Agenda item

To answer questions received under Council Procedure Rule 6.2.

NB      In accordance with the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6.2.9 there will be a maximum of 30 minutes allowed for questions and answers.  Any question not answered within the 30 minute time limit will receive a written reply within 5 working days.

The following questions were asked under Council Procedure Rule 6.2.2:

(a)                Councillor Thomas Janke asked the following question of Councillor Shirley Reynolds, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Learning, Employment and Skills:

“In 2023, after months of effective cross-party collaboration through scrutiny, and a clear commitment from the then Cabinet Member for Education, the Council appeared more than ready to pilot 'School Streets' schemes across the Borough. Given the well-documented benefits of these schemes for children's safety, mental health, and the environment, why has such a pilot not been implemented? What specific barriers prevented its rollout, and how does the Council intend to honour the previous commitment to progressing this initiative?”

In response, Councillor Shirley Reynolds, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Learning, Employment and Skills thanked Councillor Janke for his question and said that, firstly, she wanted to reassure the chamber that, as a result of the focused work from scrutiny, the Council had very much progressed activity to promote active travel to school, reduce car usage and improve road safety for all at the school gate.  She recognised the work of the cross-party group on the initiative, School Streets, that took place during 2021, however the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee later determined to implement an alternative scheme, called A New School Journey, given the wider benefits this approach would bring.  A New School Journey, she said, encompassed multiple activities that promoted active travel to school over and above the offer that would have been provided via School Streets, which largely focused on road closures.  She said that, founded on data and intelligence about journeys to and from school, the Council had worked with a number of schools including Newport Infant and Junior Schools, Lawley Primary School, Ladygrove Primary, Teagues Bridge, Meadows Primary and Aqueduct Primary to support the transition to travelling actively to school and ditching the car.  She said members may recall recent news where over 300 pupils from Lawley Primary school walked to school on one day, with 50 of those joining Telford’s first ever Bike Bus. Councillor Reynolds went on to say that the Council continued to support residents in taking a new journey to school, which continued to grow in popularity.  She said the Council’s work had not and did not stop here, and it was currently working with Lantern Academy and Muxton Primary who were signed up for next academic year with more interested to build on the successes demonstrated to date.  She said that this was a clear demonstration of the Council’s commitment to improve outcomes for children and young people and their active travel choices to and from school and she thanked those members involved in the initial scrutiny work on School Streets from which the Council’s successful New Journey to School project was founded.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Janke asked whether the Cabinet Member would be willing to recommit the Council’s pilot to school streets schemes in the future to unlock the significant potential they offered, not just the safer journeys but for healthier communities overall and in the spirit of collaboration and learning from best practice, would she also consider engaging with the new Liberal Democrat administration at Shropshire Council who had successfully pursued and implemented several such schemes, many of which were now permanent features delivering clear benefits to both pupils and local residents.

In response, Councillor Reynolds said that this administration was really clear, that knew where it was going and what it was doing, and this was not just about shutting some streets to stop cars going there, which could divide the community with some in favour of it and others not.  She said that the Administration was working with the users, the schools and the children and was re-educating the parents, which was how this should be approached.  Councillor Reynolds went on to say that this approach fitted into the Council’s Health and Well-being Strategy, which school streets did not.  She said the Administration was taking a holistic approach to the matter, which was better for the children, for the school and the whole neighbourhood.

In conclusion, Councillor Reynolds said that it would be really helpful when opposition members required the Cabinet to undertake certain projects then they should have voted for these in the Budget.

(b)                  Councillor Raj Mehta asked the following question of Councillor Ollie Vickers, Cabinet Member for the Economy and Transport:

“Please can the Cabinet Member for the Economy and Transport provide an update on the council run bus services, including on how we can boost public transport connectivity in communities like mine in Horsehay and Lightmoor?”

In response, Councillor Ollie Vickers, Cabinet Member for the Economy and Transport, thanked Councillor Mehta for his question and said that members would be aware of the excellent progress this Council had made in providing affordable and well-connected bus services for residents across the borough.

 
He said that the Council first launched the work express 100 service in December 2022, which now complete, provided an incredible 4,000 passenger trips a month, connecting residents to education, employment and services. Since then, he said, the Council had continued to evolve and grow its bus services, which now totalled six separate routes across the borough from service 99 to 104.  Councillor Vickers was pleased to confirm that these services had completed over 600,000 passenger trips in the last few years, which is fantastic news.

 
Councillor Vickers said that all this enhanced connectivity came with being among the lowest bus fares in the country at £2 an adult and £1 a child. He said that the Council had worked hard to maintain these fares against a backdrop of changes to government policy in increasing the fare cap to £3.

 
Councillor Vickers said that the Council would continue to evolve its bus services and, next week, would see further improvements to routes and timetabling and all with enhancing connectivity and founded on resident feedback.  Earlier this year, he said, the Council launched its Demand Responsive Transport service, which linked residents of the Gorge to Madeley and the Town Centre, and, last month, the Council expanded that connectivity to Princess Royal Hospital and would continue to do so.  Councillor Vickers was pleased to confirm that, as a council that listened to residents, from September, it would be rolling out the demand responsive transport offer to a number of residents of Horsehay and Lightmoor that currently did not have access to a public bus service, with low cost £2 fare for adults and that further details would follow shortly.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Mehta asked the Cabinet Member if he could update the Chamber as to changes to bus services that would be rolled out in Telford and Wrekin from next week.

