Agenda item

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
Cabinet     Cabinet	6 November 2012   4 December 2012	Minute 55: 2012/13 Capital Programme Monitor 2        Minute 70: Council Tax Support  Decision Paper (Minutes to follow)   http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=733&MId=6879&Ver=4

 

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 fifteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first six questions were put and answered as follows and Cllr Alexander undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions:

 

(i)      From Cllr Warters: “Whilst supportive of the Council’s aim to increase the pay of the lowest paid workers, will the Council Leader confirm that the implementation of the living wage on 1 April 2013 will not lead to similar percentage wage increases further up the salary grades to maintain differentials?”

 

The Leader replied:

Can I start by thanking Councillor Warters for his support for this policy. This is a refreshing change from York Conservatives who have said the policy is “the wrong thing for council to be doing” and York Liberal Democrats who have called the policy “financially reckless”.

 

Job redesigns will be completed by 1 April 2014 and this will determine if further changes to pay structures are required. I am not anticipating many increases but we need to address issues where staff may have little difference in pay to those who they manage, who will now benefit from the Living Wage.

 

(ii)     From Cllr Cuthbertson: “How will the ‘living wage’ be funded in 2014/15?”

 

The Leader replied:

From core budget. This will be put before full council in February 2013 as part of our two year budget for 2013/14 – 2014/15.

 

(iii)     From Cllr D’Agorne: “If the 'Living wage' is to be funded from borrowing in the first year, how is this sustainable from 2014? Will this still be implemented if compulsory redundancies are required to balance the books in 2013/14?”

 

The Leader replied:

The Living Wage is not going to be funded from borrowing. In local Government you cannot pay revenue wages using capital borrowing.

 

(iv)    From Cllr Healey: “Name one action taken by your administration since taking office which will have affected the latest published unemployment and growth figures cited in your report?”

 

The Leader replied:

Increasing the number of apprentices at City of York Council by 60 since being elected in May 2011.

 

(v)     From Cllr Warters: “Noting references to the Hiscox development in the report, will the Cabinet Leader be attempting to influence the Hiscox management to relocate back to the UK from the companies’ tax haven base in Bermuda in line with national concerns over corporate taxation levels?”

 

The Leader replied:

I am not au fait with tax avoidance and so I am not sure what arrangements Councillor Mark Warters is referring to. However I share concern over UK corporation tax evasion. I trust the Chancellor will be closing these loop holes with the recent media attention on Starbucks and Amazon.

 

(vi)    From Cllr Healey: “Please name the financial contribution being made by the private sector that backs the council taking part in MIPIM Conference?

 

Please detail the “important work” progressed with the cities of Shanghai and Chicago and the expected tangible benefits to our local economy and when you expect these benefits to come to fruition?”

 

The Leader replied:

The council is currently working with the private sector to secure this private sector contribution, which according to the examples of other cities taking part in MIPIM, is attracted only after the local council has made clear its commitment to the project.  These negotiations are ongoing through the early part of next year. I have been impressed with Conservative-run Hammersmith and Fulham who have managed to kick start developments using MIPIM. I am please Julian Sturdy is backing us in taking part.

 

The trip to Shanghai established critical links with Shanghai officials and British Council, as well as private sector contacts, which will now be used to build York’s presence in the Shanghai region.  The trip enabled raising the profile of the city’s heritage and conservation sector, as well as a destination to live, work and study, and we will be continuing to build this profile on the expectation of interest in investing in York as well as visiting/studying in the city. The Shanghai Culture, Communication and Tourism Co Ltd have confirmed that they will be bringing 4 tour parties to York in the Spring of 2013 and 41 of the 120 Chinese visitors contacted them after visiting York’s exhibition in Shanghai. York has also been invited to present an exhibition at the prestigious Shanghai Expo in 2013, showcasing the city’s tourism and business offer. No other UK city has received such an invite. 

