VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS SUPPLEMENTING THE MINUTES OF LEEDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 12TH JANUARY 2005

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR (Councillor B. Lancaster): Good afternoon.

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: Good afternoon, Deputy Lord Mayor.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Please be seated. Members of Council, Officers and visitors, I extend a warm welcome to the visitors, and especially to announce that we have the Morley Town Mayor, Councillor Derek Bradley, who is here to observe our meeting this afternoon. I extend a welcome. (Applause)

Could I remind everyone to please make sure their mobile phones are switched off.

Firstly, I would like to extend congratulations to Councillor Bill Hyde on the announcement that he is to be the Lord Mayor Elect. (Applause) And at this point I know Councillor Hyde would like to say a few words.

COUNCILLOR W. HYDE: Very few, Deputy Lord Mayor, and entirely no doubt against procedural rules. I would like to thank everybody for that round of applause, which was almost unanimous (Laughter), and to announce that I have asked Councillor Anne Castle to be Deputy Lord Mayor, and that she has accepted. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I am sure you and your partners will enjoy the experience, as I have so far.

It is with regret, since the last meeting, I have to announce the following deaths: Honorary Alderman Eleanor Gertrude Clark, Member of Leeds City Council from 1968-1980; Honorary Alderman Rita Verity, Member of Morley Borough Council from 1970-1974 and Leeds City Council from 1974-79, and then 1982-86. She was the Lady Mayoress from 1977-1978. And then Honorary Alderman Richard Hughes-Rowland MBE, who was a Leeds City Councillor 1988-95, and then to announce the death of former Councillor Philip Coin, Member of Leeds City Council 1998-2002 and Otley Town Mayor 2001-2002. I would like to invite Councillor Wakefield, if he would like to say a few words.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Thank you Lord Mayor. Some of us in this room knew Phil as a friend for over 25 years, and it struck me as a bit of a revelation to realise that he had only been a City Councillor for four years, because certainly in those four years he made an incredible impact on the life of the City and on the life of the ward that he represented, Otley & Pool Ward, and when you think of the projects that he was involved in, there were many. There were the youth projects, the arts project, the library project, the HGV Ban which some of you may have seen the lobby outside the Civic Hall, the Save the Civic Centre and, of course, as the CIT he was always involved in the Town Partnership where he also served as an Otley Town Councillor.

It is incredible the energy of that one person, who made so much difference to the life and the people of Otley, and Phil also had some very strong views about planning, and I don't think there is a colleague here who has served on Planning who has not fallen out with him. I certainly fell out with him. I think colleagues on the Labour side fell out with him, because he had very strong views about how planning should proceed and how we should protect our heritage, and I think, you know, there will not be many of us who have not fallen out with Phil some time and had a pint to make it up during the course of the evening later on.

As you probably know, Phil was out with his family digging for Christmas trees somewhere near Bolton Abbey when he suffered his first stroke. That was on the Sunday, and on the following Monday he had a massive stroke, which caused him obviously to die, and he leaves behind him a widow Penny, who he has been with for 30 years, and a son Brendan, 17, and Jenny, 13. But I think he leaves behind all of us, Otley as a poorer place and us as lesser people without Phil being our friend and supporter and campaigner in all sorts of issues in the life of the City and the life of Otley, and I am sure that we will all miss him, as we do now, in the future as well. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor Wakefield.

Obviously, we have all been deeply affected by the tsunami disaster on Boxing Day, and I would like

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com to, before we do a minute's silence to recognise the deaths and the disaster, I would like to invite Councillor Carter to say a few words.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Deputy Lord Mayor, Members of Council, just after Christmas the whole word was shaken by the news of a natural disaster of almost unimaginable proportions, bringing with it an enormous human tragedy which is still unfolding day by day.

I would like to convey my deepest sympathies, and those of the Council, to all those affected by this tragedy. This was a human loss on an almost incomprehensible scale, and I know there cannot be anyone who has not been deeply moved by the scenes we see every day from those countries affected.

