Agenda item

Questions to the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Members received under Standing Order 11

Meeting of Council, Thursday, 8 December 2011 6.30 pm (Item 55.)

To deal with the following questions to the Cabinet Leader and / or other Cabinet Members, in accordance with Standing Order 11.3(a):

(i) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader explain to my residents how it is fair for Labour members who are members of unions to merely ‘declare an interest’ and then be able to vote on increasing funding to the unions?”

(ii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Barton:

“What does the Leader believe is the optimum number of people to attend a Britain in Bloom information event?”

(iii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Runciman:

“What plans does the Cabinet Leader have to release budget information to the opposition groups?”

(iv) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Boyce:

“Government cuts to the BBC will mean BBC Radio York losing six hours of local programmes per dayand ten hours each weekend, resulting in reduced coverage of local news and York City matches, both of which are valued by residents, as well as result in diminished coverage of council business. Will the Cabinet Leader please write to the Secretary of State for Culture, the Director General of the BBC and the Chair of BBC Governors requesting that the BBC’s funding for local radio servicesis reviewed?”

(v) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader detail how many members of the public have attended Cabinet meetings as they move around the city and does the Leader consider the moving around worthwhile?”

(vi) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader explain what role the Council is paying Trade Unions for that could not be carried out by the Human Resources Department?”

(vii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Cunningham-Cross:

“Will the Cabinet Leader please inform Council where York’s Fairtrade City status certificate and plaque are and confirm whether they can be displayed in a prominent place in the Guildhall until the move to West Offices?”

(viii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Steward:

“Does the Leader consider that the Fairness Commission having zero meetings outside the ring road, zero meetings in villages and zero meetings in Conservative wards to be fair?”

(ix) To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Cabinet Member for City Strategy confirm that with the Council’s focus on ‘fairness’ and the existing inequality between rural and urban buses he will work to address this and encourage the retention of these important rural buses?”

(x) To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy from Cllr Aspden

“Given the delay in publishing the Air Quality Action Plan, what will the Cabinet Member be doing to ensure positive actions to improve air quality are undertaken quickly for the Fulford Road corridor?”

(xi) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children & Young People’s Services, from Cllr Richardson:

“Does the Cabinet Member condemn those who disrupted children’s education last week by participating in a union walk-out whilst negotiations with the Government were and are still ongoing?”

(xii) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children & Young People’s Services, from Cllr Aspden

“Given that Pupil Premium funding is tied to the number of pupils registered for free school meals, what steps are the Council taking to promote take up of free school meals ahead of the schools census on 19^th January?”

(xiii) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children & Young People’s Services, from Cllr Richardson:

“Will the Cabinet Member consider following Lincolnshire County Council’s example and encourage all schools to become academies?”

(xiv) To the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services clarify whether in the budget consultation the Cabinet will be as, less or more willing to listen to people than it was at the Union Terrace ‘consultation’?”

(xv) To the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services detail how many hours of council staff paid time have been spent on Fairness Commission related work and what is the cost of literature produced?”

(xvi) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“Would the Cabinet Member please give an assurance that the facilities at our elderly persons homes, which are enjoyed by the wider community, will still be available during the re-organisation?”

(xvii) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Health confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether her Labour government committed to a real terms increase in NHS funding for York’s residents at the last General Election?”

(xviii) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Riches:

“Will the Cabinet Member for Housing please give her assessment of the potential impact of the Government’s Housing Strategy paper, ‘Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England?”

(xix) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Orrell:

“What steps are the Council taking to help organisations like York People First adjust to the personalisation agenda and cope with the reduced availability of grants?”

(xx) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“Given the increase in the number of people with dementia, both now and forecast, is the Cabinet Member confident that there will be sufficient capacity in the new proposals to accommodate this?”

(xxi) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“What does the Cabinet Member believe would be the minimum requirement of facilities for a true community stadium?”

(xxii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Hodgson:

“Will the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture and Social Inclusion voice her opposition to specific changes contained within The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, changes that will severely limit entitlement to legal aid and access to justice for some of the most vulnerable residents in our city?”

(xxiii)To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“How many Ward Committees need to agree to fund the planned York 800 celebrations for the plan to be viable and what is the fall back plan if there is insufficient sign up?”

(xxiv)To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“What advice will the Cabinet Member be giving Ward Committees and Community groups on how to deal with public expectations for Ward Committee funded schemes, given the current uncertainty around the amount of money available to Ward Committees next year?”

