This is an opportunity for Members of Council to ask the Mayor, Members of the Executive or the Chairman of any Committee or Sub-Committee a question on notice under Procedure Rule 10.2.

The Mayor reported that 6 questions had been received under Procedure Rule 10.2.

(a)        Councillor Shaw asked the following question for which he had given notice:

“Members will have noted the Press Release 9 September in respect of Key Stage 2 Educational attainments and I ask if there is any further information available?” 

In response to the question, Councillor Cornes the Executive Member for Children’s Services provided a detailed statistical analysis of the national curriculum tests results which showed attainment in Trafford to be well in excess of both national and North West averages. Councillor Cornes welcomed a great set of results which would set great foundations for the children of the Borough’s future. 

(b)        Councillor Freeman asked the following question for which he had given notice:

“Can the Executive Member for Children’s Services please explain the rationale behind the summer retendering of SEN School Transport contracts and the level of personal scrutiny he gave to the process? When was the decision made to retender the Contracts? Why did he not foresee the need to inform Elected Members of the changes and at the same time keep parents/carers of SEN Children transported by Trafford aware of the changes?”

Councillor Cornes, Executive Member for Children’s’ Services advised that a note on the matter had been issued to the Scrutiny Committee and stressed to the Council that there had not been a policy change nor had any changes been made to the eligibility criteria. The decision was within the remit of officer decisions and as was usual practice, Members had not been involved. However, the Council had recognised that the information provided to parents and carers was insufficient and had apologised reservedly for not communicating adequately.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Freeman then asked:

“Does the Executive Member regret the fact that parents of SEN children were not kept informed of the changes and will he now apologise for this? Is it right that some children are now experiencing longer travel times to schools? Did the tendering process take account of individual children’s needs? What assurances can the Executive Member give that this Council is not putting saving money before ensuring our SEN Children are safely transported to and from school?

Can the Executive Member please explain why some contracts would appear to have been wrongly awarded resulting in some private contractors now being paid up to £1800 under the 21 day termination notice for contracts because of failings in the tendering process?

Lastly, with regard to the unfortunate incident where a contractor was sent to collect a child who had tragically died the week before school term commenced, can the Executive Member explain why I am in receipt of an email from a Senior Council Officer stating staff were unaware and had not been informed of the death, yet the Manchester Evening News are informed the Council was advised but this information was not provided to the contractor?

Considering the complexity of the supplementary question, the Executive Member assured Councillor Freeman that he would provide a written response to all the points that had been raised. Councillor Cornes also referred to the related newspaper article and given the circumstances expressed astonishment that the parents had been contacted.

(c)        Councillor Cordingley asked the following question for which he had given notice:

“Can the Executive Member advise how many bins have been reported as lost or stolen since the introduction of fortnightly collections or by year for the last two years if this is not identifiable?

Can he also advise how many of these bins have since been recovered?

And lastly, can the Executive Member advise from the figures which neighbourhoods or postcodes are most at risk of bin theft?”

Responding to the question, Councillor John Reilly, Executive Member for Environment and Operations reported that 2,395 bins had been reported as lost or stolen for the period April 2013 to August 2014 but unfortunately was unable to advise how many had been recovered due to the ambiguity of reporting any subsequently located. Councillor John Reilly advised that, for the period, Gorse Hill and Clifford wards reported 630 and 620 bins lost or stolen respectively, compared to 286 the next highest in Bucklow St. Martins, with the lowest figures being 86 in Flixton and 85 in Davyhulme East. A breakdown on a ward by ward basis could be provided if Members so wished.

Noting the potential number of bins in circulation, Councillor Cordingley asked as a supplementary question whether the Council could start to look at whether bins reported as lost or stolen were appearing on collection days. The Executive Member confirmed that it was something that could be investigated.  

(d)        Councillor Lally asked the following question for which he had given notice:

“The most comprehensive UK survey of musical instrument learning by the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM) finds that while more children than ever are playing, many still have no access and children from lower social groups remain disadvantaged. Do you feel this is representative in Trafford?”

