Agenda item

To receive a written report from the Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services, 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 Simpson-Laing, Cabinet Member for Health, Housing and Adult Social Services.

 

Notice had been received of twenty seven questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders. The first three 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 Doughty:

 

“Firstly, let me begin by congratulating Councillor Simpson-Laing on her proclamation to 'make a difference'. This is a laudable aim but it is unfortunate that within this statement, the first paragraph of the Cabinet members report aims to make purely political statements that have the potential for causing serious misunderstanding and anxiety to residents in the City.  Can she please tell Council what benefit cuts are being referred to that are making the city unequal, less fair and with reduced life outcomes and if any actual evidence exists to support these claims?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“Cllr Doughty, as a Councillor I have the right to express my views and concerns with regard to the residents of this City when I believe that the policies of your Government, as I did under the previous administration, are detrimental those residents. Not to express my concerns over the devastating cuts to Local Government funding would be a failure of my duties, as would not informing residents of the effects that changes to benefits will have on their lives. We are undertaking this process of informing as it has become clear both locally, and nationally that Government has done little to pre-warn or prepare those in receipt of benefits or service cuts exactly what they are facing.

 

Cllr Doughty should remember that Adult Social Care takes up a large proportion of the Council’s Budget and that that percentage will continue to rise due to the City’s increasing older population and as a result of improved healthcare. With that in mind, Cllr Doughty needs to realise that many people will be affected and that if this Council cannot provide the same levels of service in the future, than it did in the past, then the work to make the City a more equal place will go backwards not forwards.

 

Along with the cuts to Government funding to this Council I am also referring to the reduction in the Local Housing Allowance to the lowest 30% of housing in the PRS, the introduction of Universal Credit, the removal of inflationary rises to Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits, Working Family Tax Credits, Maternity Pay, Paternity Pay, the constant and often intrusive re-assessments of those receiving disability benefits – their reduction and freezing to name but a few of the benefits many people receive in this City. The changes taking place are fact, something your colleagues across the country seem to accept but not the Conservatives in York. Because of these changes it will make it more difficult for many residents to continue to live and contribute to the City. When you have less money in your pocket and prices are rising at a rate greater than the support you are receiving, then living in the City on a low wage makes the ability to stay here more difficult and thus less equal. If you have a poor diet and cannot afford to heat your home then you will have reduced life outcomes.

 

You ask for evidence, well, increased enquiries about, and an actual rise in, homelessness, increased enquiries for help to the CAB, an increase in the incidence of Domestic Violence, increased debt levels and a rise in those taking out pay day loans, the list goes on.

 

I am very clear as I have no misunderstanding of the Government’s policies and the work that the Council, and partners are undertaking, to help those the Government has caused anxiety to.”

 

(ii)         From Cllr Runciman:

 

“The Cabinet Member refers to the Archer Close Council housing development (started under that last Lib Dem administration). At the December Council meeting the Cabinet Member said that she expected 102 affordable homes in total to be completed in York during the current financial year. This would have been the lowest outturn for 6 years. What are her current estimates of the likely outturn for the current financial year, the forthcoming year, and how many of these are the result of section 106 contributions?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“110 Affordable Homes are projected to complete in the current year - 33 are through current planning gain. 

 

In 2013/14 we currently project 90 completions of which 32 are on S106 sites.  This figure will change and we are hopeful that some recent permissions, New Lane Huntington (30) , and Tannery (11) may start to deliver homes.”

 

(iii)        From Cllr Wiseman:

 

“Rather than simply reporting on a consultation around sheltered housing having taken place in summer 2012, could the Cabinet Member report the finding of that consultation and could she tell Council whether, as a percentage of interested parties (Tenants, Carers, relatives etc), the 200 responses are sufficient for a representative sample?”

 

Cabinet Member replied:

“When writing a report to Council, a Cabinet Member aims to inform Councillors of an overview of the work undertaken in the Cabinet Member’s portfolio area so that it will either elicit further questions, at Council, or as I am quite happy to do, at other times. I could have given much more detail on this consultation in my report but that could then have taken up my whole report.