(xxv) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“Does the Cabinet Member support the Fairness Commission proposal to scrap Ward Committee funding?”

(xxvi)To the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, from Cllr Reid

“Given Labour’s manifesto commitment to increase highways spending, will the Cabinet Member be rejecting the proposals by the Fairness Commission to make major savings in this area?”

(xxvi)To the Cabinet Member for Crime & Community Safety, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Crime detail what the Council is doing to combat the problem of metail theft?”

Minutes:

Twenty seven questions had been submitted to the Cabinet Leader and Cabinet Members under Standing Order 11.3(a). The guillotine having fallen at this point, Members agreed to receive written answers to their questions, as set out below:

(i) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“It is no less fair than your Conservative colleagues, Councillor Richardson and Councillor Doughty taking part in the same vote after declaring their Unite and RMT trades union memberships respectively.”

(ii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Barton:

“What does the Leader believe is the optimum number of people to attend a Britain in Bloom information event?”

“I would say for a Britain in Bloom ‘information event’ probably two people – one officer and one cabinet member. For a ‘national awards ceremony’ where York came second for the first time I would say probably more.

I can understand your disappointment that the Liberal Democrat requested freedom of information claim for cabinet transport costs did not encourage any more criticism than one award ceremony for a scheme the previous Liberal Democrat administration signed the council up to.

I would like to place on record my disappointment of the criticism of the £1k expenditure that has arisen from almost £1k of freedom of information claims for political point scoring the opposition has made use of. This is hypocritical.

I am concerned at the unhappiness over some opposition members to the Cabinet travelling to do their duties. I have expressed this concern to both Conservative and Labour Council Leaders in the region who found the attack ridiculous.

This episode has also lost both opposition parties credibility with the private sector. One prominent local business person was not happy at the political tactic of using a freedom of information claim to attack cabinet travel. They e-mailed me to say:”

“Inevitably there will be some who lack ambition or who are complacent that will carp at these costs. These expenses will be as nothing compared to the prize of economic benefit to reward the citizens of York in years to come”.

(iii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Runciman:

“What plans does the Cabinet Leader have to release budget information to the opposition groups?”

“None at the moment.”

(iv) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Boyce:

“Government cuts to the BBC will mean BBC Radio York losing six hours of local programmes per day and ten hours each weekend, resulting in reduced coverage of local news and York City matches, both of which are valued by residents, as well as result in diminished coverage of council business. Will the Cabinet Leader please write to the Secretary of State for Culture, the Director General of the BBC and the Chair of BBC Governors requesting that the BBC’s funding for local radio services is reviewed?”

“I will indeed. The scale and speed of reductions by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Government are bad for York. It will see more national and regional output in York at the expense of local news and programming. It will also see a reduction in journalists. Both are not healthy for local democracy and will lead to local politicians being held less to account.”

(v) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader detail how many members of the public have attended Cabinet meetings as they move around the city and does the Leader consider the moving around worthwhile?”

“It is odd that you ask a question that points towards saying moving meetings around the city is not worth doing and then in the same set of questions for council ask a question pointing towards it being unfair that meetings have not been held in certain areas. I would like to suggest some consistency in Conservative policy. This question exhibits the same consistency as Councillor Watt calling for no reductions in management staff in the interest of stability and Councillor Gillies two days later portraying Labour proposed management reductions not going far enough so advocating instability by sacking the Chief Executive.

From memory at the first meeting of the Cabinet at York Explore Library there was approximately five members of the public present. At the second meeting of the cabinet at The Priory Street Centre there was approximately thirty people present. At the third meeting of the cabinet at the Guildhall there was approximately twenty residents present. At the fourth meeting of the cabinet at Acomb Explore Library there was approximately three residents present. At the fifth meeting of the cabinet at Auden House there was approximately ten residents present. At the sixth meeting of the cabinet there was approximately fifty residents present. More residents seem to be attending Cabinet meetings in different locations than when Executive meetings were held at the Guildhall.”

(vi) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader explain what role the Council is paying Trade Unions for that could not be carried out by the Human Resources Department?”

“City of York Council does not make any payments to trade unions.”

(vii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Cunningham-Cross:

“I am not sure where the previous Liberal Democrat administration placed this certificate but clearly it was not been given the prominence it should have. I will instruct the Chief Executive to liberate the certificate from whatever draw or cupboard it is currently sitting in and display it in the Guildhall reception. It will also be given prominence in West Offices under a Labour administration.”

