Agenda item

To receive and consider a written report from the Leader on the work of the Cabinet.

 

A written report was received from the Cabinet Leader, Cllr James Alexander, on the work of the Cabinet.

 

Questions

 

Notice had been received of eighteen questions on the written report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first five questions were put and answered as follows and Cllr Alexander undertook to provide Members with written answers to the remaining questions:

 

(i)           From Cllr Healey:

 

“What contingency plans does CYC have in place should the Allerton Park EfW fail to proceed?”

 

The Leader replied:

“While continuing discussions to establish a way forward with the Allerton Park Waste scheme, the council is also considering alternatives for depositing waste in the short to medium terms.  Harewood Whin offers the council sufficient capacity for some years to come but without Allerton Park, alternatives will be required.

 

We are exploring what capacity there is in other local authority areas through talks with those authorities and also looking at merchant facility providers for alternative solutions.

 

A report to Cabinet in June will provide more detail and an update on where we go next following the Government’s decision.”

 

(ii)          From Cllr D’Agorne:

 

“While acknowledging potential benefits of HS2, can the Leader outline what action has been taken to oppose the re-privatisation of East Coast service and to seek assurances that any future franchise will limit fares increases and guarantee HQ jobs being kept in York?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Can I first of all welcome your acknowledgement of the potential benefits of HS2. I know how difficult this must be for you considering your party nationally is opposed to HS2. I have raised all of the issues you mention to the rail minister, shadow rail minister, both the city's MPs and the East Coast Main Line Authority group we have set up.  The Government has sadly failed to offer assurances these jobs will remain in York, but I will be lobbying, I’m sure with both of the city’s MPs, to ensure that they do in fact remain here once the franchise is awarded.”

 

(iii)        From Cllr Reid:

 

“Will the Cabinet Leader confirm that the new HS2 trains will be able to travel on the existing line from Church Fenton to York or will this line need upgrading?”

 

The Leader replied:

“No, not until the Government can confirm this. I suspect there will be some upgrade at the junction where the HS2 line will meet the classic line at Church Fenton.”

 

(iv)        From Cllr Warters:

 

“Following my support of the Council’s Living Wage policy, would the Council Leader now join me in congratulating the Coalition Government for further assisting low paid workers by increasing personal allowances to £10,000 a year earlier than forecast?”

 

The Leader replied:

“Yes and thank you for your support.  But Coun. Warters I’m sure must be aware that what the Government giveth with one hand, it taketh away with another. For example, if you are low paid, this higher tax threshold will be welcome but the Government’s removal of council tax benefit, of tax credits and the introduction of universal credit will be much less so.”

 

(v)         From Cllr Cuthbertson:

 

“If the Leader recognises that our current procedures are inadequate and that there is a need for a ‘more open and transparent democratic process’ at Full Council, will he now ensure that Cabinet Members’ decision making sessions are also open, transparent and held in public and not behind closed doors?”

 

The Leader replied:

“What you are confused about is routine decisions compared to strategic ones. The previous administration used these meetings to create the illusion of activity and progress. My predecessor cancelled 13 out of the 24 he held since they were introduced. I don't think this is a good use of diminishing resources. These meetings still continue for strategic items that require much needed public engagement.

 

I would like to draw your attention to one meeting in particular and ask if you think this is a good use of officer time and resources? On 20th October, 2009 the Executive Member for Corporate Services had one agenda item, bad debts write off. No members of the public registered to speak. The Executive Member then agreed to exclude the press and public for this one item, which was the point of the meeting. This would have had an officer present the report and at least a committee clerk and there will have been administration costs for the meeting.

 

This administration is committed to openness and transparency. and our procedures bring us into line with most councils in the country at the same time as saving money and being able to redirect it to important areas like adult social care.”

 

(vi)        From Cllr Healey:

 

“Have CYC or NYCC costed any alternatives to the original Allerton Park scheme yet?”

 

Reply:

“The council has not costed any alternatives at this stage until we are completely clear on the future of plans for Allerton Park.  The Government’s out of the blue decision, without any discussion with local authorities, has obviously put these plans in jeopardy, but we are in discussions with the Treasury over options to mitigate the lost PFI credits.  We will be meeting with the relevant DEFRA Minister and his team very soon and will be in a position to update council following that meeting.  We certainly expect some cooperation from a Government that has not handled this process well.  In an attempt to save itself some money to make its figures look better, it has potentially cost both councils involved millions of pounds.”

 

(vii)      From Cllr D’Agorne:

 

“What work is being done to ask residents for their views on how to make full council meetings more meaningful and accessible?”

 

Reply:

 “As discussed and accepted by you previously, a paper will be made public over how to improve these meetings. This will then come to Audit and Governance Committee where residents will be able to make their own views known.”

 

(viii)     From Cllr Runciman:

 

“On the recent Budget, would the Cabinet Leader join me in welcoming the announcement that the tax-free threshold will be increased to £10,000 and would he agree that this is a better situation than under the previous Labour Government where someone working full-time on the Minimum Wage paid £1,000 in Income Tax?”

 

Reply:

 “Yes but I am disappointed the Liberal Democrats in Parliament would not support their own manifesto policy to introduce a mansion tax and would also not support abolition of the 10p tax rate which they were right to previously oppose.”