 

The links built in Chicago have enabled the city to raise the

profile of York as a destination for inward investment and talent via the joint presence of the University of York and CYC at a British Council event held in the city. It has allowed us to establish critical contacts in the British Consulate for the Midwest region of the US, which will be used to benefit business in the city of York seeking to break into the US market. It has allowed us to establish a connection to the Chicago and Chamber of Commerce as well as establishing an invitation for the city of York to be present at biotechnology events in Chicago, which will be followed up with the aim of ensuring that York firms and universities have the opportunity to benefit from this opportunity. These benefits again will start accruing immediately, as we are now in contact with the city of Chicago with regard to potential opportunities for private sector opportunities.

 

The funding for this work is coming from the reinstatement of the Conservative established fund of promoting York.

 

The time limit having expired for this item, written answers were circulated after the meeting to the remaining questions as follows:

 

(vii)    From Cllr Ayre: “Could the Cabinet Leader state what proportion of histime in London was spent visiting the Philippine Ambassador and what proportion at a Labour organised rally. Can he confirm that the proportion of transport costs were split along these lines so they were shared between his pocket and the taxpayers’?”

 

Reply:

I spent approximately 1hour 30mins with the Philippine Ambassador at his invitation. This occurred out of a stay in London that lasted approximately 15 hours. Therefore the proportion of time spent with the Ambassador was approximately 10%.

 

0 mins were spent at a Labour organised rally during this time in London. I instead attended a further four meetings in London during this period. I managed to ensure no cost was attributed to the council for my over night stay by virtue of staying with family.

 

The cost of the train ticket was met fully by the council.

 

(viii)   From Cllr Runciman: “The report to Cabinet which recommended spending £25,000 to send a delegation to the MIPIM Property Fair stated that the economic benefits were “difficult to determine”. Could the Cabinet Leader report back after the visit and outline precisely and quantifiably what the economic benefits actually were?”

 

Reply:

Yes

 

(ix)    From Cllr D’Agorne: “Will all potential inward investors for development sites be encouraged to sign up to a commitment to pay a Living Wage?”

 

Reply:

Yes

 

(x)     From Cllr Runciman: “In reference to the Autumn Statement, at the Conservative Conference in November George Osborne outlined plans for £10bn worth of welfare cuts. These included plans to end housing benefit for 1,060 under-25s in York, freeze all working-age benefits for 3,057 JSA claimants in York, and to limit child benefit to two children for 2,780 families in York. Does the Cabinet Leader believe the Liberal Democrats were right or wrong to oppose and block these proposals?”

 

Reply:

Right.

 

But it is a shame such tenacity was not also used to oppose reductions in Council Tax Benefit and reductions in benefits announced by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement. As much as it may be uncomfortable for some Liberal Democrat members, this government only exists because of Liberal Democrat support. This is the only mandate the Conservatives have for their legislative programme. If Liberal Democrats really want to oppose the Conservatives, they should leave the Government.

 

(xi)    From Cllr Runciman: “Can the Cabinet Leader confirm what proportion of the £9m savings the Chief Executive said were needed after the Autumn statement in 2013/14 is due to each of the following:

 

· Reduction in government grant

· Increased demand for services

· Increased cost of services?

 

Reply:

Reduction in Government funding = £4.5m

Increased demand for services = £2.5m (adult care)

Increased cost of services = £3.4m

 

(xii)    From Cllr Warters: “Given the Council Leaders concern that “Scrutiny is not working as it should be in this Council”, does the Council Leader consider that shouting at the CSMC Chair and Head of Democratic Services before storming out of the meeting room an slamming the door is the way to get scrutiny working as he demonstrated on the 19 November at CSMC (Call In) and if this is not the way to get scrutiny working will the Leader, through Full Council, offer an unreserved apology to Members and Council staff for his behaviour?”

 

Reply:

I am happy to defend my actions should there be a standards investigation initiated by yourself and Councillor Wiseman. I do however find it difficult to understand why me defending your view in the meeting was wrong and me leaving the meeting just before you did was also wrong.

 

Whether we like it or not SMC call-in meetings are a political environment which in turn leads to robust political debate. The conduct of the meeting is the responsibility of the Chair and I was not Chair of the meeting. The Chair of SMC is almost as important as a cabinet member and that chair needs to be experienced, and level headed but above all be able to control a meeting despite any political differences.

 

(xiii)   From Cllr Healey: “Given the fact that most scrutiny chairs and scrutiny members are Labour councillors, shouldn’t any failures of the scrutiny system first be addressed within the Labour Group?”

