Agenda item

Fuel Poverty

 

Councillor Sally Longford asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Energy and Sustainability:

 

Can the Portfolio Holder for Energy and Sustainability please outline the impacts of proposed cuts in relation to feed-in tariffs on the City of Nottingham and its consequential impact upon fuel poverty in the city?

 

Councillor Alan Clark replied as follows:

 

Thank you, Lord Mayor, and I thank Councillor Longford for her question. The level of reduction in relation to feed-in tariffs is not known at this stage. The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) consultation period ends on the 23^rd October after which the Government will publish its proposed changes and this is likely to apply from January 2016. It seems likely that since the introduction of feed-in tariffs in 2010, when the income was 42p per unit, to the current rate of about 12p a unit, that the new rate is likely to be about 2p a unit with a view to phasing out any funding by 2019.

 

Let’s bear in mind the purpose of a feed-in tariff. It is to compensate owners of solar panels (in this case) for generating their own electricity and, therefore, reducing demand on the grid. The grid was never really designed to accept an inflow of electricity within our communities, though I have to say Western Power Distribution has coped very well with that challenge. The need to reduce demand through the grid has not changed that dramatically since 2010. Thankfully, the government has so far honoured contracts, once set up, so that solar panel owners know their income, once they sign up for a, now, 20 year period.

 

With dramatic cuts in the pipeline, the City Council, with NCH is, once more, gearing up to accelerate its PV installation programme. 1000 properties are initially being targeted across the priority areas through to the end of December 2015 (subject to review on the final outcome of the consultation) to benefit from the current feed-in tariff. After that, we will test the financial wisdom of expanding the programme to other areas of the City when new rates are clear.

 

It is disappointing that the government wants to reduce these incentives and it is our aim to help as many residents as possible to have solar PV installed within timescales, the true impact and available period for installations is yet to be determined. Many people in our city are in fuel poverty. I won’t fiddle with the definition like the government does. I want our communities to be warm and healthy in a manner that they can afford.

 

European Union

 

Councillor Carole Jones asked the following question of the Deputy Leader:

 

Will the deputy leader inform this council as to the level of monies that has come into Nottingham over the last 10 years as a result of the UK’s membership of the European Union?

 

Councillor Graham Chapman replied as follows:

 

Can I thank the councillor for the question, for the decade between 2006/7 and 2015/16 this city received £72 million worth of European investment. For anybody who can divide 72 million by ten, which is the number of years, it comes to 7.2. I will not do it for the next figure, I’ll let you do your own. For the decade 09/10 to 20/21, we are talking about £104 million, which averages out at 10.4, so it is on the increase and the investment is going into key areas such as jobs, skills, R&D (research), business support, business start-up. For example we have the advanced manufacturing centre, Universal, which has been subsidised by the ? and the European Union, Southglade Food Park, New College construction and innovation centre that we’ve all seen on the 610, the Broadway media centre, the NBV business start-ups in Basford, Sneinton market, and there a number of schemes in the city centre but what I would draw people’s attention to is that it’s not just city centre, some of the outer areas have benefitted substantially from European funding.

 

I’ll contrast this with government support during a similar period, where money coming into the city has gone down. For transport it’s held up, probably because of the tram and the A453, but in schools, housing, other infrastructure, but in particular in terms of the revenue coming into the council to support daily services, government money has plummeted. We have lost well over £100 million worth of RSG or we will have done very shortly in the same period.

 

And I would also contrast the way that Europe distributes the money. For Europe, one of the factors is assisted areas, those areas which need support. And so Nottingham, along with some of the Northern cities require support and we get it. Places like Guilford, Woking do not get support because Europe judges they do not need it. But contrast with the government. It is a fact that the infrastructure investment in London currently matches the infrastructure investment for the whole of the rest of England. That is a very hard fact. For transport infrastructure, London per capita massively outstrips transport infrastructure anywhere else in the country. The reductions in government grant, RSG to councils in the midlands and north is far greater than anywhere down south. So what I would say to people in the city is in relative terms you get a far better deal from Europe than you do from your own government. Thank you.

