Report of the Mayor

A report of the Mayor had been circulated with the agenda.

The Chairman invited Members to indicate whether they wished to ask a question of the Mayor.  Councillors Turmaine, Mills, Ahsan Khan, Bashir, Connal and Smith indicated that they wished to ask questions.

a)      Councillor Turmaine noted the Mayor’s number of election wins.  He referred to their debates during the General Election campaign in 2015.  It was difficult when a party was losing its leader.  He said that at least one on the opposite seats was destined for a parliamentary career.  Watford had shown that it was possible as a Liberal Democrat to lose in the General Election but would still be able to make it to Parliament with a seat in the House of Lords.  He enquired whether that was true.

         The Mayor responded that the coalition period had not been comfortable for her group.  For many years the Liberals and Liberal Democrat party had been the parties of protest and opposition.  She had been clear that she had wanted to govern with a team of Liberal Democrat councillors.  She acknowledged that there were more ways into that Palace than one.  She added that as she had said in her report she intended to be an ambassador for decentralisation and handing powers down to local government.  Local government was part of the solution for many of society’s current ills and certainly not the problem or cause of it, which included building houses.

b)      Councillor Mills asked whether the Mayor was aware that child poverty in Watford was highest in Leggatts and Holywell.  These were the two places stripped of their adventure playgrounds, which gave children and young people the opportunity to access food, drink, warmth and companionship.  She asked the Mayor how this made her feel.

         The Mayor said that child poverty in Watford was better than the national average.  She acknowledged that there were pockets of deprivation across the borough.  They were small areas of poverty.  She would not apologise for making a facility more widely available to hundreds of young people to enjoy seven days per week and renewing a facility that people could be proud of.  There were families who relied on the adventure playgrounds in a particular way.  Someone in charge of a council was aware of budgets being considerably slashed and could not help but make some decisions that would impact on some people.  However she was able to state that this council had made far less of those types of decisions because of the authority’s financial prudence.  This council was not in the position of some other councils who were slashing basic services and affecting lots of people.

c)      Councillor Ahsan Khan noted that in the Mayor’s report she had said that Watford was a truly multi-cultural town.  In the Corporate Plan it mentioned that 31% of Watford’s population was non-white.  He asked why the Liberal Democrat party did not reflect the make-up of Watford.

         The Mayor acknowledged that it was true at the moment.  However, she looked back with pride that the party had the first Muslim female councillor and several others.  She said that the same as the Labour group all parties struggled to attract high calibre candidates.  This was a matter that the Liberal Democrats took very seriously.  The national party had recently done some work on this subject.  It was hoped this would be addressed.  There were no barriers to anyone from any culture.  In addition to having the first female Muslim candidate, the group had the first Polish woman councillor.  The make-up of councillors had an ebb and a flow.  It could look very different next year. 

d)      Councillor Bashir echoed Councillor Bell’s comments about the Mayor’s long service and the respect she had from all communities in Watford.  He said his question related to the cost to the Council Taxpayer for the office of the Mayor was over £200,000.  In 2002 the Mayor had campaigned that, if she were elected, a referendum would be held on the mayoralty issue.  This had not been done in the last 16 years.  The Labour mayoral candidate had publicly pledged that, if elected, he would give the people of Watford a choice through a referendum about the current mayoral system and if it should continue.  He asked whether the mayor and her party would commit to a referendum on this issue.

         The Mayor said the answer was ‘no’.  The people of Watford would make that decision.  In Watford there had been no demand to abolish the mayoralty.  This inferred to her that the people believed that having a person who was accountable to them in a very public way was something they quite liked.  A Meriden resident had said to her that although he did not always agree with her actions, he knew who she was and why she did it.  She had responded that his comment would be her political epitaph as that was what she considered the role to be about. 

         The Mayor stated that the choice was simple, whether the town was run by someone chosen in a ‘smoke filled’ room by a small group of councillors from one political party or the person who led the town to be someone residents had voted for and could ‘boot out’. 

         The Mayor referred to the comments about cost.  Since the Liberal Democrat group had been in charge of the council £14 million had been saved.  If the staff in the Mayor’s office were not employed in there, they would have to be employed elsewhere within the council.  It was a fictitious saving.  The Mayor’s Casework officer had her finger on the pulse, understanding what people were concerned about, and the services the council delivered.  She would have to be in the Customer Service Centre.  The only real difference between a Leader and a Mayor was the salary.  She referred to the service residents should receive from their Mayor, the time to fight for the best deal for Watford, to bring the right people together.  She regarded being in the role a privilege.  She mentioned when Labour had been in administration and all the support the group had in the council; active Labour party members in prominent positions within the council.  It felt uncomfortable.

         The Mayor said she was sure that some people would hear the message from Labour but the vast majority would rather have a Mayor who they elected, be able to complain to and forward petitions to, rather than an anonymous Leader of the Council.  All the research carried out about the mayoral role, showed that people did not know who their Leader of the Council was but most knew who their Mayor was.  This explained the increase in elected Mayors.

e)      Councillor Connal commented that the Mayor was leaving and they had aged together.  She said that she was concerned the council had not done enough for the elderly residents in the town.  In the report pack there was reference to Mayfield homes.  She was concerned about the future for the elderly residents.  She asked for assurance that more suitable housing was going to be built.

         The Mayor noted Councillor Connal’s reference to the Mayfield.  Generally the company’s developments were very up market.  When the company approached the council she had made it clear that was not the type of accommodation needed or wanted in Watford.  The company was making amendments to their scheme.  This highlighted one of the most difficult challenges of being an elected Mayor of a district council rather than a unitary authority.  All of the responsibility for elderly care rested with the county council.  It was therefore difficult to make a direct impact.  The role in a district required influencing skills.  In Watford the family households were increasing and the elderly numbers were decreasing.  She felt it was likely to be due to the fact that Watford was seen as a town for young families and older residents were moving out of Watford.  It was right to be concerned about older residents and was one of the reasons that adult social care was the number one issue in the entire country.  Nationally the Liberal Democrats were suggesting that 1p should be added to income tax to pay for adult social care.  An extra care building was being developed in the Meriden scheme.  The group had an awareness of the issue and Councillor Taylor was very committed to Watford being a dementia-friendly town.  The ability to work on the issue would be easier as a unitary authority. 

f)       Councillor Smith noted in the report that there was reference to social and affordable housing.  There was also awareness that it was an issue across the country.  He asked the Mayor what more could be done to build more social and affordable housing without viability being used as an excuse.

         The Mayor suggested that if viability was considered an excuse, the Labour group should speak to the Mayor of London who was creating an office to challenge viability.  She felt that people were naïve if they thought viability was an excuse.  It was not an excuse.  By making viability a consideration, the Government had cut out social housing.  It was the subject of her most recent speech in the House of Lords.  With regard to social and affordable housing, the council had just been shortlisted for an award for affordable housing, due to the work currently being done in the joint company with Watford Community Housing.  The issue was a difficult problem which would not be going away.  She added that it would be useful if the councillors on Development Management Committee voted in support of those applications which met policy.