Agenda item
Report of Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Recommendations
To receive and consider a written report from the Leader on the work of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet recommendations for approval, as set out below:
|
Meeting |
Date |
Recommendations contained in: |
|
Cabinet
Cabinet
|
1 November 2011
6 December 2011 |
Minute 64: Capital Programme – Monitor 2
Minute 65: Treasury Management Monitor 2 Mid Year Review and Prudential Indicators 2011/12
http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=6677&Ver=4
Community Stadium Project (minute to follow)
Gym Expansion at Energise (minute to follow)
Affordable Housing Targets in Rural Areas (if Cabinet make any recommendations to Council on this issue – minute to follow)
|
Minutes:
A written report was received from the Cabinet Leader, Cllr James Alexander, on the work of the Cabinet.
A Questions
Notice had been received of sixteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first seven questions were put and answered as follows:
(i) From Cllr Aspden
“Does the Cabinet Leader’s vision of a “leaner Council” include a reduction in the number of Cabinet Members?”
The Leader replied:
“It doesn’t at the moment as the manifesto we were elected on six months ago committed us to create a high level post to take responsibility for crime and community safety. This is following a model put forward by many other councils, including Hammersmith and Fulham. The cost of an assistant director to deliver this manifesto pledge would be circa £55k. The cost of a cabinet member is under £15k. Therefore we have delivered on our manifesto pledge at the cheapest cost possible.
I have the power to appoint up to 9 Cabinet Members, and we are below that number. We are also below the ten Tory Oxfordshire has and equal to the eight Lib Dem Three Rivers council has.
Members may also be interested to know that I have asked for information on the feasibility of reducing the number of councillors just as the Government is reducing the number of MPs.
(ii) From Cllr Reid
“Can the Cabinet Leader explain how he thinks the homelessness figures for 2010/11 were affected by changes to Housing Benefits which did not come into force until the 2011/12 financial year?”
The Leader replied:
“I apologise if this was not explained clearly enough but the homeless figure has been affected by the compound nature of a number of changes in housing legislation since the general election in conjunction with the downturn in the economy.”
(iii) From Cllr Steward
“The Council Leader criticises changes to housing benefit. Does he believe there should be no changes to housing benefit and/or does he believe all current charges for York council houses are fair?”
The Leader replied:
“Changes to housing benefit are necessary but York should be a special case because York has the highest private rent levels in Yorkshire. York has rents at similar to levels in the South East and so capping housing benefit along regional lines will penalise residents in York over residents in other cities across Yorkshire. Labour is sticking up for residents in York whereas the Conservatives locally prioritise their party and Government over local people. We are currently discussing council housing rent levels but I am concerned about Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Government who want York to increase rents to 80% of the market value. This will see many poorer families no longer able to afford to live in York. This will affect the private sector who sometimes rely on a low wage work force. This will affect economic growth.”
(iv) From Cllr Steward
“The Council Leader declares that free Wi-Fi supports his pledge to ‘support business’, can he advise how many of the users are local businesses?”
The Leader replied:
“The login system for the city centre wi-fi does not distinguish between individual users and businesses. However individual users also spend in city centre businesses. One retail manager along Coney Street said:
“Expanding the wi-fi coverage within York like the free wi-fi initiative, is really good news for our customers who are increasingly buying wi-fi enabled products from us.”
It may also be interesting to note that today Selby Chamber of Commerce and local businesses have followed our lead and set up a free wi-fi scheme in Conservative Selby. I think this is evidence of the importance businesses give to such schemes.”
In response to a supplementary question, the Cabinet Leader advised Members that the free wi-fi scheme in Selby was a private initiative and without private funding it would not have been possible as the Council did not wish to provide funding for the scheme.
(v) From Cllr Runciman
“Does the Cabinet Leader support the Fairness Commission’s proposal of a ‘Tourist Tax’?”
The Leader replied:
“I think this should be looked at as a possibility and I have discussed it with Visit York in the past. Its view would be instrumental before any such decision is made. Initial discussions appeared on the surface to be positive. However, it is a good thing that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Government are willing to give Labour councils such as York the option.”
(vi) From Cllr Hyman
“Given the financial strain on York residents, does the Cabinet Leader believe it would be reasonable to impose a Council Tax rise of between 3.5% and 6% as proposed by the Fairness Commission?”