(viii) To the Cabinet Leader, from Cllr Steward:

“Does the Leader consider that the Fairness Commission having zero meetings outside the ring road, zero meetings in villages and zero meetings in Conservative wards to be fair?”

“No less than I consider it fair for Conservatives having zero councillors outside of villages or in the wards inside the ring road. However I take your point. This is a reason why the Cabinet is holding meetings in different locations. The Fairness Commission is independent and it is best asking the Commission if they think where they held meetings was fair.”

(ix) To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy, from Cllr Steward:

“I will continue to support public transport to both rural and urban areas as far as is possible within the significantly declining resource base resulting from the massive Conservative / Lib Dem Government cuts to Local Councils and to the bus industry, and recognising that conventional public transport is uneconomic for very small rural settlements unless on more interurban routes.

The support I have given for the experimental provision of the 195 villages service to Pocklington and the revised service 21 to Rawcliffe and Skelton demonstrates our commitment. It will be crucial that residents in the communities these services reach make reasonable use of them if they to be made permanent. Coun. Steward’s and local Members’ support in achieving this will be extremely important.”

(x) To the Cabinet Member for City Strategy from Cllr Aspden

“The delay in the AQAP recognises that solutions to the Fulford Problems are necessarily linked to a wider approach to tackling traffic and air quality issues across the whole city, and the inadequacy of the previous Lib Dem administration’s Low Emission Strategy to actually resolve the problem. I am looking forward to proposals coming forward on both issues early in the new year.”

(xi) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children & Young People’s Services, from Cllr Richardson:

“Does the Cabinet Member condemn those who disrupted children’s education last week by participating in a union walk-out whilst negotiations with the Government were and are still ongoing?”

“I can understand the frustration felt by individuals who see an important part of their contracts of employment being rewritten in a way which they see as prejudicial to their future. Negotiations have indeed been ongoing for a long time, and it was the lack of meaningful progress which made many thousands of very ordinary working people take a day’s strike action. We should always be mindful that at the end of the day, it is the legal right for people to express their views around their employment by striking, as the Member will know being a trade union member himself, and this is a dispute between the Unions representing many millions of workers, and the Government. We did our best to make sure there was as little disruption to vulnerable children and young people as possible.”

(xii) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children & Young People’s Services, from Cllr Aspden

“Schools are very aware of the impact the Pupil Premium may have on their individual school budgets. The Council has reminded schools about this, and the issue was raised again at yesterday’s meeting of the York School’s Partnership.

The latest reminder went to all schools last month concerning eligibility for free school meals, following the one that was sent in January early this year. The support to schools on this included a parent letter/flyer to aid them in encouraging take up of free school meals.”

(xiii) To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children & Young People’s Services, from Cllr Richardson:

“Will the Cabinet Member consider following Lincolnshire County Council’s example and encourage all schools to become academies?”

“A simple answer might be “No”. It is of course ultimately a decision for individual Heads and Governing Bodies, but as you are aware only two schools in York have so far taken the decision to go down that route. York has a strong basis of quality education in its schools, an Education Department that has regularly been highly ranked by Ofsted; it has also developed a strong culture of partnership working so that the Heads, both Primary and Secondary, regularly meet to share ideas and good practice and have always been fully involved in the big decisions that need to be taken by the Authority. I have always believed that in Education “co-operation” is better than “competition” and I think the consistently high performance of the York Education Service has borne that out.

I was very pleased to attend the first meeting of the York Partnership Board which has been set up to formally enshrine these co-operative pathways and fully involve Heads and Governors with officers in future planning and arrangements for the York Education Service.”

(xiv) To the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Steward:

“The Cabinet is committed to listening to the people impacted by the decisions it takes. The budget consultation includes various options to ensure a dialogue and conversation between the Cabinet and local residents, businesses and the voluntary sector. The Cabinet will be listening to people’s growing concerns, worries and their needs given the savage £20m worth of further cuts that have been imposed on this local authority by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government.”

(xv) To the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services detail how many hours of council staff paid time have been spent on Fairness Commission related work and what is the cost of literature produced?”

“A wide range of Council staff have supported the Fairness Commission. Information has been provided about our customers, services and finances. The Commission has also been supported at public meetings and was provided with a point of contact within the Policy Team to ensure that information requests could be coordinated across the Council. All support to the Commission was provided alongside work that officers were doing and didn’t impact adversely on Council services.

The cost relating to drafting and printing the Commission’s report is £5,325.”

(xvi) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“Would the Cabinet Member please give an assurance that the facilities at our elderly persons homes, which are enjoyed by the wider community, will still be available during the re-organisation?”

