Posts
Having read the Nuneaton News articles about the Full Council meeting of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council you could be forgiven for thinking that I had very little to say.
People who know me would be
very surprised to hear that!
The possibility of me listening to items on the agenda such as the ones that were debated on that particular evening and saying nothing is remoter than the possibility of me voting for a different political party at the next election. In short, totally preposterous!
1) The first item from the agenda that got me to my feet was a recommendation from cabinet dealing with the ‘Draft Audit Committee Core Work Programme 2009-10 and updated Terms of reference’.
The principle of having an audit committee in the first place is sound enough. Namely to be a safety valve, a check if you will, against the spending decisions made by cabinet. Cabinet and in some cases individual portfolio holders make the decision which involve direct/indirect expenditure. Audit committee makes sure that there is nothing unscrupulous going on.
I was rather surprised to see that a member of the controlling cabinet is on the audit committee!
Now I have no more reason to believe that the gentleman in question would do anything untoward than that any reader of this blog would but the principle should be that you are not on Cabinet and audit.
I spoke on this point and voted against the motion to accept the report. The motion was of course passed by the Conservative majority who now have the power to put all of the cabinet on audit if they so wish now that the principle has been overturned.
2) The cabinet report on ‘Untidy Land and Unauthorised Adverts’ was the next item that brought me to my feet.
As I drive around the borough in my capacity as a driving instructor I see many signs and trailers positioned on verges and at the side of the carriageway advertising the goods and services of companies. They have not sought permission to have them there and often they are dangerously positioned, insecure from the threat of a decent gust of wind and therefore it is quite possible that they could be a threat to the safety of passing road users. The signage is of no benefit to the residents of the borough. I also pointed out that the companies who paid for these signs to be made and positioned only did so for one reason. The reason being that they are commercially viable. In this case the council should consider charging for permission to use the land in this way and enforcing removal of improperly secured signage regardless.
I supported the motion to allow officers to be allowed enforcement powers and the item was carried.
3) An item shown on the agenda as ‘Senior Officers Pay and Appeals Panel’ made me shake with anger once I understood the full implications of it.
As the constitution stood before the meeting if an employee of the council was disciplined there was provision within the disciplinary procedures for them to be able to make an appeal to elected representatives of the council. This was their last available step before applying to an outside body such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).
Contained within the report (and with no explanation of what on earth this issue has to do with senior officers pay or appeals) was a proposal to REMOVE this right for employees below the rank of deputy director.
I spoke at quite some length on this one because I have sat on appeals panels and see no reason at all to remove this step from the disciplinary procedures. The employees of the council deserve the right to be heard!
I was disgusted both with the manner that this item had been hidden within another and with the matter itself. The item was of course forced through by the Conservatives who seem to have no regard as to the rights or concerns of lower paid workers.
4) The item ‘High Hedge Complaints – Charging of Fees’ again inflamed my inbuilt scales of justice.
This borough did not charge to process high hedge complaints.
If you make a complaint about the height of a neighbours hedge the officers come around and make a judgement as to whether or not a complaint is likely to be successful. If the officers are in agreement with the resident making the complaint then the case continues.
The Conservatives proposed to bring in a charge of £350 for this.
Hang on a moment. You have a right to light under planning legislation. So the Conservatives are proposing putting a price upon justice! The fact that other councils do it for me is no reason that we should.
I pointed out that as a representative of Barpool ward I was aware that should there be a valid high hedge complaint I am certain that there are many people living in the ward who would not be able to proceed because of the £350 charge. You should not have to pay for justice!
It was pointed out to me that residents in receipt of certain benefits would not have to pay for the charge. This cuts no ice with me. Barpool ward is one of the bottom ten percent of ‘super output areas’ in the country for depravation.
I was disgusted by this and voted against it but the Conservatives pushed it through.
5) At the end of the full council meeting there was an added motion ‘Freedom of Entry to the Borough – Royal Regiment of fusiliers and the Queen’s Gurkha Signals’.
The motion was: -
That, in pursuance of the provision of s.249(5) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the Council does hereby admit the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the Queens’s Gurkha Signals to be Honorary Freemen of the Borough in recognition and grateful appreciation of the eminent service which these Regiments have rendered to Queen and Country and to the Borough over a period of years; and
that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources and Support, arrange suitable ceremonies to be held on dates to be agreed, at which formal presentations to the Honorary Freemen will be made.
I do not see the council chamber of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council as a suitable place to discuss armed conflict within a week of two members of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers coming home to be buried. This matter is of course very dear to my heart as it should be to all members of the community but on an occasion such as this I pointed out that this should be a non-political matter. It is a matter of respecting the members past and present of the Regiments.
It may remain the case that the local press prefers to report the comments of the Labour councillors above all others.
The press may not report me but no-one
will ever stop me speaking out on behalf
of the good people of Barpool ward.