 

         The survey was undertaken in August 2012, and the purpose was to find out how residents felt about their scheme, including their own flat and the communal areas. This included

 

Decor in the communal areas

Accessibility (e.g. mobility around scheme, size of rooms in own flat)

Sense of community in the scheme (activities, events, involvement in wider community, resident consultation, etc)

Individual circumstances (reasons for moving into the scheme, length of time in scheme, how easy it was to ‘settle’ in the scheme etc)

When they wanted to have the staff cover on site

 

198 surveys were returned – a return rate of 54% for the 364 properties. We did not survey relatives and carers separately, however residents were invited to have input from relatives/carers if they wished. Officers and I felt that this was a good return rate. We have displayed survey results for residents in all schemes, and we are keeping residents informed about actions we are taking in response to their feedback, so hope to further improve response rates next year.

 

Surveys have been examined for each of the 11 schemes, however overall results show that

 

79% feel that the size of the rooms in their flats is adequate or better

 

20% feel that their kitchen is not large enough

 

82% attend regular residents meetings in the schemes

 

93% feel safe in their scheme

 

88% feel that their scheme is welcoming

 

There were very variable results about the decor in schemes – in most schemes this was considered to be good/very good, however in 3 schemes there were a number of residents who were less happy, and considered this to be adequate or poor.

 

Action has been taken in response to surveys

 

Re-decoration of dining room at Barstow House

 

Replacement of hallway carpets at Barstow House

 

Re-fit of communal kitchen areas at Barstow House and Glen Lodge

 

Re-fit of laundry facilities at Marjorie Waite Court and Glen Lodge

 

Further work is planned in response to resident feedback for 2013-14, and we plan to run the survey again around August 2013.”

 

(iv)       From Cllr D’Agorne:

 

“How many empty homes are there in York and how many of these can we realistically expect the new 'dedicated officer' to bring back into use in the coming year?”

 

Reply:

“After years of empty homes being all but ignored in the City it was right to create the post of Empty Homes Officer to tackle the small scale but persistent problem in the City with high demand on housing meaning that every home unused counts.

 

The work of the Empty Property Officer will be measured against the Empty Property Strategy, which I agreed in 2011, and action plan which laid out four key aims.

 

1)          Maintaining  accurate information about the numbers of long term empty homes – significant progress has been made in this area and in particular has ensured that officers are targeting those homes which not only maximise the amount of New Homes Bonus available but  also those which cause significant problems to neighbours. 

 

On the council tax register there are currently 294 properties which have been empty for more than six months. Only some are eligible for New Homes Bonus and only a few cause detriment to the neighbourhood, many homes are empty due to the natural turnover of the market, for example being sold or are in probate or the owner is in care.  146 of the 294 homes are ones where they fall into the criteria for action, i.e. they are not actively being marketed for sale etc and the Empty Property Officer will be focusing on these properties.  

        

2)          Encouraging owners of privately owned empty homes and owners of vacant property to bring them back in to residential use.  A target of 30 homes per year was set as a realistic but a stretched target given the relatively low numbers of empty homes within the city. This has been exceeded this year with 34 homes being brought back in to use.

 

In addition we have commissioned a feasibility study, part funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, with the Northern Civic Trust of England to determine the extent of the problem of disused upper floors in the historic centre of York with a view to understanding the causes of the problem and what action can be taken to bring them into use for residential use.  Fabrick Housing Group have submitted a bid to the Homes and Communities Agency for grant funding to support the conversion of 18 dwellings above shops/commercial premises in the centre of York.  We will know the outcome of the bid in May and conclusion of negotiations with the property owners will follow.

 

3)          Targeting  owners whose empty homes cause a significant detrimental impact to the neighbourhood

Officers have assessed the properties which have been brought to their attention through council records/planning and other partners such as the Police and directly from residents. A report will be brought later this year considering the enforcement options available to the council to tackle those owners who refuse to work with the council and whose properties are affecting others.

