Question 1
With reference to the Council’s own constitution published on its own website and dated 31 October 2023, in particular ‘Section 4 – The Full Council’. How does the Council feel the gendered language, which refers to Members and Mayor as ‘he’ in the constitution - language which is seen to reinforce glass ceilings rather than break them down, help the social mobility of women in Gedling Borough?
Question 2
I note that the Council’s constitution reads ‘If the questioner is not present at the meeting, the question will not be dealt with. In exceptional circumstances, in consultation with the Chief Executive, The Mayor has the discretion to put the question in the absence of the questioner, to defer it to the next meeting or to direct that a written response is provided’. My view is that the very tone of this aspect of the constitution deters people’s participation in our local democracy.
In 2023, given the technology available to us, I believe that a constitution that dictates a member of the public must attend a meeting limits people’s participation in our democracy. I believe that people with caring commitments, varied working patterns, NHS shift workers, people who have challenges with accessibility etc, should have full access to our democracy. These don’t strike me as ‘exceptional circumstances. The reasons I cannot attend this evening are far from exceptional, they are my ordinary weekly commitments.
Does the Council not agree that people’s participation in our democracy should not rest on the ‘discretion’ of the Mayor or Chief Executive and should be fully backed and protected within the constitution?
Question 3
What plans does Gedling Borough Council have in place to mitigate the use of council property being used to display election campaign material?
Question 4
Given that over several years there has been issues with Gedling Borough Council’s responses to Freedom of Information requests, for example:
• FOI 11304 – late response attributed to the ‘a issue with our FOI collation system’. The FOI was only answered once the requester chased the Council.
• FOI 11396 – wrong information was given in the response to the request. This was only picked up because the requester challenged the data. Gedling Borough Council responded, ‘we made an error on this question’.
• FOI 8728 – Late response
• FOI 12399 – Late response and partially answered response. Requester had to chase the Council for a response. The reason for the late reply was ‘This was due to no other reason that workload issues and annual leave.’ The reason the FOI was only partially answered was because ‘It would appear that I [the responder] was not provided with the full details of your query’. The requester had to chase the remaining parts of the query.
• FOI 12022 – Regarding Levelling Up bids. Initially the response said ‘We do not hold any feedback for round one, as this was dealt with by officers who are no longer employed by the Council. I have included the feedback for round two as a PDF document.’ When the requester queried this they were told in a follow up email ‘I have spoken with colleagues and found that feedback for round 1 of the Levelling Up Fund was given verbally at a meeting, attached are notes that were taken by an officer in attendance.’
How does the Council plan to address the issues with the way it handles FOI requests alongside balancing the wellbeing of it colleagues and allowing proper scrutiny within its statutory obligations?
Question 5
Given that the setting up of a Gedling Social Mobility Commission was an objective for the 2020-2023 Gedling Plan, and that it has been over 7 months since its only meeting, and with no further meetings currently scheduled.
Does Gedling Borough Council feel they have adequately seized an opportunity to use the expertise available to review the current social mobility of our residents and consider how all our communities might be enabled to reach their full potential?
Question 6
Communication is a two-way process.
I do not consider that residents near site H8 Killisick Fields were given the same opportunities to have their say about the Local Plan as those in other villages, for example no actual ‘event’ was held. I do not consider concerns raised by residents on the Development Brief 2019 consultation were properly addressed. Friends of the Hobbucks as a group were omitted from both the consultation processes.
Having decided not to sell their land on Killisick Fields in August 22 citing residents’ views, a year later G.B.C. change their minds. The decision to re-consult was made by one person ‘The Leader’ and then voted through by a small committee, one in which only 3 members need to be present to make a decision. When re-consulted, 198 residents responded. There was a parallel petition raised, signed by 1900 people, 1100 of whom were ‘local’ which were not allowed to be heard at the earlier Full Council meeting. My concerns and those of residents were not, in my view, properly considered, including my own concern around health and safety on The Hobbucks following any development on site H8. The proposal suggested objections could be mitigated, leading to the proposal to sell the land being voted through, in my opinion.
My question at the last Full Council Meeting was not fully answered. A questioner has no right to respond even if their question has not been answered.
I have made several requests to the council for information, and raised a number of queries in relation to Killisick fields which I do not consider have been responded to or answered properly. I have raised concerns under the Council’s Whistleblowing policy – they were downgraded to complaints (despite being matters of public interest).
My concerns around conflicts of interest, predetermination, use of the planning process to further the Council’s aims and Freedom to Speak Up within the Council have also not been answered satisfactorily. I wrote to 41 Councillors, individually by name, around some of my concerns – receiving only 4 responses.
Responses by the Chief Executive do not answer my questions, tending to repeat what I have said. He suggests I “may not be happy with decisions taken...” – whilst yes, I am unhappy with decisions, my communications have always been about failings in process and have largely been ignored.
I have spoken to other residents who have felt the same when communicating with the Council.
I have offered numerous times
to speak in person about these matters – my offer has been
entirely ignored.
Gedling Borough Council has suggested I seek independent advice or
approach the Ombudsman. I have contacted them and await the
allocation of a case officer. This is a long process, which will
mean the Council can go ahead with any sale before the Ombudsman
can have any input and while my questions remain unanswered.