 

Tram lines 2 and 3

 

Councillor Gul Khan asked the following question of the portfolio holder for jobs, growth and transport:

 

Can the portfolio holder for jobs, growth and transport please tell us how successful the tram line 2 and 3 opening has been?

 

Councillor Jane Urquhart replied as follows:

 

Thank you Lord Mayor and thank you Councillor Khan. Notice I’m not the portfolio holder for jobs, growth and transport but I am the portfolio holder for planning and housing and with responsibility for the tram so that’s why I’m answering this question. Of course lines 2 and 3 of the tram have been rather longer in coming than we had hoped but they are now open carrying passengers from Clifton to Phoenix Park and from Toton Lane to Hucknall.

On the opening of the two new lines on Tuesday 25^th August really did capture the imagination of thousands of local residents and visitors to the city, all keen to try out the new services, and I must say that watching the sun rise over Clifton with former councillor Ian Malcolm at 5.45 that morning before boarding the first tram with many other local Clifton and Wilford residents really was a very special moment. Although it’s still early days the new services are operating well, frequent, reliable and punctual tram services interrupted of course last Friday briefly by the Tour of Britain but I’m sure everybody understands those kinds of events causing the occasional issue. The tram operator having taken on over 100 new staff to deliver the services, the public feedback has been positive and it’s good although, though of course it was expected, that the new routes are being well used to access work, education, leisure opportunities. I know that the ability to get to QMC is a particular positive and it was great when I received an appointment letter recently for an out-patient’s appointment for one of my children, it was great to see that the QMC were now advertising that the way to get there is by the tram. And of course a further indication of its success of lines 2 and 3 is the continuing clamour that we now have in the form of other places saying ‘could I have a tram line please? When can we have one? People in Gedling, people in Kimberley particularly making their voices heard at the moment.

These lines though have been long planned and their construction has caused disturbance for those living alongside the works and for those travelling in and out of our city during the construction period so I would like to place on record my thanks to all those residents and commuters for their patience and forbearance while we’ve been building this great facility. Also thanks are due to the councillors and officers who have been involved over many years. Nottingham labour is a labour council that is good at long term thinking. We’re good at bold decision making and we stick to our vision, so thank you very much to those councillors who were here when those original decisions were made. Some people were convinced right from the beginning that line 1 would not be our only tram line, and so thanks to that vision we are where we are today. Thank you also to our fantastic team of officers who have worked so hard to get us to where we are, and of course the route has not been easy. They have faced considerable pressure during those years and come through an enormous amount of scrutiny upon this project so thank you very much to all those officers too.

But this new network could not have happened without further political determination shown by many people over many years, and nowhere is that more clear than in its funding source because without the Workplace Parking Levy this would not have been achieved. We would never have opened lines 2 and 3 of the tram had we not taken the decision to introduce the Workplace Parking Levy. Our tory opponents have repeatedly, have repeatedly sought to play fantasy budget suggesting that there were other ways to fund our local contribution to the tram. We were clear, Workplace Parking Levy was the only way to fund the tram because the other ways would have placed huge cost burdens on every single one of Nottingham’s citizens and would have destabilised our city’s finances for years to come. I know that in answer to a later question placed by our tory opposition, Councillor Chapman will be saying more about the range of ways that the Workplace Parking Levy has been used to ensure that Nottingham does have high quality, integrated public transport serving our city by bus and by tram in a sustainable way that is the envy of cities all over the UK and further afield. So I won’t say much more. Simply that it took political vision and political courage to introduce the workplace parking levy from city councillors who are still here today and from those who are no longer serving as councillors.

That was the only way that lines 2 and 3 have been able to open. There’s not a magic alternative or magic pot of other money that we could have used. So lines 2 and 3 are now open, they now serve 20 of the 30 largest employers in Greater Nottingham as well as key regeneration sites and they come within 800 metres of about 30% of Greater Nottingham’s residential population. So we do have one of the best integrated public transport networks in the country and QMC is the only UK hospital directly served by a tram route. And of course during the development of the tram these lines have provided work and training for thousands of Nottingham’s citizens and have generated £150 million worth of contracts for companies in our region, much of that coming to Nottingham City companies. Again, an indication as Councillor Chapman was talking about just now of our level of support and interest in driving the economy of our city. Those new routes directly serve the Lenton, Meadows, Clifton and Beeston, supporting major regeneration efforts south of the city centre, the southern gateway regeneration area and the tram has already driven interest in businesses relocation to our city.

