Cabinet member apologises after ‘embarrassing’ failure to answer public questions

Alec Doyle, Local Democracy Reporter

A county council’s Cabinet Member for Education has expressed regret after an ’embarrassing’ failure to answer public questions on its Catholic super-school proposals.

Flintshire county council is facing increasing pressure over its plans to close four Catholic schools  – primary schools St David’s in Mold, St Anthony’s in Saltney and St Mary’s in Flint plus St Richard Gwyn High School – and replace them with a £55-million 3-18 super-school in Flint.

After residents questions were greeted with silence during December’s meeting of Flintshire County Council, councillors have now voted to consider changes to its Constitution to guarantee that public questions receive answers in a timely fashion.

During the December meeting 19 questions were asked by members of the public relating to the super-school plans.

Prior to the meeting Cllr Mared Eastwood, the Cabinet Member for Education, Welsh Language, Culture and Leisure was called to a meeting at the Senedd which meant she was unable to be present to answer those questions directly.

Concerned residents in limbo

Responses she prepared before the meeting were not read out on her behalf however, leaving concerned residents in limbo.

That led to a notice of motion at yesterday’s meeting of Flintshire County Council by Liberal Democrat Group Leader Cllr Andrew Parkhurst.

“Residents who had taken the time and trouble to submit questions and attend in person did not receive answers to their questions and were met with silence in the Council Chamber,” he said.

“The experience will have damaged confidence in Flintshire’s democratic processes and risks deterring others from coming forward with questions in future.”

Responses provided by not distributed 

Cllr Eastwood explained that she did provide responses knowing she would be absent, but those were not read out or distributed as expected.

“I did submit the answers to members’ questions in addition to those from residents on the understanding that they would be distributed during the meeting,” said Cllr Eastwood.

“I know that this did not happen – it may have been my misunderstanding – nor was an officer able to read them out on my behalf.

“I would support that amendments do need to be made to avoid a repetition of the position I was placed in.”

Saltney Cllr Richard Lloyd criticised the mix-up.

“It’s not really happened before that questions haven’t been answered,” he said. “I was embarrassed and personally upset and went out of the room to apologise to the residents who asked the questions.

“If this notice of motion prevents it happening again I support it.”

One of those residents was 10-year-old St David’s Primary School pupil Cillian Pearce,  who yesterday returned to ask his question to Cllr Eastwood again.

“Have you ever visited St David’s Catholic Primary School,” he asked Cllr Eastwood.

“No, I have not yet visited St David’s Roman Catholic Primary School in Mold,” she said. “I will have done so prior to the objections being formally considered and a final decision made.”

Cillian then asked: “Your visit to my school was arranged on January 22. Was it arranged as a result of my question, which was submitted on January 19?

“I have tried to ask this question for two months, but you have ignored me. Do you realise the impact this is having on my friends and I.”

Response

Cllr Eastwood responded: “I haven’t been previously notified of your desire to ask this question when the meeting was arranged. A commitment had already been given by the Leader (of the council) that we would both visit the school.”

Another questioner from the previous meeting – Mary McCarry – also returned to address the chamber again.

“With more than 95% opposition in consultation and 4,000 plus objections to the statutory notice, will the council now accept that this proposal has no public mandate,” she asked.

“If not, what level of opposition would ever be sufficient and where is democracy in all of this?”

Cllr Eastwood responded to assure her that all concerns raised would be given weight.

“All matters raised during the objection period will be fully considered in the context of everything that needs to be considered,” she said. “We will be going into the meeting with no pre-determination and very open-minded.”

Vote

Councillors voted to place on record its regret for not originally providing residents with answers to their questions and apologise to them.

They also supported a call for the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Education to meet those residents who attended in December to provide answers in person to their questions.

Proposed changes now being referred to the Constitution and Democratic Services Committee include forwarding questions for absent members to the next available meeting or having them read out by alternative nominated members.

It will also consider whether to specify that the Leader of the Council be automatically responsible for answering questions if a Cabinet Member is absent without notice  and where a question cannot be answered verbally, answers be provided to residents in writing within five days.

The committee will now consider the recommendations within its ongoing work programme.