Charlie Stewart (Labour Candidate, Manor):

Local traders on Stockport Market have set-up their own consultation on the Council’s plans to relocate our historic Market. This was in competition with one on SMBC’s website which was accused of offering loaded questions designed to get the response the Council wanted.

Does the Leader of the Council agree that it is a sign of failure in communication to have 2 seemingly rival consultation documents in circulation at the same time, and does she feel that enough time was given for this consultation which took place for 3 weeks over the Easter period?

Cllr Sue Derbyshire – Leader of the Council (Liberal Democrat, Manor) responds:

No I don’t think it’s a failure in consultation. I think it is part of the joy of our democracy that the traders if they felt that the council consultation did not fully reflect what they wanted, they could do their own. We had a very significant response to the Council’s consultation, much of it online. You’re right, it was over the Easter period but it was not over the school holidays and I think the size of the response indicates that most people were able to access and respond as they wish. There is still quite a bit of analysis to do on that.

The traders have today, I think, given us a summary of their responses and in any consideration going forward, we will take into account what they have done. So, it’s not a rival, we see it…as further information.

As for the questions, no language is completely neutral and you can have debates about language a great deal. I’m very happy for people to put both questionnaires together and think where there might be some loading. As I say, it’s very difficult, English is a wonderful language, but it isn’t neutral.

There tends to be values and that’s why I don’t like questionnaires and we try to get professional people to do that, to try and keep it as open as possible. But no, I’m happy the traders ran their own consultation and as I say I’m very grateful they have supplied us with a summary of the information they have got, we have a great deal of data from the one that was done by the Council and that will help to inform decision making.

Comment: Communication by the Council on the plans to move Stockport Market has been extremely poor and the Labour Group do not agree with the response of the Leader of the Council that this has been a triumph for democracy.

Consultation responses should be properly assessed before decisions are made, and the questions asked should not be loaded, otherwise the consultation process is a sham. Blaming the English language for the wording of the questions is a laughable excuse.

Yvonne Guariento (Labour Candidate, Reddish South):

As part of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework ‘call for sites’ process, Woodhall Fields within Reddish Vale Country Park, has been earmarked as a potential site for future housing development.

Understandably this has caused significant concern amongst local residents who value local greenspaces and can’t see the logic of any suggestion the site is suitable for housing when compared to the hundreds of brownfield sites identified across Greater Manchester.

Can the Leader of the Council reassure residents in Reddish that Woodhall Fields will not be included in future Council plans which identify sites for housing development in Stockport?

Cllr Sue Derbyshire – Leader of the Council (Liberal Democrat, Manor) responds:

Indeed as part of the Greater Manchester strategic framework consultation recently, there was a call for sites and it was exactly that, it was an open call for sites to identify potential sites that were maybe not known to Local Authorities that could possibly provide housing or employment land. It is not an allocation of those sites.

I think it was Councillor Bailey (Labour, Edgeley and Cheadle Heath) in a press release that referred to it as a ‘wish list’ from developers and that’s a really good description of it.

Anyone can put forward a proposal. That will have to be assessed. Only the sites that would be identified in the draft plan which is expected to be published in October would be the ones that had made the cut, so while some of the sites that are being put forward may well be a very useful contribution to across Greater Manchester housing and employment land, many of them I think will be disappointments to the owners or agents of those owners who have put them forward. It’s certainly not an allocation, it’s not a designation and it’s not a decision.

Is it the allotments area you are talking about? Sorry I don’t know the area, but I do know there are some allotments in that area. If it’s in the green belt and it’s very valued by the community, then it’s extremely unlikely that it would be deemed to be suitable. But every single site would be assessed – it’s an open process, so people could put forward anything they liked and as I say, some of the sites are probably more likely than others and some are very unlikely I feel.

Comment: Stockport has had more than 1 in 5 of the total sites submitted across Greater Manchester during this process so far, and Labour Councillors and campaigners are committed to fighting for both the provision of adequate housing and the protection of valuable open and greenspaces which make our borough such a great place to live and work in.

Cllr Walter Brett (Labour, Reddish South):

What assessment has the Deputy Leader of the Council made as to the financial impact on the Council and on Council employees of new flat rate state pension contributions?

Does he agree that these new arrangements, effective from the start of the new financial year, are in effect a tax increase for 6 million workers and a significant additional burden for public sector employers?