The network serves all three of Nottingham’s junctions of the M1, providing 5,500 park and ride spaces so Nottingham citizens and those visiting can more easily reach parks and sporting facilities including the Victoria embankment, Nottingham tennis centre and Clifton leisure centre. And of course, when it’s goose fair time in a few weeks I’m absolutely certain that there will be thousands and thousands of people getting to the goose fair site from Beeston, from Clifton, from Lenton and from the Meadows, from all over the place using the tram network. Nottingham is already one of the least car-dependent cities in the country and has the lowest carbon emissions of all the core cities, partly due to the work that Councillor Clark was talking about earlier but also due to our transport policy. New tram lines are projected to take a further 3 million car journeys off our roads each year, further reducing CO2 emissions.

But should we stop here? Well, when looking at line 1, councillor colleagues decided that one tram line was not going to be the end of the story and certainly there is now no intention to rest on our laurels and stop at the lines we now have. Once again, of course, we will need to be clear in terms of our strategy and our vision but we must recognise that Nottingham’s tram network is envied by many competing cities and it provides a unique opportunity to support economic growth and regeneration and to maximise the once in a lifetime opportunity that is expected to be brought by HS2. So we will therefore look at the priority next routes for tram lines and evaluate where to go next.

So finally, for me I think it’s the individual impacts that are perhaps the most profound. Nurses who can now get to work in 15 minutes reliably, rather than having to leave an hour for journeys in case the traffic was bad, and in order to give time to find a parking space. A wheelchair user who I saw getting on the tram in Chilwell who was so thrilled to be able to go and see a play at the Theatre Royal who said ‘it’s so easy, I never thought I would be able to do this journey without a taxi but now I can’, or those older people, residents of Larkhill in Clifton and Sandby Court in Beeston, able to plan days out knowing that the tram can take them there and take them back. So the opening has been a success and our tram network will continue to be a success. It will make sure that our city is a place that is ambitious for our economy and sustainable for our future and offers transport integration that is the envy of many.

 

Free school meals

 

Councillor Linda Woodings asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Community Services:

 

Could the portfolio holder for community services tell us the impact upon the citizens of Nottingham if rumours of a 3^rd recent broken manifesto commitment by the National Government namely the removal of free school dinners by the National Government are confirmed as true?

 

Councillor Nicola Heaton replied as follows:

 

Thank you Lord Mayor and thank you to Councillor Woodings for your question. It’s extremely concerning to hear media reports that the government is considering removing the universal free school meals for infants scheme so shortly after it was introduced. This concern is not only felt on this side, it extends to many teachers, many head teachers as witnessed in yesterday’s letter to the Times, and nutritional experts, and it will be felt strongly by many parents and by children across Nottingham.

Nottingham City’s school catering service has successfully worked with schools and head teachers since the announcement of the scheme back in 2013. Additional capital funding was obtained to improve and create new kitchen facilities and equipment to meet the increase in demand, and as a result of the council's work only one school is now without a kitchen facility across the city and uses alternative arrangements for hot meals. This partnership working has seen an increase in the percentage of children in key stage 1 receiving meals, and that’s gone from 49%  in 2013/14 to 81% in the first year of the scheme. Overall numbers of meals served have increased from around 1.8 million to 2.45 million last year, and the objectives of ensuring that a high proportion of key stage 1 children receive a hot, nutritious meal at school has been successfully achieved.

 

So clearly removing free school meals for all key stage 1 pupils would be extremely concerning and quite frankly it would be a sign that the tories were becoming more extreme with every day of government, putting ideology over the interests of the country and trashing their own manifesto in the process. And also it’s quite frankly a sign that the chancellor is attempting to become the next tory leader by following the path of Thatcher and becoming Osborne, the School Meals Snatcher.