“The provision of day care and respite care has been carefully considered in the proposed transformation of our Elderly Persons Homes.

Day Care: Some limited day care activity is provided in 6 of the EPHs. However, this is not undertaken within dedicated facilities; visitors join with residents in activities but numbers are restricted in line with regulations and the impact on permanent residents. Whilst this model of day care provides a welcome break for carers and the people who use the services it is a poorer model than found in day care facilities designed and operated specifically for that purpose. The responses during the three month consultation overwhelmingly supported the view that the current day activity provided in our EPH’s should be re-provided in the community. On 1^st November Cabinet approved this direction of travel and officers have been making arrangements to expand existing and establish new day activities in the community in partnership with voluntary and independent sector organisations.

Older people currently receiving day care have been supported to consider the choices available to them and to access the new capacity coming on stream in April 2012. There will be an increase of 15 places in the number of day care places available as a result of this change.

Respite Care : There was understandable support in the consultation for the proposed expansion in the number of respite beds from 14 currently to 20 in the new facilities. During the programme of change the current number of respite beds will be maintained and opportunities taken to expand these wherever possible especially during the next two years whilst awaiting new build facilities to open if the programme gets the go ahead at the 10^th January meeting of the Cabinet.”

(xvii) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Steward:

“Alistair Darling’s March 2010 budget said:

In the 2009 Pre-Budget Report the Government made a clear commitment to protect key frontline public service priorities in 2011-12 and 2012-13 and announced that:

· NHS frontline spending – the 95 per cent of near-cash funding that supports patient care – will rise in line with inflation;

So under Labour, for the two financial years 2011/12 and 2012/13, NHS funding would’ve risen with inflation. In real terms this is flat funding.

From Andrew Lansley prior to the General Election we heard:

"Only the Conservatives will protect the whole of the NHS budget – both Labour and the Lib Dems have refused to do so. We will cut NHS bureaucracy by a third and we will make sure frontline patient care comes first."

From Andrew Lansley after the election we got:

· A cut in real terms to the NHS of £800m in 2010-11.

· The biggest reorganisation in the NHS’s history, through the Health and Social Care Bill, at a cost of between £2bn and £20bn, which will mean more public bodies, and more money spent on bureaucracy. “

(xviii) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Riches:

“Will the Cabinet Member for Housing please give her assessment of the potential impact of the Government’s Housing Strategy paper, ‘Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England?”

“The Government’s Housing Strategy Paper ‘Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England’ has the potential to be devastating. Here is a summary of the consequences:

Local Housing Allowance rates will leave York residents £2.9 million short of payments as payments are based on the lowest 30% of rents. This will mean:

Low paid workers may have to move as 91% (around 1,950 people) of existing LHA customers will lose on average £12.57 a week. Average loss per affected customer would be around £653 p.a. or £12.57 pw

Average market rents for 2 and 3 bed homes in York:

£648 per month for 2 bed – LHA up to £500 per month (lowest 30%)

£801 per month for 3 bed – LHA up to £580 per month (lowest 30%)

Increases in LHA rates from 2013 are to be linked to the Consumer Price Index rather than the higher Retail Price Index. Shelter suggest that York is likely to become unaffordable for people on housing benefit by 2026

Under 35 year old room rent: The average difference between the new LHA for a shared room rate for a resident between 25 and 35 years old and what they currently receive for a 1- bed self contained is £30, but some individuals will lose out by up to £51.61 per week. This could lead to many vulnerable people having to live in unsuitable accommodation.

The Getting Britain Building Scheme means a reduction to already agreed 106 agreements which provide schools, parks and transport infrastructure, all important for new housing schemes.

Right to Buy: 50% discount is not what it seems – the Government have said that for each home sold a new one will be built. Financing is viewed as questionable as out of the 50% received from the capital sale only half will go to a new build, say £30k in York. The rest required to build will come from loans taken out by Registered Social Landlords who will then need to charge the new 80% of market rent model. This means that these homes will be unaffordable for most.

Reduced Tenancies – Tenants of Social Housing will not have security of tenure and this can affect tenants’ well-being.”

(xix) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Orrell:

“What steps are the Council taking to help organisations like York People First adjust to the personalisation agenda and cope with the reduced availability of grants?”

“York People First does not receive grant support from the Council but as with other voluntary sector groups they can access support from York CVS for advice about funding options.

Support for the Voluntary Sector to adjust to the Personalisation Agenda has been provided through a voluntary sector forum and through CVS in York. York People First are linked in to these through the CVS-hosted Learning Disability Forum.”

