Agenda item

A presentation will be given on the Spending Review and how the review is expected to affect council budgets and ways of working.  There will be an opportunity for discussion following the presentation.

A presentation was given on the Spending Review and how the review was expected to affect council budgets and ways of working.  A copy of the presentation is attached as an annex to these minutes.  Officers explained that the actual financial impact for the City of York Council would not be known until December but that the potential loss to the council could be several million pounds.  In order to meet this challenge, work was already taking place, under the More For York programme, to transform the way in which the council operated. 

The presentation included details of how members of the Equality Advisory Group could be involved in the budget consultations that would be taking place.  There would be an initial opportunity for members of the group to raise issues at the meeting that had been arranged with the council’s chief executive and directors on Wednesday 15 December 2010.  A special meeting of the Equality Advisory Group would be convened in January when more detailed information about the budget would be available.¹  Community representatives on the EAG would then have the opportunity to consult their groups about the impact of proposed cuts or growth areas.  

The group’s attention was drawn to a government document entitled “Overview of the impact of Spending Review 2010 on equalities”.  It was reported that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission had issued guidance for people making budget decisions in the public sector.  The guidance had been circulated to relevant council officers and councillors.

Following the presentation the group made the following comments:

• In respect of the data that indicated that 2.5% of the population in York received help to live at home, the group requested more information as to how this figure was defined.²
• Because both the City of York Council and the PCT were low spending authorities this meant that any cuts to services had an even greater impact.
• Community representatives were encouraged to stress to their members, the importance of completing next year’s census.  It was important that the data collected about the city was as accurate as possible and that it was funded accordingly. 
• It was important that the information that was presented to the public as part of the consultation was fully accessible.   The York Blind and Partially Sighted Society offered their services in making information accessible and distributing it to those on their database³. 
• It was important that very effective audit and monitoring arrangements were in place when services were commissioned.
• The council could save money by ensuring that the information that it provided to the public was accessible at source.  It was noted that the Corporate Equality and Inclusion Manager served on the Accessible Information Working Party convened by the Valuing People Partnership.  There was a commitment to create a charter to ensure that information provided by the council and other organisations such as the PCT was accessible and that the guidance was disseminated to all staff. 
• Members of the group stated that it was important that EIAs focussed on the needs of groups of vulnerable individuals and the level of care they required. 
• Information was sought as to whether there had been a change in council policy in respect of people receiving residential care outside of the authority, as it appeared that a number were now returning to be cared for within York.  Clarification was sought as to whether this decision had been taken to make financial savings.⁴
• Clarification was sought as to whether EIAs were being carried out as part of the More for York process.  Officers confirmed this to be the case and stated that a number of these had been considered by the EAG.
• During discussion regarding collecting equality data from people who respond to council budget consultations, Simon Rodgers requested that the equalities questionnaire that had been agreed at the meeting on 30 June 2010 be amended to read “sexual orientation” rather than “partnership preference”.  This terminology was in line with guidance issued by organisations such as Stonewall.  Members of the group explained why the recommendation had been made to use the term “partnership preference” but agreed that this should be replaced by “sexual orientation” when the questionnaire was used in future.⁵