To receive questions from Members of the Council to the relevant Portfolio Holders for this Scrutiny Committee. The Portfolio Holders are:-
Councillor Bialyk – Leader of the Council
Councillor Asvachin – Housing, Homelessness Prevention and Customer Services
Councillor Vizard – Climate, Ecological Change and Communities
Councillor Williams – Place and City Management
Councillor Wright – Corporate Services and City Centre
Advance questions from Members relating to the Portfolio Holders should be submitted to Democratic Services at committee.services@exeter.gov.uk.
Minutes:
In accordance with Standing Order No. 20, the following questions were submitted by Members:-
Question from Councillor Read to Councillor Bialyk, Leader of the Council:-
“At the last meeting of this committee the Leader said that in conjunction with the Director of Finance he would “review options for Council investments to identify what alternative products are available in the market” and would consider “non fossil fuel investing alternative providers”. What has been the extent of this review, and what suitable alternatives have been identified and what progress has been made regarding ensuring all Council investments are assigned to such suitable investment vehicles? Which committee will this information be brought to and when?”
Councillor Bialyk responded as follows:-
“The update for Councillors is contained in the Treasury Management Half Year update, which is on next week’s Executive agenda. We were able to identify 3 products, two of which had a higher minimum deposit than the maximum Council have set as a Counterparty limit, therefore we cannot use them. We already place deposits in the third.”
Councillor Bialyk also assured Councillor Read that this was a matter of importance for the Executive, adding that the Council did have a duty to the taxpayers.
Question from Councillor Read to Councillor Bialyk, Leader of the Council:-
“Also at the last meeting of this committee we were advised that the Council had sent a notice to Barclays advising them of complete disinvestment from Barclays and requiring the full return of funds from Barclays. This was particularly welcome news as Barclays are notorious for their investments in fossil fuels, which is contrary to the Council’s sustainability agenda. So my question is can we have confirmation that the Council is entirely disinvested from Barclays and that there are no plans for the Council to reinvest in Barclays? Additionally, what progress has the Council made in formulating an ESG policy, when can we expect this to come to Committee?”
Councillor Bialyk responded as follows:-
“The Council no longer has funds placed with Barclays and there is a draft ESG policy appended to the Treasury Management Half Year update, which is on next week’s Executive agenda. It is recommended to Council for approval and adoption. If this is adopted by Council then this will drive future strategy, although in extreme circumstances, there may be a need to place funds in institutions that would not meet the criteria set in order to minimise risk to the taxpayer and comply with your legal obligations. This would be a last resort and only instigated in circumstances where the Council had surplus funds and all eligible products were at the maximum level allowed by the Strategy.”
Councillor Bialyk commented that this was not an issue of importance just for the Green Party but that several Labour Councillors felt strongly about this issue, too. He also reminded Councillor Read of the Council’s fiduciary duty to the taxpayers.
In a supplementary question, Councillor brought up the issue of bundling and asked what the timeframe was for the Council to understand how much was invested in fossil fuel. The Leader replied that the Council would not be doing an analysis as such, adding that he was looking at the issue in terms of direction of travel. The Strategic Director – Corporate Resources clarified that the Council did not invest: it placed money.
Question from Councillor Read to Councillor Vizard, Portfolio Holder for Climate, Ecological Change and Communities:-
“I asked at the last meeting of this committee if alternative methods could be used to allocate funds to community projects so that there wasn’t yearly underspends of ward grants. Cllr Vizard replied that he was open to ideas on the matter and requested that I make suggestions of alternative methods to the Grants Panel. I have done so, so I would like to know what has been the upshot of these and any other proposals? Do we have plans for ensuring there will be less underspend this coming end of budget year in April given the very high level of overall demand for funding? If we don’t yet have a workable plan in this area what more can be done to ensure we will have one?”