 

4)          Strengthening existing and develop new partnerships to reduce the number of long term empty homes in the city. The resource of the Empty Property Officer has meant that a more coordinated approach both internally and externally can be developed which has seen the benefits which I have already highlighted.

 

Councillors may want to note that his work was particular welcomed by residents when he worked with a number of agencies (Police/Fire/Planning) to ensure that the garage formerly known as Reg Vardy was properly secured against squatters.  This property has now been demolished, already improving the neighbourhood and planning permission has been obtained for student homes.”

 

(v)         From Cllr Aspden:

 

“The Council’s original Elderly Persons’ Homes (EPH) Modernisation Programme envisaged 200 specialist residential care beds - 55 beds at Fordlands, 90 beds at Lowfield Village, and 55 beds at Haxby Hall. With the scrapping of the Fordlands project, can the Cabinet Member assure residents that these 200 beds will still be provided?”

 

Reply:

“The May 2012 Cabinet report on the EPH review identified a programme to create three new facilities providing 200 beds based on a projected level of need and subject to further detailed work on financial affordability.  Approval in principle was given to progress work on the first two facilities with a decision on the need to replace Haxby Hall to be taken at a later date.  A report to Cabinet, expected in June, will provide members with options to replace the facility originally proposed for the Fordlands site at Burnholme, and will set out the overall financial model for new facilities.”

 

(vi)       From Cllr D’Agorne:

 

“Will City of York Council join the growing number of local authorities that include Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Islington, Dundee, East Lothian and other Scottish councils who have already pledged that no council tenant will be evicted from their home because of arrears resulting from the so-called 'bedroom tax'?”

 

Reply:

“The Council is visiting all its tenants that are affected by the bedroom tax offering guidance on financial management, assisting them with opportunities to downsize including the resources available through the incentive scheme and ways of maximising their income and appropriate referrals for specialist advice (future prospects, CAB) and support. Ultimately only when every effort has been made to help tenants maintain their payments will enforcement action be taken. The final decision on such matters rests with the courts.”

 

(vii)      From Cllr Richardson:

 

         “Could the Cabinet Member illuminate council on the outcomes anticipated through the ‘Tenancy strategy’, ‘Equalities Facilitator’ and ‘respect standard for housing management’ and will these ambiguous initiatives incur additional costs or place further work upon our existing teams working within Housing?”

 

Reply:

“The Tenancy Strategy is a statutory requirement set out in the Localism Act 2011 and requires the authority to publish its approach to a number of issues.

 

The guidance states that the strategy should aim to:

 

·        Set out the principals to the management of Social and Affordable rented homes.

·        Give guidance to social housing providers in York, how the local authority thinks they might best use this important resource to meet housing needs in the City.

·        Seek to set out principles around the use of fixed term tenancies, views around the allocations policy, discharging homeless duty into the Private Rented Sector and the approach to ‘affordable rents’.

 

The most contentious matter for this administration is the use of fixed term tenancies. Broadly speaking the authority is opposed to the widespread use of these tenancies partly because of the additional administrative burdens they place on landlords.  We are also concerned that wide use of fixed tenancies could undermine our successful efforts to build mixed and sustainable communities. It is not envisaged that the strategy will place any additional costs on the authority.

 

The Respect Standard for Housing Management provides details of good practice for landlords in tackling the issues of anti social behaviour. Any Social Landlord striving to provide the best service would look to adopt the standard. The cost of meeting these standards is met from within existing resources.

 

The appointment of the Tenancy Engagement and Equalities Facilitator is critical to the Council’s need to maximise opportunities to capture tenants’ views and direct involvement in the development of services as we are expected to by Government. The aim is to make these services more effectively targeted at the range of needs that we know exist in our increasing diverse City and which are constantly changing due to the current economic situation and changes to welfare. This in turn will help deliver service efficiencies as well as better outcomes for tenants.”

