Agenda item

To deal with the following questions to the Executive Leader and / or other Executive Members, in accordance with Standing Order 10(a):

(i)         To the Executive Leader, from Cllr B Watson:

“Could the Leader of the Council explain his definition of ‘mischievous’?”

(ii)        To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Potter:

“Would the Executive Member now reconsider his objections to lobbying the Government to ban or tax the use of plastic bags in the UK and sign our petition which we will be sending to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, requesting that the Government bans or taxes plastic bags, and is he aware that Brighton and Hove City Council and Norwich Council have recently voted to ask the Government to ban plastic bags?”

(iii)       To the Executive Member for Youth and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Fraser:

“Would the Executive Member for Youth and Social Inclusion outline one ambition for his coming year in office?”

(iv)       To the Executive Member for Youth and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre:

“Could the Executive Member report on any success that the Council and young people had in taking part in the national Take Over day on 23 November 2007?”

(v)        To the Executive Member for Housing Services, from Cllr Merrett:

“Could the Executive Member for Housing Services explain the reasons for the large number of boiler replacements (indicated in the Press article on Friday 10/11/07) and how much this has cost?”

(vi)       To the Executive Member for Children’s Services, from Cllr Healey:

“Will the current review under way for Home to School Transport include those children who attend school out of their catchment area, so that free transport for children who do not have a ‘safe route’ to school is not restricted to their catchment area school but any that has an existing bus service? This will bring the policy in line with recent appeal decisions and avoid the time and cost for both parties in future.”

(vii)      To the Executive Member for Adult Social Services, from Cllr Hogg:

“Would the Executive Member please update Council on the current situation regarding joint working arrangements with the PCT?”

In accordance with Standing Order 10(c)(i), the following questions were put and responses given:

(i)         To the Executive Member for Youth and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Fraser:

“Would the Executive Member for Youth and Social Inclusion outline one ambition for his coming year in office?”

            The Executive Member replied:

“Cllr Fraser would have seen my previous two written responses to this question.  I am enjoying working with a wide range of people and community groups as Executive Member for Youth and Social Inclusion.  It is vital that the Council continues to provide good community relations.  One ambition, as previously reported, will be in developing the next Equality Strategy (2008-11) for the Council.  The new Strategy will be launched in April.  There is a lot of work now being done, and over the next five months, to make sure it includes key issues from local minority communities and work to support staff in making equalities improvements in both service provision and employment.”

(ii)        To the Executive Leader, from Cllr Brian Watson:

“Could the Leader of the Council explain his definition of ‘mischievous’?”

The Executive Leader replied:

“I would refer the Member to the Oxford English Dictionary.  The definitions used in that publication have always been good enough for me.”

(iii)       To the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services, from Cllr Potter:

“Would the Executive Member now reconsider his objections to lobbying the Government to ban or tax the use of plastic bags in the UK and sign our petition, which we will be sending to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, requesting that the Government bans or taxes plastic bags, and is he aware that Brighton and Hove City Council and Norwich Council have recently voted to ask the Government to ban plastic bags?”

The Executive Member replied:

“I’m afraid that the councillor attempts to misrepresent my position, which was put on record during the debate at full Council on 24^th January 2006.  I do not support the current use of plastic bags.  I amended her motion so that it called on the government for a levy on plastic bags similar to that proposed in the Members’ Bill by MSP Mike Pringle in the Scottish Parliament.  The advantage of a levy over a tax is that the money would stay in York, rather than being sent to Government Treasury, something with which Cllr Potter clearly has a problem.

I am aware of the motion from Brighton and Hove Council which, similar to my amendment, calls for a levy on plastic bags, and the motion from Norwich Council, which encourages all consumers in Norwich to reduce their usage of non degradable plastic bags.  I suggest that she reads them carefully to find out what they have actually asked for.”

In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Potter asking whether he would sign the petition, the Executive Member replied:

“I would be delighted to sign the petition if Cllr Potter will sign a joint letter to the Government requesting the return of our landfill tax.”

(iv)      To the Executive Member for Youth and Social Inclusion, from Cllr Ayre:

“Could the Executive Member report on any success that the Council and young people had in taking part in the national Takeover Day on 23 November 2007?”

The Executive Member replied:

“Takeover Day was promoted by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to celebrate the contributions of children and young people to our communities and mark the anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Within the City the day was a great success, with many Council staff and elected Members enabling children and young people to ‘Takeover’ with the emphasis on avoiding tokenism and helping children to be part of meaningful projects.

A few examples include: pupils from Badger Hill School taking over from the Lord Mayor for the day; in Woodthorpe, pupils worked with members of the Neighbourhood Management Unit looking at planning in their area, and many of the events were documented by pupils from Elvington School.  In various ways, hundreds of children and young people have been involved in helping to shape the decisions made within our community.”