In response, Councillor Vickers said that the Administration was redefining public transport across the Borough by connecting communities with affordable and reliable bus services.  He said that from Monday 21 July, the Council would roll-out a series of service enhancements across its Council-run network, which would include more frequent buses on key routes, improved early evening and weekend coverage, better access to timetable information, clearer and more accessible service and all with the £2 fare cap.  He said that many of the improvements to the Council-run bus services the Administration was making next week, was as a result of feedback received from residents on the bus survey, which was conducted at the end of 2024.

Councillor Vickers said that he was proud of the collaborative process the Council had been on together and the fact that residents had been able to play their part in shaping the bus service they would like to see across Telford and Wrekin.  He said that this proved that the Council was delivering on the priorities of residents across the borough.

Councillor Vickers said that Councillor Bill Tomlinson would be pleased to hear that the Administration was delivering on one of its promises to reinstate the hourly service on the 99 route, which would give more certainty and connectivity to residents there.  He said it was a promise kept and a promise delivered and that the raft of changes would also include an earlier timetable and improved reliability on the Work Express 100 service, which, again, he said was a promise kept and a promise delivered.

More regular service on the 102, as well as a brand-new Saturday service to help people get around at the weekend, a promise kept, and a promise delivered.  He said that this Labour Administration was redefining public transport across Telford and Wrekin and was only just getting started.

(c)                Councillor Andrew Eade asked the following question of Councillor Lee Carter, Leader of the Council:

“At an earlier meeting of this Full Council on 27 February this year, the Administration tabled a report a report concerning CSE markers for the year to date.

Having noted that referrals to the Council’s Cate Team had significantly increased and that eight months figures had been omitted from the report, I requested as an elected member and Corporate Parent, that they be made available to me.

Despite the Leader of the Council stating that he would look into the matter, I have heard nothing over the past four months and would ask Councillor Carter why he hasn’t responded?”

In response, Councillor Lee Carter, Leader of the Council said that he had been clear, over many years, that CSE should not be used as a political football and he knew that colleagues in this Chamber agreed.  He said he assumed that Councillor Eade was not deliberately misrepresenting the contents of the report he referred to in an effort to be political but, rather that he had misunderstood the report that was presented in February. Councillor Carter went on to say that contrary to what Councillor Eade had said, there was not a significant increase in referrals to the CATE team for CSE.  He said that, in 2023/24, there were 54 cases progressed to the CATE team, which compared to 65 as an average figure across the three-year baseline report covering 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23.  He said the case was that this represented a higher percentage of the number of overall referrals into the Council where CSE had been identified as a concern.  Councillor Carter said this was testament to the work that this Council, and its officers had carried out to make sure that the Council took a robust approach to tackling CSE and gave him assurance that the Council was providing more intensive support to those at risk of CSE.  He added that the number of those identified as having been exploited, went down in the 23/24 reporting period, compared to the average across the three-year baseline report.  He said that reports into the Council for CSE concerns accounted for 1.2% of all referrals compared with 1.4% against the baseline report.

Councillor Carter said that, in terms of the omission of eight months of data, again, this was not correct and that Councillor Eade ran the risk of misleading the borough’s residents.  Councillor Carter said the report was a report on annual data and so was reporting the figures in the previous reporting year, which was 2023/24.  The data for 2023/24, he said, was a full year of data, not a four-month period so to suggest otherwise was irresponsible. 

Councillor Carter said for those, such as Councillor Eade, who had a deep interest in matters relating to CSE, he would now know that since that meeting, Baroness Casey had reported her findings on a national level and had made a recommendation that authorities should report data in the way that this Council did.  He said that Baroness Casey also made recommendations about improving the data that was available and, since then, the Council’s hardworking officers had been working to ensure that the figures for 2024/25 took into account those recommendations wherever possible, recognising that some of it required input from partners such as police and health.  In conclusion, Councillor Carter said that the Council had taken that approach because it was important to it that it adopt its approach to reflect any learning it could and that was what was important.  He said that work was ongoing.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Eade asked whether Councillor Carter would make this information available to him, yes, or no?

In response, Councillor Carter said that there had been no omission of data from the report in question and, as Leader, he had produced more reports on CSE to this Chamber than he (Councillor Eade) had done in the four years he had been Leader of the Council and that he would continue to do so.

(d)                Councillor Stephen Bentley asked the following question of Councillor Richard Overton, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Highways, Housing and Enforcement:

"Can the Cabinet member responsible, provide a total and full breakdown of how much council tax or government grant is currently being spent in Telford and Wrekin to support refugees and asylum seekers?”

In response, Councillor Richard Overton, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Highways, Housing and Enforcement said that the Home Office was responsible for refugees and asylum. He was sure members would appreciate that the Council spends none of its council tax revenue on supporting national immigration programmes.

In relation to government grants, Councillor Overton said that the Council received a number of grants, for example, transport, public health, social care, education to name a few areas and, as with council tax, grants were not broken down into specific demographics.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Bentley asked Councillor Overton to confirm how this correlated in the alarming rise in the last six years of residents in the borough of 99.65% now in receipt of personal independent payments (PIP), which placed Telford and Wrekin, as the local authority with the largest increase in the West Midlands.

In response, Councillor Overton said that the question was now not related to asylum, but to PIP, which had nothing to do with the first question.

(e)                  The published question from Councillor Stephen Bentley to Councillor Carolyn Healy, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Planning and Sustainability was WITHDRAWN.