25 April (Part 2) - And for my next trick…
Bexley Council doesn’t like being questioned, or perhaps I should say doesn’t like
being forced to give answers, especially in public.
Over the years I have seen many attempts to dodge public questions at Council
meetings, one simple dodge is to only allow 15 minutes every three months for Bexley’s
200,000 plus adult residents and then simply short change them by accidentally
on purpose misreading the clock. Not so easy now that everything is recorded but
as yet that hasn’t completely stopped the practice.
Perhaps the most fail safe question dodging technique is to ask a random member
of a local Conservative Association to put forward a fake question along the
lines of “Bexley Council is wonderful. Does the Leader agree it is wonderful and
can she give me some examples of its wonderfulness”. I’ve seen a good number of those over the years.
Another technique is the filibuster. Council Leader Teresa O’Neill is quite
adept at carrying on for the full fifteen minutes without always answering the question
or alternatively answering questions which weren’t asked.
Web casting may have put paid to blatant filibustering.
A fairly recent innovation is to make the questioner read out his question in
full. It used to be taken as read from the printed Agenda, but not any more.
Every little helps when it comes to restricting question time.
It’s not very sophisticated but one technique is to simply refuse to answer the
question. Maybe not often used because it makes the relevant Cabinet Member look
like he has something to hide. I’ve not seen it used since Mick Barnbrook asked
Councillor Philip Read about the appointment of a former Bexley Director
of Child Care to author a Serious Case Review into
the death of Rhys Lawrie. The
three year old was murdered in a Baby Peter style case of neglect right under
Bexley Council’s nose. Plenty to hide there.
Philip Read refused to answer the question on the grounds that Mick Barnbrook was
a BNP member at a time when it was rather more popular party than it is now. Does
it even exist any more?
Far more sophisticated was the Teresa O’Neill inspired rule that said residents
who asked questions would have their name and address published on the Council’s
website. This had the potential to partially disenfranchise young adults living at
home with parents or abused spouses living in safe houses.
Teresa O’Neill didn’t care but fortunately the Information Commissioner did and Bexley
decided to drop the practice just before the ICO jumped on them.
I heard Teresa O’Neill argue in Council that she only published the addresses with the
agreement of the questioner. Everyone who asked a question knew the rules and
therefore by implication was agreeing to them when submitting a question she said.
Clutching at straws I think they call it.
Last week Bexley Conservatives came up with
a new question dodging technique
which may be useful only in exceptional circumstances. It is to hold a debate
before listening to questions pertinent to that debate. They are nothing if not
inventive as cheats and confidence tricksters have to be.
The first question was about the Council’s pension fund investment policies
as it related to fossil fuels. It was answered by Pension Committee
Chairman Councillor John Waters who when he stands up is a very long way from the
desk microphone and whose voice is not as fulsome as his height. It’s too much of a strain to
decipher what was captured by my recorder and I’m not sufficiently interested to
check to see if the webcast is clearer. I think Councillor Waters defended fossil fuel
investments as still being a good thing and said the Council pays for expert
advice. I hope he is right because I’ve not looked at what my Royal Dutch Shell
shares might be worth for a very long time.
What
everyone was really waiting for were the questions relating to Old Farm Park.
Malcolm Wright of the Save Campaign was planning to ask if it was to have its status
changed before the end of this year from being an Urban Open Space to something providing a
little more protection such as Metropolitan Open Land, however before doing so
he asked the Mayor, presumably because the deciding cart had been put before the questioning horse, if
he could stray from his original form of words. She refused permission fearful perhaps of what
she might be letting herself in for.
Cabinet Member Linda Bailey said she could not offer that guarantee because another public
consultation must be held and that was not planned until 2017 with any possibility of changing status
impossible until 2019.
Mr. Wright’s original supplementary question had been successfully invalidated
by the changed order of events so he asked instead. “Could the Council confirm it
will allow or permit local residents to have authority on the future
regeneration of the remaining park, planting of trees and things like that, as
opposed to something being imposed on us by Council?” Cabinet Member Linda
Bailey did not hesitate, “Yes, definitely”.
Ms. Becci McManus had a similar question and queried the dimensions of the SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation).
Councillor Bailey said it would extend 12 metres from the railway fence.
The supplementary question had been partially outdated by the changed Agenda sequence but
was about the park being designated an Asset of Community Value under the
Localism Act and as such subject to a six week moratorium during the planning process.
Councillor Bailey expected those safeguards to be applied.