(v)       To the Executive Member for Housing Services, from Cllr Merrett:

“Could the Executive Member for Housing Services explain the reasons for the large number of boiler replacements (indicated in the Press article on Friday 10/11/07) and how much this has cost?”

In the absence of the Executive Member for Housing Services, Cllr Sue Galloway (Executive Member for Adult Social Services) replied:

“The expected industry lifespan for a boiler is 15 years.

We do not automatically replace after this time span if everything is in working order

In the not too distant past, many local authority homes did not have boilers (the source of heat came from coal or gas fires and immersion heaters to heat water).

When the Council started a programme of works to fit central heating and / or boilers, the works on the properties all took place at around the same time line.  Some of these boilers are now coming to the end of their working life and this is why we have an ongoing Capital Programme for boiler replacement.

The number of boiler replacements required is determined by the volume of appliances and installations identified, during their annual service, as being ‘immediately dangerous’, ‘at risk’ or ‘not to current standards’.  A view is taken at this stage whether or not it is more economical to replace the boiler than to repair it.

A boiler may be designated as ‘at risk’ if it is identified that it carries 2 or more items relating to fluing or ventilation that would be considered ‘not to current standards’.

In an attempt to put this into context, since the boiler replacement programme began in 2006 we have replaced 2,178 boilers and fires at an approximate cost of £3.6 million.

Since April 2007 we have spent a further £335k on 93 units through our Tenants Choice scheme.

The new boilers that are being fitted are more efficient, representing better value for tenants and with less impact on the environment.”

In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Merrett asking whether there was a need to investigate whether adequate services were being provided by the contractor, as one tenant had had three replacements in four years, the Executive Member replied:

“I have no information on specific cases but can give you general information in relation to boilers if you wish and can raise any specific case with Officers on your behalf if you have not already done so.”

(vi)      To the Executive Member for Children’s Services, from Cllr Healey:

“Will the current review under way for Home to School Transport include those children who attend school out of their catchment area, so that free transport for children who do not have a ‘safe route’ to school is not restricted to their catchment area school but any that has an existing bus service?  This will bring the policy in line with recent appeal decisions and avoid the time and cost for both parties in future.”

The Executive Member replied:

“Officers are currently reviewing the Council’s home to school transport policy.  A report is being prepared for Children’s Services EMAP in January that will consider various issues.  These will include implications arising from the 2006 Education and Inspection Act.

The Act requires LAs to secure fair access to schools for children from low income groups, where lack of affordable transport can act as a barrier for choice.

From September 2008 there are extended rights to free transport for all children from low income families, who must have travel arrangements made to one of their three nearest qualifying schools, where they live more than two miles, but no more than six miles from that school.

Similarly, the same group of pupils have an entitlement from September 2008 to free transport to a choice of schools within six miles of the child’s home, and to the nearest school preferred by reason of a parent’s religion or belief, up to a maximum of 15 miles from the child’s home.

With specific reference to Cllr Healey’s question, the Act will extend free school transport, but only to low income families.

The Act seeks to widen parental choice by extending the offer of free transport to their 3 nearest schools (regardless of catchment area).

To extend this provision to all families would require significant additional investment.  This and all other key issues will be explained in more detail in the report.

The Act also requires the Council to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport which includes an assessment of the travel and transport needs of children and young people within the authority’s area, an audit of sustainable travel and transport infrastructure within the authority, a strategy to develop the sustainable travel and transport infrastructure and the promotion of sustainable travel.  These issues will also be considered in the report.”

(vii)     To the Executive Member for Adult Social Services, from Cllr Hogg:

“Would the Executive Member please update Council on the current situation regarding joint working arrangements with the PCT?”

The Executive Member replied:

“Notwithstanding the current financial position of the NYYPCT five projects have now been agreed with the North Yorkshire & York PCT for joint action.  These are as follows:

·        Looking at how we can together re-shape dementia and older people’s mental health services to increase support in the community.

·        Reducing hospital admissions to residential and nursing care by ensuring that we are collectively making the best use of existing services.

·        Looking at how we can develop more community based preventative services.

·        Investigating the use of technology in the home.  This project to be linked with the fifth project to help people manage long term conditions.

Lead officers have already been identified for these projects in both organisations and initial meetings have taken place.”

In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Hogg seeking an indication of how Continuing Care regulations were likely to impact upon the PCT’s funding, the Executive Member replied:

“A report going to EMAP in December draws attention to a new national framework for Continuing Health Care, which will not be without cost to the Council.  It’s not clear whether elected Members will still have to sit on a Panel to decide who is eligible for funded care.  I understand that the NYYPCT has forecast that it will need to find £9m to £20m to fund the care that should be provided.  I hope that some of that funding will come back to the local authorities.  I am keen that the PCT do not drag their heels and will ask Officers to keep Members up to date with progress.

In response to a supplementary question from Cllr Merrett asking whether, in the light of the joint project, she was now happy with the joint working relationship with the PCT, the Executive Member replied:

“Yes.”