 

(viii)     From Cllr Cuthbertson:

 

“Following the public inquiry into Mid Staffordshire Hospital, will the Cabinet Member join me in welcoming the recommendations of a legal duty of candour to ensure that patients and families are informed if treatment or care has caused death or serious injury, and of a new role of Chief Inspector of Social Care to oversee the care received by elderly and vulnerable people? These recommendations deliver a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment confirming that poor care is unacceptable, also that staff have a professional duty to speak up about it and should be supported in so doing.”

 

Reply:

“Yes, I very much welcome these recommendations and seeing them implemented as soon as possible. Though I think Coun. Cuthbertson will find that all parties find poor care unacceptable, not just the Liberal Democrats, they just don’t need a manifesto pledge to say so.”

 

(ix)       From Cllr D’Agorne:

 

“Will you be pressing the case for active travel and healthy eating/lifestyles to be a central plank of the overall approach to public health in the city?”

 

Reply:

“Yes.”

 

(x)         From Cllr Doughty;

“Could the Cabinet Member tell us how many new homes have been built or at least commissioned as a direct result of 'Housing week' in November 2012?”

 

Reply:

“I think firstly it may helpful for Cllr Doughty if I explained the purpose of Housing Week.

 

The intention of ‘Housing Week’ was to set out the start of a clear approach to Get York Building. Details of issues discussed, at workshops and the Housing Summit have formed part of the base evidence for the interventions set out in the Get York Building report that was presented to Cabinet in February 2013 and will also support more interventions which will be brought forward in the coming months.

 

It think most Members would think it unrealistic to have expected any new homes to have been built as a direct result of Housing Week held 5 months ago, effective though this administration undoubtedly is. The average build time of a new home is closer to 12 months, and often longer, and that is not taking account the drawing up of plans Outline and Reserved Matters, negotiation with statutory agencies such as the Environment Agency, the obtaining of planning permissions and any appeals process that may result from the granting of permission.

 

The recommendations and initiatives from Housing Week were approved in February, 2013, and officers are now working on the initiatives that include, mortgage support, simplifying S106 agreements, infrastructure investment funding, and a Council House building programme.  Affordable Housing ‘targets’ have already been reduced and The Tannery, Strensall was approved under these new targets at last week’s Planning Committee at which Cllr Doughty was present. Referring back to the GYB report and the actions being taken forward it can be seen that many actions that could be enacted immediately – such as reduced targets, simplified S106 for rural sites - are already in place.

 

However as previously reported 50-70 new council homes are being commissioned in the first phase of council house building.

 

I appreciate that Cllr Doughty and some of this colleagues may not support the work we are undertaking in the City but I am assured by the support we have received from the Director General of DCLG that the work we are taking forward here in York is starting to make a difference.”

 

(xi)       From Cllr Doughty:

“Could the Cabinet Member share the projections that tell us that the Council match funding required to develop the Gypsy and Traveller site will be secured solely from additional revenue for new pitches. Assuming these pitches are charged at standard rates and all rent is collected on time, how many decades will it take for the match funding to be recovered and does that figure include any interest charges incurred whilst the initial outlay is being recouped?”

 

Reply:

“Cllr Doughty needs to understand, as do all Councillors, that this City has a duty to make provision for the Gypsy and Traveller community as set out in the Housing Act 2004 - we are no different from any other Council in the requirement to undertake this duty. This provision also includes the right to access Tenants Choice as all our tenants do on a cyclical basis of replacement and have repairs undertaken when required.

In March 2012, the Government published the Planning Policy for Traveller sites alongside the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The policy sets out the national policy requirements with respect to Gypsy and Traveller provision, which includes a new requirement for a five year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites. The council will need to take these national requirements into account in the formulation of the evidence base and subsequent Local Plan policies relating to Gypsy and Traveller provision.

Funding for the proposed extension of the Osbaldwick Travellers site is coming from two sources, Homes & Communities Agency grant funding and match funding from the Council.  Match funding from the Council is on the same basis of match funding for any other housing development, i.e. funded from the additional revenue income as a result of the proposed works.

 

The length of time any borrowing for match funding is taken out over will depend on the longevity of the investment.  Match funding for the proposed extension of Osbaldwick Travellers site is over 30 years, as was the case for the match funding for the recent development of 19 new council homes at Archer Close.”