Councillor Vizard responded as follows:-
“The funding for community grants comes from the Neighbourhood CIL. Any in year budget “underspends” remain within the NH CIL reserve and are allocated on an annual basis back into the next iteration for the grants programme. If ward councillors do not spend their annual grant budget this funding is still available for the grants programmes the following year. I strongly encourage all members use their ward grants for this purpose to support local communities.
The Member Led Grants Panel term of reference does not include reviewing the grants programme itself, however I welcome members suggestions for improvements to the process which I can be fed into the public consultation to be undertaken next year on our use of NH CIL (which will include ward and community grants) which was agreed at Executive in October.”
In a supplementary question, Councillor Read asked if it was the case that grant money that hadn’t be used would be lost. Councillor Vizard replied that unused grant money would remain within the grants programme fund.
Question from Councillor Read to Councillor R Williams, Portfolio Holder for City Management:-
“The Exeter Port Authority operates a mooring repairs service, purchased by the Council several years ago which was hoped to be self-financing, but costs had risen significantly whilst workload and income have not. The report says that without the introduction of the HRO improvement will be slow – what difference exactly can we expect the HRO to make and why? The Council has stated that it does not anticipate levying any charges for use of the canal or river following the HRO so what difference could passing an HRO make to the income of a mooring repairs service, unless in fact the Council does propose to introduce charges following the introduction of the HRO?”
Councillor R Williams clarified that fees were already being charged in the canal and that these had already been published. She then gave the following response:-
“The HRO consultation and establishment has no direct bearing on mooring repair income. In the HRO pre-consultation summary of responses, the Council identified that considers it important to the Port’s future viability, that port users should contribute to the cost of the management and maintenance of the port and introduction of the HRO supports that. Although the Council does not currently levy goods dues at the Port or ship dues outside of Exeter Ship Canal, it has the power to levy such ship, passenger, and goods dues as it thinks fit under section 26 of the Harbours Act 1964. In extension, under article 10 of the HRO, there is the modern power to levy the equivalent of ship, passenger and goods dues in relation to vessels which are not ‘ships’ (such as jet bikes or jack-up barges). The HRO will enable the introduction of harbour dues on all vessels within the Port limits. When setting charges in for the port the future, the Council will consider the level of charges set by other statutory harbour authorities.”
She thanked the Interim Director – Environment, Waste and Operations and the Harbour Master for their help with drafting the answer.
In a supplementary question, Councillor Read asked if it was correct that the HRO would make a difference through levies. The Portfolio Holder replied that Exeter City Council could actually charge now but chose not to, adding that any raising of fees would be a matter for Full Council.
Question from Councillor Read to Councillor R Williams, Portfolio Holder for City Management:-
“Regarding the report stating that canal licences represent the one area of concern because income levels have stagnated in the opening quarters with few new vessels being kept in the canal, and so there is a forecast of a reduction in income in comparison with 2023/24, due to vessels being scrapped or leaving, and that income will likely be some £76,000 below budgeted levels – are proposals for income generation being pursued? In collaboration with the Harbour Master I have suggested locations where the Council could offer permanent moorings to bar or restaurant boats which could raise income for the Council, how are these being pursued? What are the plans to communicate the locations identified for such moorings to the hospitality industry to encourage businesses to apply? How can this be more widely communicated? Additionally we have identified locations for kayak storage rental which could also raise income, when will these be developed as income generation opportunities for the Council?”
Councillor R Williams responded as follows:-
“The HRO will provide the powers to pursue income generation through port dues, however opportunities will remain limited until such time as HRO has been introduced. Service has committed to a review of Harbour income over the next 12 months, a timeframe set to allow for the introduction of the HRO. The review will consider income opportunities and the sustainability of income forecasts under the light of the HRO consultation outcome and subsequent implementation.
Kayak storage is not currently considered a value-income opportunity because the costs of delivering the service, when balanced against the low levels of income forecasted, are expected to fail in providing a reasonable return on the initial investment.”
In a supplementary comment, Councillor Read remarked that other councils provided that service. Councillor R Williams advised that there would be a review and that one of the items on the agenda of the Visioning Day on 1 February 2025 was exploring options.