Considering Gedling Borough Council’s Customer Promise and,
bearing in mind that a response is not necessarily an answer, how
should residents communicate with Gedling Borough Council to ensure
their concerns are considered, and questions answered in full, in
an equitable, open and transparent manner?
Minutes:
Six questions had been received, however question six had been withdrawn as the questioner had expressed the view that they felt the question would not be answered in full and had asked that the reason be minuted.
The remaining 5 questioners were unable to attend so their questions were read out by the Chief Executive and answered by the Leader of the Council, as follows:
Question 1
With reference to the Council’s own constitution published on its own website and dated 31 October 2023, in particular ‘Section 4 – The Full Council’. How does the Council feel the gendered language, which refers to Members and Mayor as ‘he’ in the constitution - language which is seen to reinforce glass ceilings rather than break them down, help the social mobility of women in Gedling Borough?
Answer 1
It is recognised that some of the language within the Council’s Procedure Rules at Section 4 of the Constitution is dated and gender specific. At the Council meeting on 12July 2023, it was agreed to establish a working group to review the Procedure Rules and the working group met in October to discuss and propose amendments. One of those proposals was to review and amend the language within the Rules to make it easier to understand and remove the gender specific references.
At the moment a new draft of the procedure rules is underway to be brought back to the Working group later this year with a view to the Council considering a new set of Rules in the New Year.
Question 2
I note that the Council’s constitution reads ‘If the questioner is not present at the meeting, the question will not be dealt with. In exceptional circumstances, in consultation with the Chief Executive, The Mayor has the discretion to put the question in the absence of the questioner, to defer it to the next meeting or to direct that a written response is provided.’ My view is that the very tone of this aspect of the constitution deters people’s participation in our local democracy.
In 2023, given the technology available to us, I believe that a constitution that dictates a member of the public must attend a meeting limits people’s participation in our democracy. I believe that people with caring commitments, varied working patterns, NHS shift workers, people who have challenges with accessibility etc, should have full access to our democracy. These don’t strike me as ‘exceptional circumstances’. The reasons I cannot attend this evening are far from exceptional, they are my ordinary weekly commitments.
Does the Council not agree that people’s participation in our democracy should not rest on the ‘discretion’ of the Mayor or Chief Executive and should be fully backed and protected within the constitution?
Answer 2
It is accepted there may be a number of valid reasons why a member of the public, who wishes to put a question to this council, may be unable to attend the meeting in person. For this reason, the Constitution does give the Mayor discretion to consider whether a question can be put in the absence of the questioner. It is for the Mayor to consider what might amount to exceptional circumstances.
As Councillors we welcome the participation of the public through questions to the Council and as indicated in my previous answer, the Council are currently reviewing Procedure Rules to consider how they can be improved. The Rules in relation to questions from the public will form part of the review and as such the points raised in your question will be taken into account.
Question 3
What plans does Gedling Borough Council have in place to mitigate the use of council property being used to display election campaign material?
Answer 3
This Council adheres to legislation and guidance in relation to elections set out by the government and the regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral Commission. In terms of council property being used to display campaign material, this is something that is governed by the Local Government Act which notes restrictions regarding the “pre-election period”. The “pre-election period” is a period of around 6 weeks before an election when there are extremely specific rules about what a council can or cannot do in terms of publicity and the use of council facilities and resources.
The restrictions state that material relating to wider political issues should not be posted on official notice boards which may be seen by members of the public. It also says that the council facilities and resources should not be used for political gain. These restrictions are consistently applied across the whole council and all staff are briefed on the pre-election period to ensure they are clear of our responsibilities.
If any member of staff or the public notice any campaign material on council property, or anything they are not sure of, then this should be reported to the elections team who will investigate it further.
Question 4
Given that over several years there has been issues with Gedling Borough Council’s responses to Freedom of Information requests, for example:
• FOI 11304 – late response attributed to the ‘an issue with our FOI collation system’. The FOI was only answered once the requester chased the Council.
• FOI 11396 – wrong information was given in the response to the request. This was only picked up because the requester challenged the data. Gedling Borough Council responded, ‘we made an error on this question’.
• FOI 8728 – Late response.
• FOI 12399 – Late response and partially answered response. Requester had to chase the Council for a response. The reason for the late reply was ‘This was due to no other reason that workload issues and annual leave.’ The reason the FOI was only partially answered was because ‘It would appear that I [the responder] was not provided with the full details of your query’. The requester had to chase the remaining parts of the query.
• FOI 12022 – Regarding Levelling Up bids. Initially the response said ‘We do not hold any feedback for round one, as this was dealt with by officers who are no longer employed by the Council. I have included the feedback for round two as a PDF document.’ When the requester queried this, they were told in a follow up email ‘I have spoken with colleagues and found that feedback for round 1 of the Levelling Up Fund was given verbally at a meeting, attached are notes that were taken by an officer in attendance.’
How does the Council plan to address the issues with the way it handles FOI requests alongside balancing the wellbeing of its colleagues and allowing proper scrutiny within its statutory obligations?