The Executive Member for Children’s Services, Councillor Cornes advised that Trafford Music Service offer every child a chance of learning an instrument and that a quarter of key stage 2 children have this experience. The Executive Member acknowledged that there were barriers to continuing playing afterwards, with finance being one, however, the service looks at targeting children from disadvantaged social groups and to provide subsidised lessons wherever possible.

In asking a supplementary question, Councillor Lally referred to fears expressed earlier in the year about reductions to the music service and out of office hours provision and he wondered if they had been substantiated. It was the Executive Member’s view that the fears were completely unfounded and that Trafford Music Service continues to go from strength to strength, performing well above the national requirement.

(e)        Councillor Acton asked the following question for which he had given notice:

“The most important responsibility a Council has must be to protect and safeguard its children and young people.

Therefore in light of the problems of child sex exploitation exposed in Rotherham I ask the Leader to give assurances to the Council that children in Trafford are not being subjected to sex exploitation.

Accountability and Responsibility is critical in terms of ensuring the protection and safeguarding of our children in the Borough, therefore can the Leader assure the Council that these lines of responsibilities and accountabilities are in place in Trafford.

Further, as a matter of urgency will the Leader agree to organise a detailed member seminar to brief members of Council with regard to all aspects of policy, processes and the reporting and accountabilities as they relate to safeguarding of children and young people?”

In response to the question, the Leader of the Council assured Members that the Council took the risk of child sex exploitation (CSE) very seriously with a well-established multi-agency working group focusing on detection and prevention reporting to the Trafford Safeguarding Children’s Board. The group had developed a CSE prevention strategy with an action plan that was reviewed regularly and revised annually. The reviews include consideration of all new national and individual authority specific reports to ensure any new learning is addressed and the group considered the Rotherham report at its most recent meeting.

Trafford was also a partner in Project Phoenix which was the Greater Manchester partnership response to the learning from Rochdale. Project Phoenix has enabled the development of a coherent response to CSE within Greater Manchester including communication across borders in relation to young people at risk and potential perpetrators. New training had been made available and a pre-planned week of action for Greater Manchester commenced on 12 September for which Trafford was undertaking awareness raising work and launching the new Greater Manchester risk measurement tool for CSE.

Councillor Anstee could not provide an absolute assurance that no young people living in Trafford were at risk but was confident that the Council was alert to the issues of CSE, would never be complacent and would always assume that there was more it could do to maximise the protection of Trafford’s young people. He indicated that he would arrange a briefing session for Members who wish to understand more detail about the issues and the work being undertaken.

Referring, as part of his supplementary question, to the duties and accountability of Members and the complexities of the issues involved, Councillor Acton asked for regular reporting mechanisms to be put in place to ensure all Members have access to the necessary information. Councillor Anstee confirmed that there were already clear lines of responsibility within the Council and that he would undertake to arrange the briefing session as soon as possible.

(f)         Councillor Mrs. Brophy asked the following question for which she had given notice:

“In so many of our iconic UK cities and towns a 30mph limit is seen as “no longer fit for purpose” for most residential streets. This now includes many areas of Greater Manchester (including neighbouring Manchester City Council) where 20 is seen as plenty for the places where people live. This is also in line with recent government encouragement for 20mph limits for residential streets.

Is it therefore time that Trafford Council should consider the move to a “default 20, targeted 30” for residential streets with all its positive benefits?”

Councillor John Reilly, Executive Member for Environment and Operations confirmed that the Council was committed to monitoring developments in other authorities and had estimated that the cost of implementing 20mph limits at £1.9 million due to the necessary signage. Advising that the Council had to evaluate whether such a spend would significantly impact on accident figures, the Executive Member state that he did not agree 30mph limits were no longer fit for purpose but agreed to revisit the issue with Highway Officers and would invite Councillor Mrs. Brophy to attend such a meeting.

Councillor Mrs. Brophy referred in her supplementary question to the public health benefits of lower speed limits and asked how the debate could be widened to include these. Councillor John Reilly indicated that he was aware of the wider health benefits and reaffirmed that he was happy to meet and discuss.