Agenda and minutes

At this point in the meeting, Members will be invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Pierce declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in item 5 – Update on the Work of Health Scrutiny Committee as a former member of the Community Health Council.

Councillor Watson declared a personal non-prejudicial interest in item 4 – Recommendations of Previous Scrutiny Reviews, as he was involved in a charity that had links with the York Furniture Re-use Store.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2008.

RESOLVED:That the minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Management Committee held on 17 December 2008 be signed as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Committee’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Friday 20 February 2009 at 5 pm.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

This report provides Members with update information on the implementation of recommendations made as a result of previously completed scrutiny reviews on Recycling and Reuse and City Centre Retailing.

Members received a report with update information on the implementation of recommendations made as a result of previously completed scrutiny reviews on Recycling and Re-use, and City Centre Retailing.

The review of Recycling and Re-use had been completed in September 2006 and Members of SMC had signed off many of the recommendations already.  Annex A to the report provided an update on those that were still outstanding.

The review of City Centre Retailing had been completed in June 2004 and Members of SMC had also signed off many of the recommendations already.  Annex B to the report provided an update on those that were still outstanding.

Members were asked to consider signing off those recommendations where implementation had been completed or to request further updates to clarify any outstanding recommendations.

Officers gave an update on the work that had been carried out to implement the recommendations:

Recycling and Re-use Review

Recommendation 2:Trials of various types of containers were taking place.  The next phase would be to source a collection vehicle that was suitable for use in narrow streets.  Subject to funding being available, the department was on course to achieve the government target of at least two materials being collected kerbside by 2010.

Recommendation 3:A report had been considered by EMAP on the issue of paying re-use credits.  Such a system would be challenging and costly to implement.  Members suggested that there was a need for the York Furniture Re-use Store to be better advertised and promoted. 

Recommendation 4:Consideration had been given to paying re-use credits for the Bike Rescue Project.  However, such an arrangement would have proved difficult, as it would have been necessary to demonstrate that the items had been presented to the Council as waste.  In most circumstances the bikes were given directly to the Bike Rescue Project.  The Council therefore supported the project in other ways, including a discount in business rates.  

Recommendation 5:Cross-corporate work was continuing to ensure benefit from potential funding opportunities.  This was included within the Waste Minimising Strategy.

City Centre Retailing Review

Recommendation 15:   Map panels had now been updated and interactive screens were in place around the city.  The new Visitor Information Centre was scheduled to open in May.

Members suggested that the following issues be explored:

·        The possibility of renaming the Shambles Car Park as its present name did not reflect its location and was confusing to some visitors.

·        The feasibility of using corporate montages to cover empty premises.

·        Investigation as to the purposes for which the electronic information panels were being used.

RESOLVED:            (i)            That the contents of the report be noted.

(ii)               That the following recommendations be signed-off as they had been fully implemented:

·        Recommendation 4 of the Recycling and Re-use Review

·        Recommendation 5 of the Recycling and Re-use Review

·        Recommendation 15 of the City Centre Retailing Review

(iii)             That Members noted the work completed to date in implementing the following recommendations but were not satisfied that they could be signed-off as complete^{1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.}

This report presents a summary of the work undertaken by Health Scrutiny Committee since November 2008.

The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Health Scrutiny Committee had forwarded their apologies for absence for this item.

Members received a report summarising the work undertaken by the Health Scrutiny Committee since November 2008.

Discussion took place regarding the ways in which the Health Scrutiny Committee would work with LINks.  It was noted that LINks were still determining their priorities and the mechanisms by which they would be carrying out their work. More information would be known after the AGM had taken place.  Work was being undertaken regarding the possibility of LINks being consulted and their comments being fed into feasibility studies for new scrutiny topics. 

Members stressed the importance of ensuring that there was a baseline in place in order that the performance of LINks could be evaluated.

RESOLVED:            (i)            That the contents of the report be noted.

(ii)               That the Health Scrutiny Committee be commended on the work that it had carried out.

(iii)That, in three months’ time, an update be provided on the work that LINks was carrying out¹.

REASON:      To inform Scrutiny Management Committee of the work and progress of the Health Scrutiny Committee.

This report presents the annual scrutiny report for scrutiny services detailing all of the reviews completed between May 2006 and December 2008.

Members received a draft Scrutiny Report detailing all of the reviews that had been completed between May 2006 and December 2008.

Members were asked to consider whether they wished to make any amendments to the report prior to its presentation to Full Council.

The following amendments were agreed:

• That, in view of the period covered by the report, the word “annual” be omitted from the title and text of the report.
• That the presentation of the report be revised to ensure that it was easily accessible to readers, including those with visual impairments.

RESOLVED:That the Scrutiny Report for the period May 2006 to December 2008 be approved by Scrutiny Management Committee subject to the agreed amendments¹.

REASON:      To enable its presentation to Full Council, in line with constitutional requirements.

This report presents Members with a revised protocol to enable York to host joint scrutiny reviews should the need arise. A draft of the protocol is attached at Annex A to the report.

Members received a report which presented a revised protocol to enable York to host joint scrutiny reviews should the need arise.  A draft protocol had been presented at Scrutiny Management Committee on 17 November 2008. Members had agreed to adopt the protocol on the proviso that minor amendments were made, and had requested that the protocol be presented to them again once these had been incorporated.

Members’ attention was drawn to the following corrections to the report:

·        Paragraph 4 (iii) of the report should read “[In York, under the current Council composition this would entitle the 2 largest groups to nominate 2 Members each]”

·        Paragraph 4 (iv) of the report should read “[In York, under the current Council composition this would entitle the 2 largest groups to nominate 2 members each if they were the host, 2:1 if not host - unless they wished to waive proportionality]

Members were asked to consider whether to adopt the amended protocol for joint scrutiny reviews with or without further amendments.

Discussion took place as to how best to ensure political proportionality in the composition of any joint scrutiny committee and whether account should be taken of the size of population covered by the authority or whether the authority was a unitary, district or county council.

It was noted that consultation on the protocol had not yet taken place with neighbouring authorities.

RESOLVED:That the protocol, as detailed in Annex A of the report, be approved subject to paragraph 3.2 being amended to read¹:

                        “In accordance with the above, Joint Committees will be composed of Councillors drawn from local authorities in the following terms:-

·        Where 4 or more local authorities participate – then each participating authority will nominate 2 Councillors from their relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

·        Where 2 or 3 local authorities participate then each participating authority will nominate 4 Councillors from their relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee.”

REASON:      To ensure Members can fully participate in scrutiny work that may impact on more than one geographical area.