(xx) To the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing & Adult Social Services, from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“Given the increase in the number of people with dementia, both now and forecast, is the Cabinet Member confident that there will be sufficient capacity in the new proposals to accommodate this?”

Reply
“Based on demographic predictions for York and known trends it is estimated that CYC will need 180 beds providing a mixture of high dependency, dementia, and nursing care. This is a considerable increase on the 57 dementia beds currently provided in our EPH’s and there is a shortage of dedicated dementia beds in the wider private sector in York.

In line with the Long Term Commissioning Strategy there be a requirement to increase the number of respite care beds from 14 to 20 (including 8 dementia care respite beds) which will help support carers in the city. This will bring the total number of beds required to 200. We believe that this number of beds will meet the projected demand.

I would also point out that this information was provided in the reports to Cabinet in July and November, both of which Cllr Cuthbertson could have attended and questioned and that he could have made a submission to the consultation process which neither he nor the Lib Dem Group did.”

(xxi) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“What does the Cabinet Member believe would be the minimum requirement of facilities for a true community stadium?”

“This administration has always been committed to delivering a stadium that will genuinely be for all the people of York, a source of real civic pride, and one which will provide exciting community facilities for everyone.

The question talks about “minimum requirements” because that reflects the previous administration’s thinking:

A football stadium with minimum community access.

We, on the other hand, have well advanced plans to deliver:

· A stadium which in addition to hosting the professional clubs will accommodate a wide range of junior finals and other community fixtures in addition to hosting concerts and other community events

· Conferencing facilities that will benefit a wide range of York’s community organisations

· Meeting, learning, eating and socialising spaces including an Explore Gateway

· Community health facilities that will make a positive impact on health inequalities in the city, especially amongst those least likely to use traditional health services

· A dedicated learning hub where York St John University will run sports courses that will have a real impact on the development of community sport in the city and draw in schools who will able to have lessons in inspiring state of the art facilities

· Investment to upgrade the current facilities at Waterworld including sport and fitness provision

· Children’s play facilities

· And of course, a brand new athletics track and cycling facility to be sited at the new York Sports Village

The stadium will be fully inclusive and provide activities for everyone.”

(xxii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Hodgson:

“I am more than willing to add my voice in opposition to changes to Legal Aid proposed within the Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

The intention of this bill is to remove the right to Legal Aid for ‘civil matters’ including principally benefit appeals. Under the proposed new system, people who are unhappy with a decision made on their benefit entitlements for housing, welfare, and so on will not be able to claim legal aid to appeal against the decision. They will be forced to find, and pay for, their own legal representation; clearly many will simply not be able to afford to do this.

This will clearly have an adverse affect on benefit claimants of all ages and across all backgrounds: It cannot be just.

Furthermore, victims of domestic violence will only qualify for legal aid if it is deemed that they are at ‘high risk of violence’ however this is to be defined.

It seems clear to me that these changes are designed specifically to hurt the most vulnerable in society and I call on the Government to abandon them.”

(xxiii) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“How many Ward Committees need to agree to fund the planned York 800 celebrations for the plan to be viable and what is the fall back plan if there is insufficient sign up?”

“I’m pleased to be able to inform members that since my appointment as the responsible Cabinet Member I have been working tirelessly with partners across the city to bring together an exciting programme of activities to celebrate 800 years of self-government in this city.

Highlights include the world famous York Cycle of Mystery Plays being revived in the Museum Gardens for the first time since the 1980s.

There will also be enhancements to existing festivals such as the Viking Festival, Illuminating York and the Residents First Festival together with a new Chocolate Festival, a specially-themed Big City Read and plans for a medieval summer.

The year will be a platform for York to build its reputation on the international stage as a vibrant city, capable of staging exciting and memorable events.

Funding to support many of these activities has already been secured from partners across the city or from allocated budgets within the council. In addition, funding bids to the Arts Council: England and other grant giving bodies are being made.

The proposed programme is still open to enhancement and I am delighted that many neighbourhoods are getting involved. Further ideas will no doubt emerge as the year progresses and many groups will just get on and organise their own local York 800 celebrations: Most won’t require additional funding and they certainly don’t need our permission!

In short, it’s a case of the more the merrier but we already have an excellent programme in place and we won’t let the scathing cuts by the Liberal Democrat- Conservative Government spoil our enjoyment of a very special year for this city.”

