Agenda item

The Leader of the Council or the appropriate Member of the Cabinet or the Chairman of a Committee to answer any questions on any matter relating to the powers and duties of the County Council, or which affects the county.

(Note:  Notice of questions in respect of the above item on the agenda must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Anne Gowing in Democratic Services by 12 noon on Wednesday 12 March 2014).

Notice of 10 questions had been received. The questions and replies are attached as Appendix B.

A number of supplementary questions were asked and a summary of the main points is set out below:

(Q1) Mr Bennison asked the Leader of the Council to comment on the Surrey Apprentice who had been forward for ‘Apprentice of the Year’. The Leader said that the apprentice was hoping to win the award.

(Q2) Mr Robert Evans asked the Cabinet Member for Business Services for details of the third party who was holding the outstanding amount due to the Council and if and when it may be received. Mr Harrison said that some of the losses were attributable to the Police Authority and confirmed that the Audit and Governance Committee took a cautious approach to investment. The Cabinet Member confirmed that, whilst the balance is expected to be received, it is subject to capital controls and currently there is no indication when they will be lifted. Mr Selleck queried whether any Icelandic Banks had a triple ‘A’ rating in 2005/06 and asked the Cabinet Member for Business Services to review both the overall structure for investing and also interbank lending with other Local Authorities. The Cabinet Member said that valuable lessons had already been learnt from the collapse of the Icelandic economy.

(Q4) Mr Cooksey requested that both the data set on gully assets and the survey on all visible highway drainage assets, when completed, be made available to all Members. This request was agreed by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment.

(Q5) Mrs White thanked the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment for the apology and asked for reassurance that procedures with the contractors have been reviewed and the appropriate notifications would be made in future. The Cabinet Member referred to the written response and drew attention to the last two paragraphs which said that this bus stop improvement scheme was being delivered as part of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) programme, which had been approved by Guildford Local Committee.

(Q8) Mr Orrick referred to the last paragraph of the Cabinet Member for Children and Families’ written response and asked if she would be available to meet again with some of the key players, to ensure that there was maximum consultation in relation to future short breaks provision. Mr Hodge asked the Cabinet Member, who agreed, that it was unhelpful when Members raised questions in the middle of the consultation process.  The Cabinet Member said that the period of public consultation would end on 24 April 2014 and until it finishes, she was unable to comment because she will not want to influence the outcome. However, she confirmed that parents would be involved in the analysis of the comments.

(Q9) Mr Robert Evans said that residents were concerned about some of the pothole repairs and asked the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment for the number of cases where quality was an issue because he considered that short term temporary repairs were not best use of Council funds. The Cabinet Member referred to his written response which set out details of Surrey County Council quality inspection team reviews and the standards expected. However, he acknowledged that since December 2013 the percentage of passes for permanent repairs had dropped below target which was due in part to the number of potholes caused by the adverse weather but this is now reverting back as the County Council moves towards the end of the recovery phase.

(Q10) Mr Orrick asked the Cabinet Member for Business Services why there was some discrepancy in the figures provided in 2012 and those provided in 2014 and cited an example in Waverley Borough. Mr Essex said that the number of claims appeared to differ widely across the Boroughs and Districts. The Cabinet Member said that discrepancies could occur when claims were carried over into the next financial year, that each claim was judged on its own merit and she would expect regional differences. She also said that the number of claims in 2013/14 was likely to be higher.