid for the ongoing, regular Council services there had been a deficit outturn position due to the increased demand for services, particularly children’s and adult services. Half of the surplus would be used to fund that cash-limit deficit.
Specifically in relation to the suggestion in the question that the Cabinet had ‘submitted’ to ‘austerity’, the Leader stated that the Labour Cabinet was opposed to the reductions in Council funding, but that the Council was required by law to set a balanced budget, and if it did not do so may be taken over by the Ministry of Housing, Local Government & Communities who would simple cut services to balance the budget. The Leader acknowledged that residents would have been affected by the austerity, and that the Council had been forced to take decisions about services and Council Tax it would not have made otherwise, but the Cabinet had done all it could to reduce the impact on front line services so as to protect the most vulnerable in the community.
The Leader referred to previous decisions he had made in relation to surpluses and how those sums had been used to offset pressures in Adult Social Care and other increases in demands on services. In 2019/20 the Council would be required to find £15m further savings (in addition to the £100m already found) so the decision had been taken to use part of the previous year’s surplus to support activities that would assist in realising savings in the longer term. The Cabinet would be reviewing the Council’s finances and would publish budget proposals over the summer.
The Leader of the Council stated that using surpluses to reverse previous decisions or reinstate previously reduced services, as suggested in the question, would not be sustainable as it would not provide recurrent funding and would not be fair to service users or staff.
(ii) The second question asked whether the A6MARR Airport Road would be opened, allowing more vehicles onto the A34 at Cheadle, given the illegal levels of emissions and recent court rulings against the Government in relation to air quality. The question asked what action the Council planned to take to address air pollution associated with the A34, particularly in light of the decision to proceed with the A6MARR when its Environmental Assessment indicated roadside pollution readings 50% above legal limits on the A34 at Cheadle in 2012. Did this not indicate a reckless obsession with road building?
In response the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration acknowledged that air quality was a huge concern for the Council and the A34 in particular. She stated that the Council was working with Transport for Greater Manchester address these issues, but that the scope for local bodies to make significant impact on air quality was limited without national attention. Specifically in relation to the A6MARR the Cabinet Member stated that the aim was to have the road open as soon as possible to alleviate pressure on local roads, as congestion was a key contributor to air pollution, as well as to provide walking and cycling routes. The Council had also received funding to develop a dedicated busway route between Hazel Grove and Manchester airport. It was also stressed that significant amounts of traffic in Stockport were caused by people travelling through Stockport, and so the Council had less scope to reduce these vehicle movements.
The Leader of the Council also acknowledged the issues with the A34 and confirmed that in response to recent Court rulings TfGM was preparing a plan for air quality for submission to the Government by the end of 2018. As part of this work a number of measures were being considered locally, but these needed to take account of local factors to ensure they were effective and sustainable.
(iii) The third question referred to a recent meeting of a third sector organisation at which a Council employee attended and was heard saying that safeguarding was an impediment to getting things done, and asked if this reflected the view of the Council and whether the Council was seeking to reduce the cost of the services it provided at the expense of safety.
In response the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care stressed that the Council took its statutory safeguarding responsibilities extremely seriously, particularly for most vulnerable members of the community. The Cabinet Member also explained the role of the independently chaired Adult Safeguarding Board that also had a crucial role to play in protecting the community. The Cabinet Member gave an unequivocal assurance that the Council took its safeguarding responsibilities seriously.
(iv) The fourth question asked whether the Council funded suicide prevention and if so, how much, given the Stockport Mental Health Investment Plan indicated an investment of £88k in preventing suicide that was funded from the Clinical Commissioning Group.
The Cabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing stated while the Council did not directly fund suicide prevention activity, as this was mostly funded through the NHS, it did try to support others in delivering such services. The example given was of the Council providing a small grant to the Samaritans to provide suicide awareness training and Public Health working with GPs to identify training and awareness raising needs.
The Cabinet Member further highlighted the priority that this had within Greater Manchester bodies and that locally the Clinical Commissioning Group had increased its spending on Mental Health services generally and for suicide prevention in particular.
(v) The fifth question highlighted references in the final report of the recent CQC Stockport Local System Review to the underutilisation of the Adult Social Care and Health Scrutiny Committee’s challenge function in relation to Stockport Together, and to concerns expressed by Healthwatch and the Citizens Representation Panel that they did not feel fully engaged in the consultation process for Stockport Together. The question asked, in light of these worrying findings, who was standing up for the people of Stockport during the massive transformation of health and social care services that could lead to the privatisation of those services, whether these problems suggested a lack of democracy, and what the Council was going to do to address these issues.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Health & Wellbeing explained that one of the reasons for the CQC Local Review was in response to concerns about the performance of the local health and social care economy against particular NHS Indicators, although this was not necessarily reflective of outstanding services delivered locally such as stroke services. The outcome of the Review accorded with the evaluations of the situation by local partners, but the CQC did make clear that the found that partners had a strong vision of an integrated system that would help address future funding shortfalls. The Cabinet Member stated that partners were putting together a response to the issues raised by the Review to ensure their concerns were addressed. Specifically in relation to the engagement of the public, the Cabinet Member emphasised his surprise at the feedback from Healthwatch and the Citizens Representation Panel given their involvement in the Stockport Together and other projects.
The Cabinet Member emphasised that all partners were ‘standing up’ and working hard to make sure local systems were working as well as they could to meet the needs of local residents.
In response to a supplementary question about the perceived lack of scrutiny of the Stockport Together business cases and consultation response by the Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee, the Cabinet Member emphasised that when he had chaired that Committee’s predecessor he had sought to provide a high level of challenge, but that the concerns being expressed by the questioner would be more appropriately addressed to the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee.
(vi) The sixth question referred to the use of public money to refurbish the Produce Hall and subsequently lease this facility to a private operator, and asked why the Council was seeking to privatise the Market Hall, and whether this accorded with the wishes of the public who submitted a petition two years previously to prevent privatisation.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded by emphasising the varied role the Council played in the community, including as a landlord and the obligation to ensure its assets were in a good state of repair for its tenants. Specifically in relation to the Produce Hall, the investment that had been made was the first for 20 years but that the Council had a responsibility to ensure it was receiving a return on the investment. The Council had adopted a Strategy to enhance the Market Place, and the Market Hall was key to that. The Cabinet Member made clear that the Council was not privatising the Market Hall, but in response to extensive discussion with market traders the Council had trialled using a private, specialist company to provide management and support for the Market that had not been available previously. Because of the success of the trial, the Council was now putting that service out to tender.