Answer 4
The main principle behind freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to.
At Gedling Borough Council, we strive to get the information as soon as possible and always in working days, 20 working days. The time limit can be extended by a reasonable period if a qualified exemption applies, and we need additional time to consider the public interest test.
In the year 1April 2022 to 31 March 23, the Council handled a total of 667 requests made under the Freedom of Information Act or the Environmental Information Regulations. From 1April 23 to date the Council has received a total of 485 requests.
Gedling Borough Council is aware that the way some data is organised on the systems sometimes means it has been difficult to locate the information requested. The Council is currently undertaking a review into the ICT systems and data strategy. It is hoped that this strategy will provide some recommendations on data storage and handling that will improve the delivery of FOI responses.
Gedling Borough Council, like other Councils across the country, are being placed under pressure to provide services and meet statutory time frames with less staff. The staff are working extremely hard to provide services to the public and sometimes it is regretful that there are instances when timeframes are missed due to competing pressures and staff shortages. These instances are thankfully very few, but the Council is aware this is an area that needs some consideration to prevent missed response times.
The Council is currently undertaking an internal review of the FOI system working processes. This review aims to review the current working practices and their effectiveness with a view to streamlining the process where possible, to create a more effective working system. It is hoped that the findings of this review along with any recommendations will be implemented in early 2024.
It’s not been added to this, I did ask for it, but the cost of this up to now is running into thousands of pounds and not wanting people to be deterred by not asking questions or FOI and things but please consider it is probably costing one full employee.
Question 5
Given that the setting up of a Gedling Social Mobility Commission was an objective for the 2020-2023 Gedling Plan, and that it has been over 7 months since its only meeting, and with no further meetings currently scheduled.
Does Gedling Borough Council feel they have adequately seized an opportunity to use the expertise available to review the current social mobility of our residents and consider how all our communities might be enabled to reach their full potential?
Answer 5
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and can I start by saying thank you to the questioner for asking the question and to also place on record my thanks to all the people for asking the questions. The fact that we have questions here tonight shows that local democracy is working, and this administration welcomes the accountability around these issues. It gives us a good opportunity to talk about the excellent work that this council does.
In March 2023 Gedling Borough Council held its first meeting of our Gedling Social Mobility Commission and allow me Madam Mayor and this junction to say thank you to Cllr Fox and the officers who are leading this excellent work. We are proud, Madam Mayor, to be one of only a few, I think less than a handful, councils across the country, who have committed to bringing together statutory partner organisations and community organisations as a social mobility commission to help improve life chances and opportunities for young people across the borough.
The commission includes representatives from Gedling Borough Council, there will also be representatives from Nottinghamshire County Council, Nottinghamshire Police, Nottingham Trent University, Gedling Youth Council, Nottingham Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board as well as the voluntary and community sector and the business sector.
The Gedling Social Mobility Commission held its first meeting in March 2023 and the next meeting is scheduled and planned for the 5th of December 2023. Following the first meeting of the commission, there has been a need for a much deeper dive into the extensive data and insights available to help progress the important work of the Social Mobility Commission. The most recent census data for the 2021 census was not made publicly available until the start date of 28th of June 2022 and this is just one key source of data available for the commission’s work. The latest social mobility index which was published by the Government in 2017, ranked Gedling 272nd out of 324 local authorities, one of the worst areas in the country in terms of social mobility, which entirely vindicates this Council’s commitment and this administration’s commitment to tackling the challenges of social mobility in our borough, many of which, may I hasten to point out, Madam Mayor, arise as a result of policy decisions made in Westminster and in Whitehall. This Council is wholeheartedly committed to seeing through the vital work of the social mobility commission, however long it takes. And I will also say that this Council I think has adequately, to seize the phrase from the questioner, the opportunity to bring forward the expertise needed.
I will conclude by just touching on some of the points that were raised by the expert group in the social mobility commission in its first meeting. Careers, advice and information and support for young people, the lack of skills and expertise around bringing together a CV and getting into work, an area this council has been doing amazing work on for many years. Youth engagement and the impact of anti-social behaviour and youth violence in our local area, again an area this council has been leading on for many years whilst we have seen a lack of neighbourhood policing across our Borough.
Early years was touched on, the crying shame in one of the richest countries in the world, of food poverty and fuel poverty, the mental health of our young people and crucially a long discussion on the gaps in data and insight. Shocking lack of data from some of our partners around disabilities particularly, which have now come into sharp focus, as a result of the release of that census data.
Let me just conclude by saying this, Madam Mayor. There are two very good reasons this Labour administration committed to and is deeply committed to finishing the work of this social mobility commission, and it comes back to what I said earlier, because this government has let this borough down. First, we have some of the worst levels of tooth decay amongst young people across our county in Nottinghamshire and we all know why. Because you cannot get access to an NHS dentist as a result of a decision taken in Westminster and Whitehall. And secondly, through poverty, which was discussed in it is first meeting, rising levels of food poverty amongst young children, and we all know why, Madam Mayor. Because this government is not committed to providing free school meals and will not stand behind the children who have empty stomachs when they go to primary school.