 

Reply:

I agree with Councillor Gillies’ view that all in this council can be apportioned blame. In Feb 2011 you voted to reduce the budget for scrutiny and in June 2011 you voted against Labour reinstating it. My opinion is that the failure of scrutiny comes from a lack of leadership of scrutiny and this is something the opposition must grasp. There appears to be a lot of meetings with lots of talk but very few outcomes. I think this is unacceptable.

 

(xiv)   From Cllr Ayre: “While we welcome the Leader’s concern about the scrutiny of his policies, one of the key parts of scrutiny is surely a free press. Will the Leader give his assurances that his recent twitter campaign will not be the start of him trying to use his position to unduly influence the media in York?”

 

Reply:

Yes

 

(xv)   From Cllr Runciman: “The Liberal Democrat Group believe that scrutiny and overview is a vital function of Council and therefore should not be party political or whipped. Does the Cabinet Leader agree with this?”

 

Reply:

I agree with Councillor Gillies’ view that all tend to vote on party lines.

 

 

B       Cabinet Recommendations

 

2012/13 Capital Programme Monitor 2

 

Cllr Alexander moved, and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendations contained in Minute 55 of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 November 2012:

 

[That Council] agree:

 

·       the adjustments in the Capital programme of an overall increase of £3.930m in 2012/13 and re-profiling from 2012/13 to 2013/14 and 2014/15 of £553k as detailed in the report and contained in Annex A including the following new schemes:

o   £248k for the provision of a Looked after Children’s Contact Centre funded by £190k departmental borrowing with the associated costs being funded by the savings realised from this service area as a result of delivering this scheme and £58k funded from DfE Children’s Social Care Capital Grant.

o    £2.213m for the outright purchase of Fleet Vehicles previously leased to be funded by prudential borrowing with the associated revenue costs being met from existing departmental revenue budgets.

o   £34k Parks and Open Spaces schemes all funded from S106.

o   £10k S106 CCTV Digital Infrastructure

·       To note the 2012/13 revised budget of £69.033 as set out in paragraph 6 and Table 2 of the report.

·       To note the restated capital programme for 2012/13 – 2016/17 as set out in paragraph 30, Table 3 and detailed in Annex A of the report.

·       To note the re-profiling and adjustments of the Economic Infrastructure fund to align to spend and approval as set out in the Economic Infrastructure reports to Cabinet noting the overall fund remaining at £28.5m.

·       To note the inclusion of the £618k for works at Hazel Court for the Office of the Future funded by prudential borrowing with the associated costs being met from annual revenue savings of £235k from moving out of the Guildhall, St Anthony's and 50 York Road as approved by Council on the 11October 2012.

·        To approve the use of capital contingency:

o   £31k for Flood Pump Resilience (paragraph 12)

o   £85k for CCTV Digital Infrastructure (paragraph 15)

On being put to the vote, the recommendations were declared CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED:                That the above recommendations in respect of the capital programme monitor be approved. ^1.

 

 

Council Tax Support Decision Paper

 

Councillor Alexander moved and Cllr Simpson-Laing seconded the following recommendation contained in Minute 70 of the Cabinet meeting held on 4 December 2012, set out in the papers circulated around the chamber:

 

[That Council] be recommended to approve Option 1, capping council tax benefits at a figure of 70% (as set out in detail in the report), as the Council Tax Support Scheme.

 

Cllr D’Agorne then moved, and Cllr Taylor seconded, an amendment to the above motion, as follows:

After ‘approve’ in line 2 delete ‘option 1 etc ..... ‘ to the end and replace with

“Option 2, thereby reducing the percentage cut in Council Tax benefit for working age claimants in 2013/14 from 30% to a maximum of 8.5%, subject to the additional funding required of £772,000 in 2013/14 being met through further savings in Council services to be identified in setting the budget for 2013/14 onwards and on the basis that (as with Option 1) a hardship fund is included for those worst affected by the cut in benefit.”

On being put to the vote, the above amendment was declared LOST.

 

The original motion was then put to the vote, and declared CARRIED and it was

 

RESOLVED:                That the original recommendation in respect of the Council Tax Support Scheme be approved. ^2.