 

(xii)      From Cllr Doughty:

“Could the Cabinet Member inform Council whether the air source heat pump and solar panel initiatives noted on page 110 of the Agenda report have incurred financial costs to taxpayers in York? If so, what are the costs?”

 

Reply:

“This Council is committed to make York a greener place to live and with the current cost of utilities we will continue to work to reduce the cost of heating for residents who are often in fuel poverty.

 

The cost of improvement works to the Council’s housing stock does not incur any financial cost to taxpayers in York.  Improvement works to our housing stock is funded from income from Council tenants’ rents, the Housing Revenue Account, and appropriate grants where these are available. 

 

The installation of solar panels to our housing stock was funded by institutional investors at no cost to the Council or the York taxpayer. Where these have been fitted the occupiers of the homes benefit from reduced energy costs as a result of the free electricity generated as well as this having a positive impact on reducing the city’s carbon footprint. However, I would say that it was the Government who actually imposed a cost on York tax payers through their mismanagement of the Feed in Tariff – being that they closed the scheme down 3 months early with only a few days notice. This ill-advised move led to ‘fitters’ being laid off – unemployment benefit, residents waiting longer to receive reduced energy bills and the costs of the Government’s failed challenge in the High and Supreme Courts.

 

To continue with this work I actively encourage Officers to apply for all grants that are advertised by Government.”

 

(xiii)     From Cllr Richardson:

 

         “Thank you for reminding us that Howe Hill Hostel for young people opened in January 2012. As this is now 14 months in the past, will you ensure your future “copy & paste” reports contain up to date information?”

 

Reply:

“Coun. Richardson, should note that this is my first report to Council since June 2011 and it is only right that I inform Council of all the work undertaken, the huge strides this Labour Council is making, during over that period as not all Members sit on Scrutiny Boards to which I report. I will provide information that I feel is fit and right for Council to receive and which is informative.”

 

(xiv)    From Cllr Doughty:

 

“It is reassuring the see that we now have some Officer time dedicated to working on bringing empty homes back into use. Is this change expected to make the process more effective and if so, what is the benchmark it will be measured against?”

 

Reply:

“I refer Cllr Doughty to the answer to my earlier question.”

 

(xv)     From Cllr Runciman:

 

“How many empty homes are there currently in York and what is the timetable for bringing these back into use?”

 

Reply:

“I refer Cllr Runciman to the answer to my earlier question.”

 

(xvi)    From Cllr Doughty:

“I am shocked to hear that Government are to introduce a new tax that I have not yet heard of. Could the Cabinet Member point me to the legislation introducing a "Bedroom Tax" and tell us when this new legislation is to commence?”

 

Reply:

“I’m extremely grateful to Coun. Doughty for drawing Members’ attention to the Government’s bedroom tax unprompted. It is a tax in the same sense as the council’s green bin tax, the main and very important difference being the latter doesn’t and never did exist. I would refer Cllr Doughty to the widely referred to Bedroom Tax, also know as the Under Occupation Subsidy which forms part

of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 that even the Telegraph has reported as being a ‘tax’.

 

It is a tax on those who cannot pay and who are unable to move due to a lack of smaller accommodation both here in the City and across the country. If people do not have the income to pay then they may well cut back on food and heating and that is the Government placing a tax on their abilities to reside in their homes.

 

A family that has maintained their home for many years, and who receive Housing benefit due to low wages or loss of employment, will see dramatic changes to their lives. If a family has two children of the same sex under 16, say 14 and 8, and those children currently have separate rooms they will now be expected to share a room. This then is a tax on children having their own room and could be detrimental to their education and a tax on being poor – unable to pay rent without assistance.

 

If the Government had introduced a higher level of Council Tax on large houses with extra rooms then that also would be a tax and that is why a Mansion Tax was proposed but rejected by the Government who would rather attack society’s most vulnerable and those on more meagre incomes.”