(xxiv) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“I would give the same advice that I would give to anyone who holds a Council budget or receives Council funding. The financial situation that has been forced upon the Council by the current Conservative-Lib Dem Government means that we have to look very carefully at all areas of the Council’s expenditure.

It is inevitable that we will have to make difficult decisions to reduce spending in a range of areas. I think the public understand this and who is responsible for it.

Ward Committee funding is no exception. The responsible thing to do for all ward members therefore will be to be cautious in dealing with the public’s expectations prior to the Council’s budget being set in February.”

(xxv) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre

“Does the Cabinet Member support the Fairness Commission proposal to scrap Ward Committee funding?”

“I welcome the initial findings of the Fairness Commission. The Cabinet will be looking at it very carefully.

I note that the overarching direction of the Fairness Commission’s recommendations is to direct funding to where it is most needed. This is a principle that we will be applying to our new model of Neighbourhood Working that I will be bringing to Cabinet in January.

It will ensure that there are effective mechanisms to understand what residents’ priorities are for their communities, to streamline front line services to deliver on those priorities and to allocate resources sensibly to remove the previous administration’s repeated wastefulness and duplication and finally to ensure that scarce resources reach the areas that need them most.”

(xxvi) To the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods, from Cllr Reid

“Given Labour’s manifesto commitment to increase highways spending, will the Cabinet Member be rejecting the proposals by the Fairness Commission to make major savings in this area?”

“Labour’s manifesto commitment was to increase the road resurfacing budget for 2011-12. We did this at 30^th June meeting of Full Council, which your Group voted against. The Fairness Commission recommendations are being evaluated as part of the budget setting strategy for 2012-14.”

(xxvii) To the Cabinet Member for Crime & Community Safety, from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Cabinet Member for Crime detail what the Council is doing to combat the problem of metal theft?”

A rise in the worldwide price of copper, lead and other non-ferrous metals has led to a dramatic increase in the number of metal thefts across the UK.

Over the City of York area the Safer York Partnership (SYP) and North Yorkshire Police (NYP) are working hard to target offenders and reduce this kind of crime, with combating metal theft having been made both a force and local priority in York.

In the last two years across the City there have been approximately just under 500 recorded incidents involving metal theft from buildings, including churches (29), commercial premises (111), dwellings (220), education premises (31), gardens/sheds (25), public open spaces (34) and vehicles (7). The number of incidents has almost doubled over the two years (2010 – 2011 to date). The Wards experiencing the greatest incidence have been Clifton, Guildhall, Heworth, Hull Road, Micklegate and Westfield.

Safer York Partnership have produced a poster for use at sites vulnerable to lead theft, such as building sites, and a general leaflet offering advice on how to make premises and sites more secure from this category of theft, and to make property less desirable to metal thieves.

On the specific category of theft of catalytic converters, of which there has been some 20 recorded incidents across York in the last 7 months, following discussion at the SYP Autocrime Task Group, around the increasing amount of such theft, City of York Council Trading Standards are to lead on an initiative initially developed by Suffolk constabulary which involves indelible marking of catalytic converters and placing stickers in car windows to indicate they are marked. Marking cannot be removed unless ground off, therefore scrap dealers should know to be suspicious of catalytic converters with evidence of this. The marking will also assist in NYP in identifying stolen converters when searching premises. The City of York’s Motor Traders Fair Trading Scheme members are to be involved by using their premises for marking.

Nationally, Members may be aware that the LGA has been lobbying the Government to bring forward amending legislation to improve the regulation of the legitimate scrap metal dealer trade, including the introduction of annual licences for dealers, requiring the installation of CCTV with automatic number plate recognition in scrapyards and tightening up the regulations on keeping a log of those selling scrap to dealers. There have also been calls for the trade’s traditional cash-based payments to be outlawed, so that trade based cashless transactions becomes the requirement, making it easier to trace the sellers. Given his involvement with the Community Safety discussions at the LGA, as Cllr Gillies will know, York’s representative on the Community Safety Advisors Group has been generally supportive of the LGA position. There is also currently a Private Member’s Bill (Graham Jones MP) under consideration in the Commons.

In the meantime, discussions have commenced, involving CYC Trading Standards Department and SYP, with a view to developing a voluntary code with the legitimate scrap metal trade to tighten up the regulation of the industry locally.

NB – the reported crime statistics included in the above have an estimated accuracy of 10-15% and do not include metal thefts from the railway, which are the responsibility of the British Transport Police (BTP). (Steps are being taken to improve the exchange of information between BTP and SYP in this respect).