Free school meals for all was a major step forward for children’s health and for academic performance. They give kids a great start at school, opening them up to different foods and ensuring they get a proper meal in the middle of the day. Free schools meals also saves parents hundreds of pounds, £351 per child in Nottingham, recognising that in our insecure, low-pay economy poverty often transcends the bounds of the traditional criteria for free school meals. And this school has ensured the viability of the free school meals service and provided local people with employment. In Nottingham, 30 new posts were created for the service in September 2014. The removal of free school meals for all will therefore have an impact on local jobs as well as school funding which is already not protected, and it will make a farce of the money that schools and the council have already spent upgrading kitchens to serve more meals, money that was spent because the government introduced the scheme in the first place.

Overall the free school meals scheme has been really positive and yet another broken manifesto promise from the tories will have a profound impact on Nottingham. If the government decides to remove the funding for this scheme I urge the conservative members to lobby their ministers on behalf of city to change their minds. I hope that the Nottingham conservatives, like Nottingham labour, feel that promises made to the electorate are not there to be reneged on 6 months later.

 

Photovoltaic installation programme

 

Councillor Andrew Rule asked the following question of the Portfolio Holder for Energy and Sustainability:

 

I was encouraged that Nottingham City Council have recently secured funding from the Government’s Green Deal in order to expand the City’s domestic photovoltaic installation programme across the city. This is something that would complement the eco cladding works already completed to properties within Clifton especially. Could the Portfolio Holder confirm whether any decision has been taken as to which wards within the city will be considered for the first roll out of the Scheme and what if anything, my co-councillors and I can do to boost Clifton North’s chances of being considered for the scheme?

 

Councillor Alan Clark replied as follows:

 

Thank you Lord Mayor, and I thank Councillor Rule for his question. I first need to point out that the next phase of domestic PV solar panels is being funded by the Housing Revenue Account. The solar PV programme being delivered by the City Council in partnership with Nottingham City Homes is targeting in the first instance our properties in areas that have been identified in the top 15% of deprivation. The prioritised areas identified in the first phase are Broxtowe, Aspley, Bulwell Hall, Crabtree Farm, Bells Lane, Hyson Green, Arboretum, Colwick, Cardale, Marmion, Strelley, Old Highbury Vale and Bilborough.

 

The inclusion of Clifton to complement the recent solid wall programme is something I think we can consider as we review our forward programme. We do need to be mindful of the potential dramatic reductions in feed in tariffs, which will have an impact on the forward programme. On this, we should know the Government cuts by the end of October. I will ensure that the team consults with local ward councillors in due course.

 

Workplace Parking Levy

 

Councillor Jim Armstrong asked the following question of the Deputy Leader:

 

Could the Deputy Leader provide the Council with a list of all the projects the Workplace Parking Tax will pay for and the breakdown of the figures for those projects?

 

Councillor Graham Chapman replied as follows:

 

I know it might surprise you but I thank you for the question. In 12/13 it raised £7.8 million, in 13/14 it raised £8.4 million, in 14/15 it raised £9.09 million. The money is being invested in the tram (£190 million over its life period, bringing in a total of £480 million from our other additional investment, mainly from central government), the station (£16 million was spent on that, and the contribution to the £60 million scheme which has meant it’s levered in £44 million). It is also paying for link buses between hospitals, between park and ride and workplaces, and is also paying for Europe’s largest fleet of electric buses which we will soon have in Nottingham and which we will be very proud of.

 

But I’d also like to address another point. When we introduced the Workplace Parking Levy, we were told that is was going to devastate the economy. The streets were going to be empty, there would be removal lorries blocking the exits to the city because firms would be rushing to move out and we would end up with tumbleweed going down some of our industrial estates. Well, has it happened after 3 years? No it hasn’t. Indeed there has been no movement out of the city at all as a consequence of the Workplace Parking Levy. We get the movement in and out every year and I asked for it specifically a few months ago and there was no movement at all. If anything there has been an increase in investment in the area. Asda has moved into Bulwell, Northgate are moving in next week (we will be launching the Northgate development), there is a pension firm we announced last week (I think they’re called Now Pension) just about to move in, and Speedo have moved within the city (they did not take the opportunity to move outside the city).