Cllr Iain Roberts – Deputy Leader of the Council (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle and Gatley) responds:

This first came up at Executive Reports on 13th August 2013, following the budget of 20th March 2013, where the Chancellor announced the introduction of a single tier state pension to come in from 6th April 2016 which was a year earlier than originally planned.

From this date today therefore, employers offering a defined benefit pension schemes, which includes the Local Government Pension Scheme and Teacher Schemes will no longer receive the 3.4% rebate against employers NI contributions.

The Executive Report added that there are significant financial implications arising from this change for employers like Stockport and others who offer this type of pension scheme. The Council is changing and the workforce is reducing in size, making it difficult to calculate the precise impact of this change. However, based on current staffing budgets, from 2013, this is, it could add a further £2.5 million to employment costs along non- school services and group companies, plus a further £2.3 million of costs in schools.

The 2016-17 budget that this Council approved last month, included recognition of the above and provided for an increase in cash limits of £2.181 million to cover this pressure on our budget. In addition to the increase in employers costs there will be additional costs to employees, who are in the Local Government Pension Scheme as they will no longer receive NI rebates of 1.4% that was previously applied contracted out schemes. Staff were provided with a reminder of these changes today by e-mail and you can certainly have a look at that which I think, all means that the answer to your question is yes, I absolutely do agree that the changes provide not only additional pressure on employers, but a cut to employee’s take home pay.

Comment: This change is a stealth tax from the Government which affected Councils and their employees from 1st April, adding significant further pressures on budgets at a time when the Tories are already imposing savage cuts on Stockport.

Cllr Wendy Wild (Labour, Davenport and Cale Green):

Will the Deputy Leader of the Council agreed to incorporate a new tax compliance measure into Stockport’s procurement rules, to help increase the pressure on multi-national companies to change their practices, in line with Christian Aid’s ‘Sourced’ campaign?

Cllr Iain Roberts – Deputy Leader of the Council (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle and Gatley) responds:

I’m very happy to take a look at that as we get an awful lot of issues around procurement. I think I was asked today whether I knew whether our contractors that we employed use British Steel. Unfortunately I don’t as it happens, but it’s an interesting question to ask.

I’m very happy to look at that as I think it seems to be a bit of a minefield around what we can legally do and how we can find ways to do things but certainly through the STAR procurement, where we work jointly with Trafford and Rochdale Councils, I’m sure we can take a look at that. If you would like to send me details I would be very grateful.

Comment: The importance of the Council prioritising ethical procurement is something that concerns a lot of residents and is something which members of all parties in Stockport are rightly lobbied on in their casework. A Labour Council would lead on this subject and build on previous successes we’ve had in improving procurement practices in Stockport to make them more ethical.

Dena Ryness (Labour Candidate, Stepping Hill):

Great Moor Library is a well-used community facility which is highly valued by local residents.

As recently as 2014 the Liberal Democrats cut the opening hours from 44 to 37 and made cuts to staffing. Following the further cuts agreed on 3rd March our local community are rightly anxious about the future of the library.

Can the Executive Member for Safe and Resilient Communities guarantee for residents in Stepping Hill that the Council will keep our local library open and that there won’t be further cuts to the dedicated staff who work there?

Cllr Shan Alexander – Executive Councillor (Liberal Democrat, Marple South) responds:

As you know in Stockport, we do value the library service, that’s why we have not closed any libraries so far. We have no plans to close any libraries, but we are doing a review of all libraries at present and we have consulted with various people, including councillors, residents and librarians. We have done a full consultation and a full report will be out, hopefully in the summer.

Comment: This is a very reasonable question to ask, and residents will not be reassured by an evasive response from the Executive which confirms that any decision has been delayed until after the local elections. The only way to ensure a sustainable future for our local libraries is to vote Labour on 5th May.

Cllr David Sedgwick (Labour, Heatons North):

The Labour Party has recently announced that there is to be a commitment to making Personal Social Health and Economic (PSHE) education, a priority in all state funded schools.

Does the Executive Member agree with me that this will help take on a number of challenges which our schools face and our children face including mental health challenges, radicalisation and sexualisation?

Does she support my calls for this to be rolled out across Stockport [where PHSE is currently not provided]?

Cllr Shan Alexander – Executive Councillor (Liberal Democrat, Marple South) responds:

Yes, we have always supported schools. You know how strongly I feel about schools and the education, economy, the health, all the various areas of work and we do support our local schools, our community schools very strongly on those things.