The Leader replied:
“A balance needs to be achieved between ensuring the viability of essential services for vulnerable people and the cost residents can afford. I personally believe that a 6% rise would be too high. However it may be interesting to note that in 2006/07 you voted along with the rest of Liberal Democrats for a rise of almost 6% and this was when the organisation was in a much better financial situation than what the council has been left in when your administration left office in May.
In any event, the Government has imposed a cap of 3.5% on council tax increases, so any proposed increase could not exceed this amount without a referendum, which would add extra cost to the authority.
(vii) From Cllr Orrell
“As the Fairness Commission have proposed completely cutting Ward Committee budgets, can the Cabinet Leader say whether he is committed to the future of Ward Committees?”
The Leader replied:
“I can say I am committed to resident engagement but I am open to what form this will take.”
The time limit having expired for this item, written answers were circulated after the meeting to the remaining questions as follows:
(viii) From Cllr Steward
“The Council Leader proposes a VAT cut although there is concern about the implications this will have for our country’s interest rates. Can the Leader reassure councillors that he understands this area by detailing his experience in international bond markets and dealing with credit rating agencies?”
Reply:
“I have no experience in international bond markets. I believe you are the only York councillor who has. Does this mean you are the only person qualified amongst York councillors to discuss matters on the economy? If so why has David Cameron not given you a peerage and elevated you to Chancellor? Is it because you have gone unnoticed? Or is it because David Cameron believes this is not relevant to managing the local economy. I was at University with Chloe Smith MP and she is now at the age of 29 Economic Secretary to the Treasury. She is the same age as me and she studied English where as I studied Economic History. She went on to become a management consultant before becoming an MP and now a minister. She has no experience of international bond markets. Would you like me to write to David Cameron outlining your concern for people like Chloe Smith speaking on the economy without international bond market experience?”
(ix) From Cllr Runciman
“Can the leader confirm he believes residents who have a political affiliation do not have a right to request impartial information from the council regarding the business it conducts on their behalf?”
Reply:
“If the information is purely for political point scoring and costs the council taxpayer significantly, yes. To save money to the council taxpayer I am going to look at using the freedom of information legislation and consider levying a reasonable charge for freedom of information claims.”
(x) From Cllr Ayre
“Given the Cabinet Leader seems to feel candidates who are not successful in elections have no right to hold authorities to account, can he reassure Council that he has nothad any interaction with the national Government that could be described as ‘party political point scoring’ since his failed attempt to be elected in York Outer in 2010?”
Reply:
“No, because unlike other councillors from this chamber who stood in the general election I am still here and I am the Leader of this Council. It is a part of my job to interact with the Government. Furthermore Government Ministers have asked to speak with me, including Liberal Democrat Transport Minister, Norman Baker.”
(xi) From Cllr Cuthbertson
“Given that answers to questions put at Full Council are dealt with by officers and published online in a similar manner to FOI requests and so should cost the same, is it not the case that he only encourages questions to be asked at Full Council so he can censor the answers?”
Reply
“Officers may have dealt with the Leader’s answers under the previous Liberal Democrat administration but officers do not answer my questions for me. This is now a member led authority and not an officer one.
The answer to your question is no. I ask so that the computer servers do not have to be rebooted, thousands of e-mails checked by hand and then legal officers come into to redact content. This is more expensive to the council taxpayer than asking this public question for which it only takes my time to answer.”
(xii) From Cllr Orrell
“Does the Cabinet Leader believe the Freedom of Information request he put in to North Yorkshire Police earlier this year about the cost of helping with policing the riots was a waste of Police money for information he could have received through other channels?”
Reply:
“No. The reason why is because I was asking for one specific piece of information and the police kindly e-mailed me the report with the one piece of information I asked for included. The cost of this will no doubt be the labour of one person forwarding me the correct document. This is very different from freedom of information requests asking for all correspondence and e-mails on Union Terrace, on all cabinet travel costs, which may be paid from different directorates or all correspondence regarding Reinvigorate York. Such requests by the Liberal Democrats in York since the election are far more extensive, labour intensive and costly. The real cost of these claims has been approaching £1k and this is more than the amounts of expenditure the Liberal Democrats then complain about. I would suggest that the information they seek can be asked for through different channels including questions such as this at Full Council. Asking for all e-mails for political point scoring is unjustified to the council taxpayer at a time of financial restraint.”
