To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Minutes:
Before consideration of the Public Questions the Leader stated that he had been made aware of some frustration experienced at the last meeting that questions submitted in advance should have been responded to in the meeting. Going forwards he requested that all questions submitted by 4pm on the preceding day to the meeting receive an answer at the meeting the following day.
The following questions were received from members of the public:
Nick Quinn
Problems Caused by Written Answers to Public Questions at Cabinet 06/06/23
A number of public questions were asked, during Public Question Time at the meeting of the MDDC Cabinet on 06/06/2023. The public had to wait 13 days before the written answers were provided - and there are clear problems with some of the answers given. According to the MDDC Constitution, these written answers “should be reported to the following meeting” – which is the Cabinet meeting on 04/07/2023 - but there is no agenda item that allows the Public to respond to these answers or raise the problems they contain.
Below are problems with two of the written answers given. Perhaps Cabinet Members might address them, when the “reporting of written answers” takes place.
Question Asked 1:
In paragraph 3.6.12 – it is stated that: “the Council has considered its outstanding loans to 3Rivers …... and has concluded that it needs to impair some of the loans”. The loan impairment figure given in the report is more than £4.5Million!
What was the date of the meeting of the Council, at which this matter was considered and this conclusion reached?
Answer Given 1:
The Council’s loan impairments is a matter for their Section 151 officer to determine and will then be subject to review during the annual audit process. Any impairment calculation made by the Section 151 will be based on all available information held at the time in question the overall impairment estimate was included in the annual outturn report considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on the 6 June 2023.
Problem 1:
The written answer makes it clear that “the Council” did not “consider its outstanding loans” nor did the Council “conclude it needs to impairs some of the loans”.
What was written in the 2022/23 Financial Outturn Report ,discussed at the last Cabinet meeting, is now shown to be incorrect – it still contains the words “the Council has considered its outstanding loans to 3Rivers …... and has concluded that it needs to impair some of the loans”.
Will Cabinet ask for this 2022/23 Financial Outturn Report to be noted as incorrect on the public records and ask that, in future reports, it is made clear where Officers are making decisions on behalf of the Council?
Question Asked 2:
This report is for the 2022/23 financial year - up to the end of March 2023. There was never any public mention of the likely impairment of 3 Rivers loans during this year. Now, more than £4.5M needs to be impaired!
Which loans are being impaired and how was the specific amount of this impairment arrived at?
Answer Given 2:
Currently 4 3Rivers loans are being impaired – 2 development loans and a working capital loan. The impairment was based on the likely level of repayment based on all information held.
Problem 2:
The written answer makes it clear that FOUR 3Rivers loans are being impaired . It is then stated this is made up of TWO development loans and ONE working capital loan.
In my mathematics TWO + ONE = THREE (not FOUR).
So where/what is the Missing Loan?
The Cabinet Member for Finance responded to the questioner by stating that with regards to question number 1 the section of the report in question was informing Members of the Council that the S151 Officer had considered the outstanding loans and concluded that some needed to be impaired. It was not unusual that the advice or actions of officers were referred to in general as ‘the Council’ and given that this report was from officers to Members in this context it was perfectly reasonable to use the term in his opinion. However, feedback had been taken on board to make sure that all reports are clear to all readers in the future. Further, for the avoidance of doubt if there was a question as to when Members would approve the advice, as Cabinet merely noted the outturn report, then Members would have the opportunity to do so when the Statements of Accounts were finalised, reviewed by Audit and then presented to full Council. At this point Members would have the opportunity to debate and approve this advice. This had been made clear at the Cabinet meeting.
The Cabinet Member continued that in regards to problem number 2, there were currently 4 loans being impaired so the first part of the answer was correct, clearly there was an error in the further detail given as there were only 3 loans listed and he confirmed that the 4 loans that were being impaired were 2 projects loans, Riverside and Knowle Lane, the working capital loan and the balance of the aborted Park Road project. It was the latter that was missed from the original answer.
Barry Warren
My questions relate to item 4 on your agenda, and in particular at the top of page 6, where the recorded minute in relation to my second question is completely wrong in that it virtually repeats my first question and misrepresents what was asked.
My questions are recorded correctly on the audio recording, and in the questions and answers which are a supplement to the minutes and published on the website.
Will Members, please instruct that the written minutes be amended to include the correct wording of that part of my question 2 so as to give an accurate version and not the complete misrepresentation shown?
Why is the Chief Executive, as evidenced by his input at the recent Standards Committee, trying to reduce and misrepresent the public input?
Is his policy in fact making more work for officers by having to précis the minutes when questioners have provided written documents to the officers so that they can just cut and paste?
Why is this policy being pursued when in fact the room for error is increased thereby taking up more committee and Officer time to correct it as evidenced in this case, and the number of other instances prior to this?
Does this not create a potential for more conflict with the public, rather than achieving ruling party members wishes to encourage more public interest and involvement?
The Leader stated that there had been a lot of discussion on this at the Standards Committee, as well as how meetings were run, what information Members received and how information was recorded in the minutes. He continued by saying that councillors themselves did not have everything they say recorded in the minutes and whilst members of the public are encouraged to come and ask questions at Public Question Time Members don’t necessarily need to have the entire statement before the question. This had been a cross party discussion and vote at the Standards Committee meeting. It was also very difficult to try and include all those pieces of information that somebody had submitted when a lot of the time it could be a huge page of statement and one part of question. We want to make sure that the questions are answered fully whilst not also having minutes that last 20 pages with the first part being Public Question Time. He further stated that all questions asked by members of the public were in the public domain as they were recorded.
The Leader stated that if Mr Warren wanted a further response he would ensure he received one in writing. With regard to the question about amending the minutes, the Leader was happy to put that forward to the Cabinet to include his full question when the minutes were discussed on the agenda.
There were no other questions from the members of the public present.
The Leader reiterated his request to have questions in advance by 4pm on the day before the meeting to ensure they were answered at the meeting the following day.