Agenda item

To receive a written report from the Cabinet Member for Crime and Stronger Communities, and to question the Cabinet Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8.2.1.

Council received a written report from Cllr Williams, Cabinet Member for Crime and Stronger Communities.

 

Notice had been received of eighteen questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first eight questions were put and answered as follows and Members agreed to receive written answers to their remaining questions, as set out below:

 

(i)      From Cllr Healey:

 

“Are you actually implying that the creation of a single cabinet post has led to a reduction in crime of 19.4% in the last two years and isn’t this disrespectful to the police, probation service and other criminal justice professionals who are really responsible?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“Its taken a deliberately provocative comment from me to get opposition councillors to ask me questions about crime figures, which show a spectacular success story since Labour took control of the authority.

 

I am delighted to take up the opportunity to talk about the staggering reduction in crime in York since May 2011, which followed from a year of rising crime in 2010/11.

 

Of course the major credit for this should go to professionals on the ground in the police and Safer York Partnership.

 

But just as we praise officers we should acknowledge that these successes came under a policy framework set by this administration and taking their lead from this administration . I am sure he would be the first to blame me if the figures showed a rise in crime.”

 

 

(ii)     From Cllr Orrell:

 

“What were the figures for overall crime in 2003 and in 2011? What percentage increase/decrease does this represent over the 8 year period?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“Crime fell in York over those eight years. But the fall was not at all consistent. On average it fell by 6.7% per year in those years.

 

Crime fell by 10% last year. So far this year its fallen by 9.4%. He can try to play around with the Lib Dem figures all he wants – it will still show a remarkable performance in the last two years under Labour and far better than anything achieved under the Lib Dems.”

 

(iii)     From Cllr Orrell:

 

“Would he agree with me that at least some of the credit for the continuing drop in crime in York over the last ten years should go to the Police and other partners?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“Yes.”

 

(iv)    From Cllr Orrell:

“In the areas of theft or unauthorised taking of a vehicle, shoplifting, and fraud our performance position compared to our family group of authorities has worsened. How does the Cabinet Member explain this and what steps has he put in place to improve this position?”

Cabinet Member replied:

“In the case of fraud, the sample base is very small and so small changes can distort the figures. I should say that we are considerably ahead of target for this crime type.

 

There doesn’t appear to be a specific reason for the change with regards to the other two types of crime.

 

in terms of the unauthorised taking of a vehicle, whilst we have very marginally slipped in the rankings of our family group, the trend is actually very good. We are bang on our pre-set target for the year and the number of such thefts are significantly down on last year, which was in fact significantly down on the year before.

 

In terms of shoplifting, I agree with Cllr Orrell that this is a concern as it is the only one of the 12 crime types where we are not meeting our targets.

 

This will be one of focusses moving forward and I can confirm one of the measures we are looking at relates to Business Watch schemes – which was a specific outcome of the Crime Summit.”

 

(v)     From Cllr Orrell:

“Would the Cabinet member agree to publish comparative numbers of overall crime for both York and North Yorkshire separately, for each of the last 10 years, to give members the full facts on which to base their judgement of his effectiveness?”

Cabinet Member replied:

“No. I’m not responsible for crime in North Yorkshire and he can just as easily access the crime figures for there as I can. In any case, North Yorkshire would not be a good point of comparison since it differs very significantly in character to York. The levels of crime and the types of crime are very different and so the comparison would be largely meaningless.”

 

(vi)    From Cllr Healey:

 

“How many York residents attended April’s Crime Summit who were not associated with either CYC or one of the council’s partner organisations?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“No specific attendance register was kept so I cannot provide a precise number. However, I can report that officers running stalls at the summit were kept busy all day with queries from members of the public.”

 

(vii)    From Cllr Healey:

 

“Regarding your point about ‘Troubled Families’ on page 102, how many is a “small” number of families?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“330”

 

(viii)   From Cllr Orrell:

“Would the Cabinet Member outline the number of Anti-Social Behaviour incidents recorded by the Council (‘CYC Recorded ASB Calls for Service’) in 2010/11, 2011/12 and the forecast (plus monthly breakdown so far) for 2012/13? What percentage yearly increase/decrease does this represent and what factors are behind any rise/fall?”

Cabinet Member replied:

“The monthly figures are as follows:

Year                Apr  May  Jun  Jul    Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec  Jan  Feb  Mar

2012-13         293  270  255  345  327   224  288

2011-12         314  213  242  389  345   301  250  272  188  418  323  319

2010-11         312  246  252  372  224  252  269  265   213  328  315  410

2009-10         348  236  368  293  248  308  264  220  177  216  265  348

 

            There was a 5% increase in ASB Calls for service in 2010/11 a 3% rise in 2011/12 and based on the figures in so far this year were are predicting a 4% fall this year, taking the total number of incidents to 3,432 – below the level we inherited.”

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

 

(ix)    From Cllr Orrell:

“Would the Cabinet Member provide a monthly breakdown of the ASB incidents recorded by the Council (CYC Recorded ASB Calls for Service) since 2010/11 (or from when possible) by the following categories: Abandoned Car, Drug related Litter, Fly-tipping, Graffiti, Litter and Dog Fouling plus any other recorded areas?”