Comment: Whilst a positive response, this fails to address the question which relates to the fact that the offer of PHSE has actually been declining nationwide at a time when it is becoming more important than ever for our young people. Labour will ensure that PHSE is given the priority that it deserves to be.

Cllr Wendy Wild (Labour, Davenport and Cale Green):

The Executive on 22nd March signed off on £150,000 of transitional funding for voluntary and community organisations.

This support is extremely welcome, but can the Executive Member inform Councillors, and more importantly the groups affected, when this lifeline might start to become available?

Does he share my concern that as the new financial year has already begun, that by the time any application process for the additional funding has been completed, many of the organisations it aims to help may no longer be in existence?

Cllr Keith Holloway – Executive Councillor (Liberal Democrat, Cheadle and Gatley) responds:

As Council will recollect, yes, as part of the budget setting we did agree funding to support voluntary groups who are currently not part, or in particular of the targeted prevention alliance or the wellbeing and independence network. We are still working on the criteria that we need to set for those organisations.

The timescales [are challenging], one reason for that being that we are now within the election period and clearly I would want to see Councillors having some involvement in that process.

It’s not now possible to launch that process until the local elections are out of the way in May. As soon as that has happened, then we will be able to launch that process. Groups will then know the process to work to, and we will then be able to allocate the funding as soon as possible.

Cllr Wild: Could I ask for clarification that you are actually saying that this cannot proceed until after the elections as it is part of purdah?

Cllr Holloway: At present, because whatever happens, I really would want to ensure that Councillors from all Groups would have the opportunity for involvement in that.

It seems right to ensure that we can launch that after the local elections so that is the way it will be happening. What I hope we will be able to do, is to be able to put the timetable and the criteria out as soon as we can, but the actual allocation process does, I think, need to wait until early May.

Comment: The voluntary and community groups which will be supported by this investment play a vital role in supporting vulnerable local residents across Stockport, so the Labour Group would like to see this crucial lifeline for them expedited so that the Council quickly delivers on the promises it has made. We don’t see how purdah is relevant to this process.

Cllr Andy Sorton (Labour, Brinnington and Central):

Before Christmas the Tories sneaked out a report from the Department of Education highlighting how families most in need are worst affected in areas where Sure Start Centres face cuts, with poorer mental health and worse outcomes for parents and children.

In light of this Government research, will the Executive Member for Supporting Children make a commitment to local families that neither our 4 Sure Start, any of our 6 Children and Family Centres or any of our 8 satellite Children’s Centres will face further cuts as part of her future budget plans?

Cllr Wendy Meikle – Executive Councillor (Liberal Democrat, Offerton) responds:

I am not aware of the report and the consequences to children [it details]. I am aware…[that] in Stockport we’ve got 4 Sure Start Children’s Centres placed in the most needy areas. We’ve also got 14 Family and Children’s Centres in Stockport.

I remember when I took over the portfolio about 3 years ago, we did make some cuts to the Childrens’ centres and that was to the staffing. At the time we had 4 full time teaching staff and we cut those down to 1, which I accepted the recommendations from officers because the centres were established and we no longer needed 4 full time teaching staff.

We are always looking at ways to be more efficient, but we are not closing any Children’s Centres in Stockport.

Cllr Sorton: [The report]…highlighted how attending these centres, specifically mothers attending these centres, actually improves mental health [outcomes].

I am a bit concerned about your comment about looking for efficiencies, because efficiencies…in this case will have a detrimental effect.

So my question would have been, or it still is actually taking into account the content of that report, will you give an assurance to the Councillors in this chamber, and a commitment to local families, that the 4 Sure Start Centres, the 6 Children and Family Centres and the 8 Satellite Centres won’t face any further cuts in the [next] budget?

Cllr Meikle: …like I’ve already said Councillor Sorton, we have no plans to close any Children’s Centres. When I’m talking about efficiencies, it’s about the way that they are run. The 14 family or satellite centres were managed by staff within Children’s Services.

They are now managed by library or school staff, the space that is. They still all provide the statutory provisions that we deliver.

Comment: ‘No plans to close centres or cut budgets’ isn’t the same thing as explicitly ruling them out, and it will be concerning for local families to hear that the Lib Dem Executive, who have made cuts to Children’s Centres in Stockport in the recent past, could look at this area again for savings.

The Department for Education report clearly highlights how closures to Children’s Centres are false economies. A vote for Labour on 5th May is a vote to safeguard them.