Agenda item

The Chief Executive reported there were two questions from Councillor Stephen Woodliffe, a question from Councillor Judith Skinner, two questions from Councillor Anton Dani and a question from Councillor Brian Rush.

 

The questions from Councillor Dani were directed to Councillor Tracey Abbott who was not present at the meeting, therefore the questions were not asked.

 

 

Question asked by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

Given your involvement in the scenario surrounding the provision of Christmas Lights for Boston, when are Members, and Scrutiny Committee Members in particular, going to have sight of all the documents associated with the procurement process for the provision of Christmas Lights in Boston?

 

Response by Councillor Nigel Welton

 

I understand the Monitoring Officer is currently considering this matter and it would be improper of me to seek to influence any response that the Monitoring Officer will provide following his consideration.

 

Supplemental question asked by Councillor Woodliffe pursuant to paragraph 11.6 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

Under Section 5 of the statutory guidance for overview and scrutiny, issued in May 2019 and adopted by Council in October 2019, scrutiny members have powers to access information.  When will the Monitoring Officer release the information?

 

Response by Councillor Nigel Welton

 

I refer you to my previous answer.

 

 

Question asked by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

According to DEFRA’s Strategy White Paper published in June 2022, DEFRA defines its seafood strategy as ensuring the delivery of a prosperous seafood sector and, with that, healthier and more sustainable diets achieved by all.  DEFRA initiated the UK Seafood Fund in December 2021 to support the long-term future of the UK fisheries and seafood sector.

 

Boston’s cockle fishing fleet is facing ruin following Eastern-IFCA’s recent decision to curtail access to the Wash fishing grounds.  Given that Boston’s fishing fleet is one of Boston’s few remaining local industries, what practical assistance is the Executive of Boston Borough Council planning to give Boston’s fishermen to ensure the survival of this vital local industry?

 

Response by Councillor Nigel Welton

 

To date I have as you know organised a member meeting that enabled representative from the industry to address members of the council and present their concerns this invitation was also extended to our MP, who attended.

At a full council meeting following this a meeting a representative of the fishing industry asked a question of me as portfolio holder. This was followed up with a meeting with him where a letter was drafted and sent to the relevant minister. This letter and its response was forwarded to all members of the council.

 

Your response personal to me via email was:-

 

Hello Nigel

 

Thank you for your message and the attachment.

 

Well, the attachment seems to merely explain the procedure for dealing with issues, and nothing more.  It’s now up to Matt Warman to support Boston’s fishing industry by delivering a result that resolves the issues.  We’ve done our bit in highlighting the issues, but we can do no more: it’s all up to Matt now.

 

Thanks again for supporting colleagues and Boston’s fishermen.

 

Regards

Stephen

 

Even though as a lower tier council our remit is very narrow, this is very frustrating however I and the department continue as many other members of this council do to raise these issues in any arena where it is appropriate.

 

In addition to my involvement on a political level I requested the economic development team to examine the situation.  They are currently in conversations with colleagues at the Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk looking at parallel concerns, if any across the region that can be galvanised to enable a holistic ‘single voice’ approach of local authority support for our fishing sector.

 

It is our understanding that the Marine Maritime Organisation (MMO), who has the responsibility to perform quality assurance on the byelaw and any supporting evidence provided has received the IFCA Wash Cockles and Mussels byelaw for quality assurance. We are of the understanding that the Boston fishing fleet have submitted comments as part of the consultation process and that this process is still underway.

 

However, approximately £65 million in grant funding is available through the Infrastructure Scheme is part of the UK Seafood Fund. We are more than happy to work closely with and will encourage representatives of the Boston fishing fleet to apply for funding especially in areas of improved capability at harbours, processing, and aquaculture facilities and fleet modernisation.

 

Round 1 is now closed for applications. However, Round 2 will open shortly, and will focus on improved capability at ports, harbours, processing, and aquaculture facilities.

Further rounds will open later in 2022. They will focus on fleet modernisation and recreational sea fishing.

 

I hope this provides some reassurance that we continue to work with all those involved to provide as much assistance that we can.

 

 

Supplemental question asked by Councillor Woodliffe pursuant to paragraph 11.6 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

The shellfish industry is an important contributor to the local economy, the fishermen are fighting to preserve their livelihood and looking to the Council for support.  What strategy does the Executive have in hand if the cockle industry ceases to exist?