Reply:

The monthly figures are:

(x)     From Cllr Ayre:

“In regards to supporting students, is the Cabinet Member aware of any concerns raised by international students about the behaviour of some of the city's bus company staff?”

Reply:

I am aware that Muslim students from York University have experienced ‘being left standing at the bus stop’ earlier in the Year.

As part of the hate crime work with York University, officers are working with the Islamic Society on a programme of work that may address some of these problems. This work is only in the initial stages however I understand they are keen to work with us to address the problem.

Neither I, nor my supporting officers are aware of any other concerns raised.

(xi)    From Cllr Orrell:

 

“The report mentions the problem of alcohol misuse, could the Cabinet Member outline whether he is in favour of introducing a minimum alcohol price limit in order to tackle this problem?”

 

Reply:

Safer York Partnership, York Drug And Alcohol Team and the Health and Wellbeing Board are all focused on the alcohol agenda.

 

A minimum alcohol price may be one consideration but amongst a range of other options to tackle the long term effects of alcohol misuse. We have an alcohol strategy and this will determine a holistic approach to tackling the problem and we will be theming the coming crime summit around alcohol.

 

At present I am neutral with regard to minimum pricing. I have nothing against the principle, but I am a strong believer in evidence based policy and so I am watching how this turns out in the areas that have recently implemented the measure. It may be a useful tool to tackling our alcohol problems, but we will be led by the evidence.

 

 (xii)   From Cllr Ayre:

“Could the Cabinet Member provide an update on the 14 projects funded by Your Consortium and confirm that all the funding will be used by the organisations and no funding has been returned?  If any funding has been returned, what were the reasons for this?”

Reply:

Yes. I have tabled a report separately from Your Consortium which shows the huge benefits which are being derived from these 14 projects. It is tremendous how many new and diverse projects we have been able to fund with real and measurable benefits.  I am pleased that the report shows that no funding has been returned and it looks like all projects are on track to draw down their full award.

 

(xiii)   From Cllr Ayre:

 

“Does the Cabinet Member believe that the Your Consortium process is proving onerous and obstructive to organisations?”

 

Reply:

No. I think the report tabled amply demonstrates that this is not at all the case.

 

(xiv)   From Cllr Ayre:

“Can the Cabinet Member state how much was spent on the launch of the Equality Strategy and on what?”

Reply:

This is the responsibility of my Cabinet colleague Cllr Crisp. However I can confirm that £383 was spent on the venue and refreshments for the launch – which I would suggest is excellent value for money in terms of raising awareness of this important initiative for York and its diverse communities.

 

(xv)   From Cllr Reid:

“How many residents have attended Ward Committee meetings so far during this municipal year and how does this compare to the same period in 2010?”

Reply:

Ward Committee attendance is significantly down on previous years. This is likely to be due to the fact that ward committee funding is much reduced, owing to cuts from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government.

 

(xvi)   From Cllr Reid:

“How many residents have responded, in each ward, to consultation surveys (paper and internet) organised by the neighbourhood unit, in each of the last 3 years?”

Reply:

The numbers of responses are as follows:

WARD	Votes       11/12	Votes 10/11	Votes  09/10
Acomb	57	98	56
Bishopthorpe & Wheldrake	136	242	332
Clifton	142	264	161
Derwent, Heworth Without & Osbaldwick	168	236	202
Dringhouses & Woodthorpe	126	200	171
Fishergate	116	136	94
Guildhall	71	127	66
Haxby & Wigginton	164	357	216
Heslington & Fulford	68	90	79
Heworth	91	120	101
Holgate	98	80	146
Hull Road	68	68	58
Huntington & New Earswick	97	170	131
Micklegate	156	276	290
Rural West	136	282	22
Skelton, Rawcliffe & Clifton Without	179	225	239
Strensall	145	227	198
Westfield	108	150	159

 

(xvii)  From Cllr Reid:

“How many of the residents attending his Westfield ward committee meeting in November were there specifically to object to the 20mph speed limit proposals?”

Reply:

None.

But given that 20mph limits were not an item on the agenda that is hardly surprising. The recent Westfield Ward Committee was not a formal meeting but an informal drop-in session held in Acomb Explore Library.

We had support from a number of partners and an excellent attendance from Westfield residents with people dropping in constantly over a three hour period. Many commented on how much better the new format was, allowing them the confidence to speak to people rather than feeling uncomfortable speaking up in a formal meeting.

(xviii)From Cllr Ayre:

“Can the Cabinet Member state whether he believes it is correct that organisations with no employees are barred from applying for funding due to the lack of an employer liability certificate?”

Reply:

I think Cllr Ayre has somehow become confused on this issue.  Of course any organisation that provides services or invites the public or volunteers onto its premises will need appropriate public liability insurance as would be expected. Equally, we would expect any organisation to have employer’s liability insurance to ensure that any volunteers carrying out voluntary work in their organisation are properly protected. This does not bar organisations that do not employ people from applying, it merely ensures that organisations with volunteers provide the requisite legal protection to its voluntary workforce.