Agenda item

The public open forum will commence at 2.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 2.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier.

(2.08 p.m. – 2.12 p.m.)

              Prior notice in accordance with Council Procedure rule 10.3 had been given of the following questions put by members of the public:-

Question:  Mrs M. Patrick, 119 Essex Road, Stamford

To Councillor Linda Neal, Leader:-

Mrs. Neal, could you please tell me why the vulnerable people and the elderly are being targeted and their vouchers are being taken away from them once more and why the age discrimination?

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

Thank you for your question Mrs Patrick.  Through the Council’s rigorous prioritisation process involving all sectors of the community, travel vouchers were not deemed to be a high priority.  The message has always been loud and clear that when setting priorities there will always have to be non priorities.  Age discrimination is implicit in the whole scheme as it is at present.  Our new proposals attempt to target the most vulnerable.

Supplementary Question: Mrs Patrick

Mrs Neal, I don’t object to people having vouchers at 65 but I do object to you making people wait until 70 when they are nearly ready for their coffins and that is not good.  You are taking pennies away.  The Councillors here will next year have their rises and they will also have their rises in expenses.  Let the people have them at 65, the proper age for when they retire.  I have no objection to 60 to 65 going – but when they are going into their coffins, I don’t think it is fair.  All you Councillors here should be ashamed of yourself – every one.  I’m sorry for that Mrs Neal, but I do think 65 would be a much more acceptable for the elderly and vulnerable of South Kesteven.  I talk on behalf of all South Kesteven as you know I am passionate about elderly people and vulnerable people of whatever age.  I think that at 65 when they have done a lifetime’s work.  I know it is concessionary what you are doing – and I thank you for the concessions – but I think that 65 would be far more acceptable.

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

I note the comments that Mrs Patrick has made, however she will hear if she is still here later, that there is a misprint in the paper and the Chief Executive will be informing us that the 65 should read 60.

Question:  Rosie Maclennan, 19 Ryhall Road, Stamford

To Councillor Linda Neal, Leader:-

When funding organisations with public money does your contract to these organisations include a regular audit (most funders do this on a quarterly basis) which will be conducted in order to monitor individual progress and quality of service to include the following:

Outputs

Milestones

Delivery

Professional standards

Community Feedback

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

Yes, when the funds are significant.

Supplementary question:  Rosie Maclennan

Do you feel that if a specific audit was in place, South Kesteven would benefit from a more supportive role towards the organisations that they fund, and therefore both parties would be in a more favourable position to address current issues that may be affecting successful delivery?

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

It is already happening.

Question: Rosie Maclennan

If it is already happening, have you applied the same criteria to all organisations that you fund? 

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

No, because most are funded at insignificant amounts e.g. about £100 for a specific purpose, perhaps the printing of a leaflet.

Supplementary question:  Rosie Maclennan

Can you tell me where you draw the line?

Response from Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

Between significant and insignificant funds.

Rosie Maclennan:

I’m sorry but I don’t understand that.