 

Now, when I was Leader we decided to have a push for the Workplace Parking Levy, and I’ve got to say it was not something I particularly wanted to do. When people come into politics, on the whole you’d like to be popular, well there is an element of it, you’re human aren’t you, you would actually like people to like you. Most of the time they don’t, and when you take on something like the Workplace Parking Levy, you know there’s going to be a load of people who hate you. We had to put up with some horrible meetings, I’ve got to say the worst meeting of all was at the University of Nottingham where a colleague of my wife’s actually was probably the most unpleasant of all the people I had to deal with. We had him round for dinner the other week, but there you go it’s just what we do for ?, but he was obnoxious. So it’s not something we enjoy doing.

Having said that there was very little alternative if you wanted the tram, if you wanted the station, and if you wanted the support to the workplaces. The alternative might have been what they do in France which is add levy to employment (there is a transport tax which is added to each individual’s wage, effectively, it is paid for by the employee) and I would have thought that would have been more of a disincentive, because in this way you’re getting people not just from within the city who are paying their council tax but you are getting people from outside the city who are using our resources, and I think we thought it was fairest , and I will remind people it is the only one in the northern hemisphere so it has taken an enormous amount of guts to do it in the first place, but it’s also taken an enormous amount of organisation ability to do it in a way in which all the money has been paid in. Do you know that we have not had one case of anybody defaulting on the Workplace Parking Levy. That is an excellent record, and I do congratulate the private sector on the way it has responded, even if it hasn’t responded with what I would call goodwill.

 

Broadcast of meetings

 

Councillor Andrew Rule asked the following question of the Leader:

 

Given the Council Executive’s drive to increase voter registration within the City, and the fact that there is a Council policy in place allowing the recording of public Council meetings where authorised by the Chair, would the Leader of the Council consider extending an invitation to local broadcasters, such as Notts TV, to see if they have an appetite for broadcasting Full Council Meetings and, where appropriate, Committee meetings as this may serve to increase voter engagement and interest in Council business within the City?

 

Councillor Graham Chapman replied as follows:

 

I’m not Leader of the Council but I’ll do my best. Thank you for the question, and thank you for the suggestion. The fact is that there is legislation, brought in by your government, which is clear that any person or member of the media can already report or broadcast any public meeting of this council. They can film, they can sudio record or photograph should they wish to do so, so we would welcome it. The only caveat is that it does not interfere with the running of the meeting.

 

So, in a sense, there is already the opportunity. Now, given your question, we did contact Notts TV because we thought, well let’s see what they think. And what they thought was that ,actually, they are not in a position and probably do not want (I cannot think why, I mean it’s just such a wonderful media opportunity) to broadcast council meetings other than at specific times where there are specific issues of interest. In other words, what they’re after is a bit of excitement and if we produce that excitement that’s fine but we need to pre-notify them of it. In other circumstances we’re not that exciting which is a shame, but there you go.

 

Councillor Georgina Culley asked the following question of the Deputy Leader:

 

Could the Leader of the Council explain why an official level of extra checking of questions submitted to the Full Council will be introduced by yet another change to the Constitution in the near future? Is this a further attempt by the Labour Group to reduce the openness and scrutiny of the council?

 

Councillor Graham Chapman replied as follows:

 

I know that Councillor Culley tends to see conspiracies everywhere, but the filter that’s been asked for is simply to ensure, when questions are being asked (and it applies to us as well as to you), that they have a grasp of the facts, that they are not based on groundless facts. You’ve already accused one of us of having groundless, spurious facts, well we accused you at the last council meeting of groundless, spurious facts gleaned from the Daily Mail.

 

And when that gets translated into a question, we’ve got to go scurrying around trying to rebut something which could have been rebutted right from the beginning and that wastes time and it reduces credibility of the council and it reduces standards. So what we’re trying to do is make sure that whenever there is a question (it’s a bit like letters to the Evening Post that you see where people accuse the council of doing things that are actually not our responsibility, in fact in some cases they’re the responsibility of the county council but people seem to think we do everything in the whole of Nottinghamshire). What this is, is an attempt to make people, to impose discipline of good questions which are factually based. That’s what it’s about and it applies to us as well as to you. It saves time and it saves money. It saves energy and it stops antagonism.