 

(xvii)   From Cllr Doughty:

 

        “Within the 'Social Care Services' satisfaction survey quoted on page 112 of the Agenda, could the Cabinet Member share with us when this took place, how many responses were received and the results from the full survey?”

 

Reply:

“Each year Local Authorities are required to survey eligible service users and submit the results to the Department of Health.  The questions are set by the Department of Health. Postal questionnaires were sent out in January 2012 to 879 eligible customers, selected at random as has been practice, who were in receipt of a service between 30 September and 31 December 2011. A total of 431 customers completed a survey. This gives an excellent response rate of 51% which I am pleased with. This year’s survey has now been sent out and we are awaiting results.

 

We have not published the survey in its own right, but the Local Account is our annual report to the public on our achievements and areas for improvements.  Results from the survey are included as part of the Local Account.

 

If further details are needed Cllr Doughty is welcome to ask to meet with officers.”

 

(xviii) From Cllr Wiseman:

 

       “On page 112 of the Council Agenda, Council is told of financial 'pressure'   on the Adults social care budget when children move into adult services. As getting older is one of the few things that can be reliably predicated can the Cabinet Member tell us why these costs were not anticipated at the beginning of the year and whether her department have now learned that vulnerable children will eventually become vulnerable adults who need social care services?”

 

Reply:

“Cllr Wiseman knows well that prediction with some of the medical conditions that young people have, or the complexities that can develop is not possible. As is recognised, medical science changes frequently and children with conditions not treatable just a few years ago are now living longer, and this is one of the reasons why two year budgeting helps.

 

Although we can identify most of the young people moving through from Children’s to Adult services early it requires careful planning with the individuals, families and other agencies, including Health,  to agree what the right support will be, how much it will cost and who will fund what.  Many of these decisions can only be taken in year, and are not within the control of the authority, particularly whether or not and what level of support will be available from Health.”

 

(xix)    From Cllr Doughty;

“Could the Cabinet Member tell us whether she believes the proposed new model for Yorkcraft will produce improved outcomes for those using the service and if so, what will this be benchmarked against and how will the outcomes be measured?”

 

Reply:

“The Council wants to ensure that we provide services that are fit for the 21^st Century and which residents wish to use, this is why we are working to improve the outcomes of those who use our services. Work continues on finalising the model for a sustainable Yorkcraft which will include increasing employment training and support offer. Measures of success will be defined and monitored to include the number of vulnerable people supported in to employment. Discussions continue on an economic agenda seeking to gain wider support from local businesses.”

 

(xx)     From Cllr Aspden:

 

 “The Council’s original Elderly Persons’ Homes (EPH) Modernisation Programme envisaged Lowfield Village opening in April 2014 and Haxby Hall opening in 2015, when does the Cabinet Member now envisage these homes will open?”

 

Reply:

“A report to Cabinet in June will provide an update on the modernisation programme, and will set out revised completion dates and detailed timelines for the new facilities.  These will be later than originally indicated due to the unexpected late information with regard to Fordlands  environmental conditions, will reflect the complexity of the programme and the need for Officers to ensure that the design of the new facilities delivers the best possible dementia care environment that will support the provision of modern care into the future.”

 

(xxi)    From Cllr Aspden:

 

        “The Council’s original Elderly Persons’ Homes (EPH) Modernisation Programme envisaged the following financial projection: “investment of £67k is needed in year 1 (2013/14), £408k in year 2, £469k in year 3 before a cost saving of £108k begins in year 4 to reduce the investment required to £361k that year, and subsequently reducing investment amounts of £145k and £39k for years 5 and 6. A £69k saving would accrue in year 7 and increase to £105k saving in subsequent years before repaying these investment costs in year 21 (2032/33). It would then generate a savings of £1.1m, until the capital repayments end in 2038/39 when ongoing savings of £870k per year would accrue”. Is the Council still on track to meet these targets and, if not, how far have they slipped and how will this financial shortfall be met?”

 

Reply:

“A report to Cabinet In June will contain an updated financial model which will set out in a similar fashion to the May 2012 report the overall capital and revenue cost for the project within our current financial climate.”