 

(ix)        From Cllr Cuthbertson:

 

“Will the Leader confirm that bailiffs acting for City of York Council are pursuing debts that are properly owed to the Council and not the Government; since Labour has made a local choice to pass on reductions in Council Tax Benefit to residents, and will he acknowledge that the Council would be failing in its duty to the taxpayer if it did not collect Council Tax and rents that are due?”

 

Reply:

 “I would have thought a Member of some years would know the council does not collect Government debts. The bailiffs collect different debts owed to the council only.”

 

(x)          From Cllr D’Agorne

 

“Is this policy being promoted to other key partners in the city as a way to boost inclusion and fairness across York?”

 

Reply:

 “Yes.”

 

(xi)         From Cllr Runciman:

 

“Could the Cabinet Leader expand upon his thoughts on airport expansion?”

 

Reply:

 “I support airport expansion.”

 

(xii)      From Cllr Cuthbertson:

 

“Does the Leader agree that the Council’s reputation is being damaged whenever bailiffs visit the wrong premises on its behalf? Will he mitigate this key corporate risk by ensuring that bailiffs only visit the right premises and that unnecessary stress is not caused to innocent residents?”

 

Reply:

 “I saw no evidence of this happening at all. However, some people do leave properties and debts behind to which new tenants can be called upon. In this instance, bailiffs would seek to locate individuals that have moved addresses as a first action.”

 

(xiii)      From Cllr D’Agorne:

 

“In the absence of the March Local Plan group meeting (cancelled) could the Leader advise whether this work is on track and when public consultation will begin on the preferred options document?”

 

Reply:

 “Coun. D’Agorne has had it explained to him on more than one occasion that Local Plan meetings are scheduled for the benefit of Member availability and meeting space, but only take place when business needs considering.  I remain hopeful that one day this will sink in.

 

But yes, and in the next few months to answer your question.”

 

(xiv)    From Cllr D’Agorne:

 

“With the demise of much of government funding for warmer homes and home renewables, what green jobs can we expect in the short term before the LCR Green Deal is available?”

 

Reply:

 “I think you raise a very valid point that more needs to be done in the short term as Government promises don't seem to be making an impact quickly enough, and uptake of funding from existing private Green Deal providers has been slow nationally. 

 

Members may know that all funding streams for energy efficiency measures for private sector housing and businesses will cease as of the end of this month, to be replaced by the Green Deal and the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), a scheme which involves energy companies making contributions towards energy efficiency measures now.  While the City Region Green Deal is not immediately available, the latter scheme is and officers are working on plans to ensure that green jobs are supported and new jobs created through our housing improvement and sustainability plans.

 

Those plans will focus on the three strands of ECO; affordable warmth, carbon saving (general) and carbon saving (communities). The focus I’m pleased to say is on low income households and communities who desperately need help to reduce crippling household energy costs. More detail of our strategy will be considered by Cabinet next Tuesday, where we will set out how the transition will be made from accessing ECO funding to Green Deal funding through the City Region from 2014.”

 

(xv)      From Cllr Runciman:

 

“The Cabinet Leader says that the recent visit to the MIPIM Conference has led to 30 leads but no firm offers. Could he outline what he plans to do now and when would he expect the leads to become firm offers?”

 

Reply:

 “I can't predict the future, but I envisage us getting some positive outcomes from the investment we made at MIPIM. Time will tell, but these things don’t always happen immediately and will require a longer term effort on our part. Coun. Runciman can rest assured that I will be the first to let her know when we have news on this.”

 

(xvi)    From Cllr Runciman:

 

“On the recent Budget, could the Cabinet Leader confirm what the top rate of tax was for York residents in the first 12 years and 11 months of Labour’s time in Government and what the top rate of tax is now?”

 

Reply:

 “The top tax rate for the majority of the previous Labour Government was less than it is now but this doesn’t deflect attention from your party's support for reducing the tax rate for high earners at a time of supporting draconian cuts to the vulnerable through welfare spending reductions. What you need to take into account is the tax rate was during good times when most people had increasing living standards. At a time when this is not the case the more wealthy should increase contributions to support the poorest. This is happening through other forms of taxation and should happen through the basic rate of tax. To do otherwise I think shows a Government with the wrong priorities.”

 

(xvii)   From Cllr Runciman:

 

“On the recent Budget, will the Cabinet Leader join me in welcoming the fact that over the five years of this Parliament under the Coalition, a millionaire in York (earning £1m p/a) will pay £381,000 more tax on their income (income tax and NICs) than they did under the last five years of the Labour Government?”

 

Reply:

 “I refer you to my previous answer.”

 

(xviii)  From Cllr Runciman:

 

“On the recent Budget, would the Cabinet Leader join me in welcoming the decision to cancel another of Labour’s planned fuel duty rises – meaning fuel will now be 13 pence per litre less than under Labour plans and would the Leader agree that this has a beneficial effect on York residents as it will now be £7 cheaper to fill up your car than under Labour, and fuel duty has now been frozen for almost three and a half years?

 

Reply:

 “I welcome any measure that reduces the pressure on ordinary people trying to get on in life.  But this freeze must be set against increases in the tax burden the Coalition has imposed on such people. Fuel price increases have resulted from the VAT increase the Coalition Government introduced. This was something the Liberal Democrats campaigned against before the election. You may recall Nick Clegg stood in front of a billboard with Charles Kennedy saying stop the Tory VAT bombshell, before getting squarely behind the tax hike only a few weeks later.”