 

Response by Councillor Nigel Welton

 

The Economic Development Team are well experienced in dealing with the fall-out from industry and have access to resources if needed. All Councillors should be involved in making representations to different bodies and continue to fight their corner.

 

Question asked by Councillor Judith Skinner pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

Could Councillor Goodale inform the Council what date he was first aware of the letter sent to the council from Christmas in Boston dated April 2022, stating that they could not put on the Christmas light display without further funding and what steps he took regarding this matter.

 

Response by Councillor Paul Goodale

 

I first became aware of the letter in May and because there was a comment regarding a grant BTAC had given the Group within it, it was subsequently provided to the first quorate meeting of the committee in order to inform Members of the Community Group’s decision not to accept the grant of £5,000 this financial year.

 

Supplemental question asked by Councillor Skinner pursuant to paragraph 11.6 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

Why did you not raise it with the portfolio holder?

 

Response by Councillor Paul Goodale

 

The letter was taken to the first available meeting.  Unfortunately the July meeting was inquorate so it was circulated at the following meeting.   The letter was not solely addressed to me it was to all Members. 

 

Christmas lights is part of the visitor economy not a BTAC function.  The Council as a body decided not to fund Christmas lights, BTAC is governed by that decision.  If a community group had asked for a grant it would have been considered. 

 

I assumed the Portfolio holder had been informed as being responsible for town centre management and is the Cabinet liaison member for BTAC.

 

Question asked by Councillor Brian Rush pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

Councillor Skinner, would you agree that it is a sad state of affairs, when we have to spend scarce public money, on security measures such as those that have been introduced.

 

Whilst I am quite sure that these measures will be a comfort to us all, it is also sad that this administration have now had to introduce these new, but now necessary, security measures, and indeed, despite the additional public expense, it is clear that we have also now had to employ extra security staff, to see that these room barriers are being utilized properly to divide the public viewing gallery from the Council meetings area.

Would I be right then in assuming, that all of these security measures, have come as an extra cost to the public purse?

 

With that in mind, would you please now tell me, and all of the people of Boston Borough, just how much public money has now, had to be spent, in order to protect deliver and utilize all of these public security measures?

 

Response by Councillor Paul Skinner

 

Thank you for your question Councillor Rush.

 

There have been a number of national events that raised significant concerns regarding the safety and security of elected members. Indeed both Jo Cox Labour MP for Bately and Spen murdered in the street following a constituency surgery in Birstall; Sir David Amess Conservative MP for Southend West was fatally stabbed during a constituency surgery at Leigh on Sea.

 

Anyone, regardless of their background or political affiliation, should feel safe to become a councillor and be proud to represent their community.

 

But the increasing level of abuse and intimidation aimed at local politicians is preventing elected members from representing the communities they serve, deterring individuals from standing for election and undermining local democracy.

 

Debating and disagreeing with one another is a healthy part of democracy, but abuse and intimidation crosses the line into dangerous territory. The right engagement matters.

The public separation a rope approximately £100, it is a quality rope. Costs for the attendance of Customer Services Officers totals £1418.68 for the period May to September. The invoice for October has yet to be received.

 

Indeed timely debate is required (don’t chat for too long) as if meetings go on longer than 21-00 extra costs are incurred for the continued presence of Customer Services Officers.

 

Supplemental question asked by Councillor Rush pursuant to paragraph 11.6 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

 

Councillor Rush made a statement which did not contain a question.

 

Response by Councillor Paul Skinner

 

As an experienced Councillor you should be aware that open cases of any kind cannot be discussed in Council.

 

We have many individuals that seek information through requests indeed that is a healthy part of democracy.

 

The Local Government Association’s campaign ‘Debate not Hate’ sums up the situation.  A national campaign to address this behaviour experienced by Officers and Members.

 

Unfortunately, there are those, giving the benefit that they have forgotten how to communicate during lockdown, probably thinking that there is no recourse to expressing less than truthful opinions on social media and in the press.  Fortunately the libel and slander laws are still present for those who can afford to pay.  As our mothers’ told us manners maketh man, and probably also if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all.