 

(xxii)   From Cllr Cuthbertson:

 

“What Public Health funding increases are expected in the years after 2013-14 and 2014-15?”

Reply:

“The original baseline Public Health allocation for 2013-14 for the City of York Council based on historic spend for 2013-14 was £6.037 Million which was uplifted by 10% to give an actual allocation for 2013-14 of £6.64m.  This will be uplifted by a further 10% next year to give an allocation in 2014-15 of £7.305m.  At this stage we do not know what the actual increases will be beyond 2014-15 but the allocation of £7.305m still leaves us £1.56m below the Government’s target allocation based on our needs. It’s unfortunate that the Government has set a target based on need and then set an allocation that falls well short of that target.

 

I would then expect further increases in the years ahead but as there has been no indication, this makes future years needs planning more difficult.”

 

(xxiii) From Cllr Cuthbertson:

 

“How will the work done by the Obesity Working Group of the Council in 2010/11 be used to inform the JSNA and how will the work being planned to address the three JSNA strands of Smoking, Obesity and Domestic Violence differ from previous campaigns?”

 

Reply:

“Cllr Cuthbertson should be aware that the JSNA is revised at least annually and draws on all available information. The three strands of work will be based on up to date information taking into account all available evidence and updated guidance, such as that produced by NICE and other national organisations.”

 

(xxiv) From Cllr Wiseman:

 

         “Labour members on the Health Scrutiny Committee have made calls to write to Government and local MP's to complain about levels of Health funding, could Councillor Simpson-Laing tell us whether she has written to Government to thank them for the positive steps in the right direction that are the increased allocations of 10% in each of the next two years to the public health budget in York?”

 

Reply:

“It may not surprise you to learn that I will not be doing so as I pointed out clearly in a letter to The Press not too long ago.

 

Our allocation is only £33 per head of population for 2013-14 against a target of £42 per head and for 2014-15 it will still only be £36 per head against a target of £44 per head. Hopefully that explains why I will not be praising the Government on this occasion.”

 

(xxv)  From Cllr Cuthbertson:

 

“What is the Cabinet Member doing to ensure that the CCG, Hospital and other agencies are working with HealthWatch to ensure that it is able to meet patients’ needs as the new contract gets under way?”

 

Reply:

“Cllr Cuthbertson should be aware that Healthwatch is a key member of the Health & Well-being Board where the CCG, York Teaching Hospital and the Leeds and York Partnership Foundation Trust are both also members and both are represented by their Chief Executives.  Also, the NHS Commissioning Board is represented on the Board by The Director for the York and Humber Local Area Team.  The Board will have an overview of the whole Health & Social Care System and will be ideally placed to ensure that HealthWatch is fully engaged with all appropriate agencies.”

 

(xxvi) From Cllr Doughty:

 

“Continuing with her 'making a difference' theme, for the sake of transparency could the Cabinet Member comment on the long list of conferences, meeting visits and events she has recorded at the end of her report and tell us what difference these have made to those she was elected to represent?”

 

Reply:

“Cllr Doughty appears to be employing similar logic to his thinking on our housing week and the expectation that we should have new homes completed as a result a handful of months afterwards. He should note that these meetings are part of my duties as Cabinet Member and that the meetings are mainly with partners that the Council works with, seeks advice from or seeks to influence. In having these meetings I can ensure better outcomes on Housing, Health and Adult Social provision in the City as to work in isolation and silos leads to poor services and poor practice.”

 

(xxvii)   From Cllr Runciman:

 

“Further to the list of meetings etc provided by the Cabinet Member does she believe that it is important to talk with residents and community associations and if she does, why is it that she has found time to attend meetings all over the country but failed to regularly attend the Federation of Tenants & Residents Associations?”

 

Reply:

“I have visited a number of Residents Associations. I feel it is important that the Federation of Tenants & Residents Associations feel that they can discuss matters at their meeting openly and this may not always be possible with a Councillor present.

 

I have known many of those involved with the Association for over a decade and they know of my support of Council and Social Housing. Because of this they know that I will always make myself available to speak with them when required.”