(xiii) From Cllr Ayre
“Given the leaders commitment to transparency and an open council does he feel it is acceptable that his cabinet colleague has so far failed to respond to a request from 15th November to substantiate or retract allegations she made publicly about a fellow councillor and given his letter to the Press of 15th October will he be reporting the matter to the standards board?”
Reply:
“I know Councillor Ayre is still smarting since the election but he really should get over it. I advised the Councillor in question to not respond to your questioning as it was as erroneous as this question.”
(xiv) From Cllr Steward
“The Council Leader welcomes the electrification of the transpennine line. Will he be writing to the Secretary of State in praise of this decision?”
Reply:
“I have already expressed publicly my support for this decision that has followed lobbying from a number of councils across the transpennine route. I see no reason for such a sycophantic letter. I suggest he writes on behalf of the other members of the George Osborne fan club, including Councillor Joe Watt if he is still a member of the group today.”
(xv) From Cllr Reid
“Does the £10k cost of free parking on Boxing Day take into account staff savings, or is it just an indication of lost income?”
Reply:
“This cost is loss of income only. The savings therefore on staff will be minimal as few staff are employed on Boxing Day primarily collecting cash from the machines so they do not get full.”
(xvi) From Cllr Steward
“The council leader incorrectly states that the Conservative proposal for free January parking is uncosted. Given his correct view that all savings should be costed what does he think of his party’s national refusal to detail the over £100 billion of savings they say they would have made?”
Reply:
“The Conservative proposals for free parking in January were uncosted by the local Conservatives. A release of the policy idea was made without any costs attached or any means of paying for it. This is a sloppy way of making policy. I have costed the scheme and it would cost £40k. If the Conservatives are serious about their proposal they need to explain what they would cut to fund it. This is how you gain credibility in the decision making process. The second part of this question is not relevant to my report.”
B Cabinet Recommendations
Capital Programme – Monitor 2
Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 64 of the Cabinet meeting held on 1 November 2011.
“[That Council] approve the following net adjustments to the capital programme, as detailed in the report and Annex A:
· An increase of £0.587K in 2011/12
· An increase, as a result of re-profiling, of £1.121m in 2012/13”
On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED: That the above recommendation in respect of the Capital Programme – Monitor 2 be approved. 1
Treasury Management Monitor 2 Mid Year Review and Prudential Indicators 2011/12
Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 65 of the Cabinet meeting held on 1 November 2011.
“[That Council]
· approve the changes to the Prudential Indicators in the light of the HRA reform; specifically, the Authorised Borrowing Limit at £347m.
· note that the HRA reform is to be approved by the Government White Paper in November 2011, and that the payment of £112m is to be made to the CLG on 28 March 2012.
· note the expected impact on the capital and treasury activities of the HRA reform.”
On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED: That the above recommendation in respect of the Treasury Management Monitor 2 Mid Year Review and Prudential Indicators 2011/12 be approved. 2
Affordable Housing Targets
Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 81 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 December 2011, and set out in the additional papers circulated around the chamber.
“[That Council] approve Option 1 as recommended by the Local Development Framework Working Group to reduce the affordable housing target on rural sites to the targets identified in Table 2, page 51, of the officers’ report.”
On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED: That the above recommendation in respect of affordable housing targets be approved. 3
Community Stadium Update
Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, the following recommendation contained in Minute 82 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 December 2011 and set out in the additional papers circulated around the chamber. At the request of the Council Leader, Members had also been provided with a breakdown of the expenditure for the community stadium project.
“[That Council] approve the allocation of £200k of the £4M allocated in the Council’s capital programme for the Community Stadium being released for the purpose of developing the business case to the next key stage.”
On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED: That the above recommendation in respect of the Community Stadium be approved. 4
Gym Expansion at Energise
Cllr Alexander then moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded, the following recommendation contained in Minute 83 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 December 2011, and set out in the additional papers circulated around the chamber.
“[That Council] approve the addition to the Capital Programme in 2011/12 of £540k in order to expand the gym at Energise.”
On being put to the vote, the recommendation was declared CARRIED and it was
RESOLVED: That the above recommendation in respect of the gym expansion at Energise be approved. 5
Supporting documents:
PDF 96 KB