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 Cabinet on any matters within its powers and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Four public questions were submitted.
(i) The first question asked what the latest outturn forecast costs were for the A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road scheme.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration reiterated that the scheme budget remained £290m, and that the costs of the scheme fluctuated over time as costs were incurred and issues settled, such as compensation claims. This information could be used to inform the A6-M60 Relief Road Business Case, as would information from other road schemes and industry analysis.
In response to a supplementary question about why the Council was not making this information more readily available, the Cabinet Member stated that there was no attempt to hide this information but that because of the constant fluctuations in costs it was not practical to provide this information.
(ii) The second question asked whether the Council would be submitting a further bid for funding for the proposed A6-M60 Relief Road to Department of Transport Local Major Road fund through Transport for the North.
In response the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration clarified that the funding window was open until July of this year. She stated that the Council was assessing whether the proposed scheme would meet the funding criteria.
(iii) The third question referred to the proposals to cease funding for the 300 Bus and asked whether there had been consultation with vulnerable users of the service.
The Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration responded by confirming that the Council had undertaken extensive consultation with the public, publicising this widely, including on the buses themselves, and providing both online and paper questionnaires. The responses to that consultation, detailed in the report on the agenda, unsurprisingly had indicated that those who used the service valued it and would prefer for it to remain. The responses indicated a wide range of reasons people used the service.
The Cabinet Member reiterated that the Cabinet had aimed to minimise the impact of Government funding reductions on front line services. The current costs of this bus service (c£250k) were likely to increase were the contract to be renewed and to do so would mean finding savings elsewhere. Given the rising costs and demand for services for vulnerable residents in both children’s and adult services, this the bus service was less damaging than the alternatives. Whilst the Cabinet recognised the value of the bus service, and would have maintained it if it could, this was not of the same magnitude of importance as other Council services.
The Leader of the Council added that the report set out a number of mitigating measures being proposed in response to the comments received in the consultation, as was the Cabinet’s approach to service change. Publicity would be provided about the changes, alternative services and rerouting of other bus services, and the situation would be kept under review.
(iv) The final question referred to a recent Nuffield Trust report that indicated limited success of health and social care integration initiatives at reducing unnecessary hospital admissions and asked whether there was a risk assessment for the proposals the Cabinet was considering in relation to developing a single commissioning function with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).
The Cabinet Member for Health clarified that the current risk share arrangements with the CCG was currently in the region of £4.6m with approximately £2.4m having been drawn down to support investment in health and social care services. Specifically in relation to the development of a single commissioning function, the Cabinet Member stated that while this was an aspiration this was not an approach that had been agreed, and as such there was no risk analysis, nor risk share agreement. In the event of there being such agreement to enter into such an arrangement then this analysis would be undertaken.