Our thoughts are with the survivors and bereaved in South Asia and Africa, but also those closer to home who have lost friends and loved ones. That seems to be moving nearer with almost every day that passes, and I am sure you are all aware that an Officer of this authority has suffered two bereavements.

The people of the world led the way in expressing a willingness to help those countries and their peoples so devastated by the tsunami.

In time of war, and in time of national and international emergencies during peacetime, the people of this City have never been found wanting. This has proved to be the case yet again, and I pay tribute to the people of Leeds who have already begun raising money and offering practical help to the peoples of the stricken area. I wish to pay particular tribute to the employees of Leeds City Council, who have shown a huge commitment already to giving support and help, and I know this will be matched by Members of this Council.

I can also pledge that the City Council as a corporate body will donate a substantial amount of money to the appeal that we are setting in train in Leeds, and I shall discuss with the Opposition Leaders in more detail precisely what we intend to do when our Officers have finished their investigative work.

We want the money raised by our staff, Council Members, and hopefully by our partners in the City, to contribute in a very real way to the rebuilding that has to take place after this tragedy.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com In the short term, as you know, additional street collection licences have been made available to organisations and individuals who have wished to collect funds specifically for this appeal.

A message on behalf of the Council has been placed on our Intranet, along with details of how staff and Members can donate to the disaster's emergency committee. Over the course of the next few weeks, collection boxes will be placed in Council offices, and further information on our activities will be going out in payslips and through staff briefings. Arrangements are being made for staff and members to donate money directly from salaries, if they so wish.

In the longer term, the Council is seeking to adopt a more sustainable approach to redevelopment by adopting a child-centred project in one of the regions affected - Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has been proposed due to the work previously undertaken to establish a partnership between the capital city, Colombo, and Leeds. This link also suggested itself due to the twinning arrangement which exists between the Diocese of Ripon and Leeds and the Diocese of Colombo, which has been established since 1988.

Therefore, the Council will be leading a week of fund raising activity on behalf of the City during the week of 14th February 2005 in order that we can launch this project. Events will be co-ordinated across Leeds and a number of partners have already indicated they would be willing to contribute; for example, the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, the National Health Service and both of our Universities.

You will be kept informed of developments as they arise, and I am certain you would wish to support and contribute to this appeal.

Within days of the tragedy beginning to unfold, senior Officers of this Council met to discuss how we could best help, and I wish to publicly thank them for their dedication in getting things moving so quickly. They have, throughout that time, kept Councillors Blackburn, Harris and myself fully briefed as we move forward.

My Deputy Lord Mayor, this is truly a tragedy of stupendous proportions. As I said, virtually nobody is now left untouched by what has happened. I

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com do hope all Members will join with our staff and the residents of Leeds in supporting the appeal, and that we can make a real difference at least to some of the broken lives in Sri Lanka.

My Deputy Lord Mayor, I would be happy for other Leaders to comment in support of what I have just said. Thank you. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor Carter. I do understand Councillor Wakefield has indicated he needs to speak. Do you want to speak, Councillor Harris?

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Only to say that a great big long speech would be words for the sake of it but, honestly, there is nothing more I can sensibly add.

Andrew has set the position out very sensitively and very straightforwardly, and obviously it is beholden to us all to do absolutely everything we can to try and help, however little that may be, but to try and do whatever we can.

And just before I finish, just to say certainly on the part of my Group, notwithstanding the political differences, obviously Otley makes sense for the Conservatives as well. I have to say Otley has been a heavily fought over area for all three of us for as long as I can remember, but obviously our Group concur with everything Keith Wakefield said about Phil Coin and, well, it is most certainly a tragedy for his wife and his kids, who are the same age as mine, and I a feel very, very sorry for them indeed.

COUNCILLOR BLACKBURN: I don't think, really, this is the time for words, is it? I mean, it is time for action, but it makes you think, doesn't it? You know, I mean, the differences and falling-outs we have politically here are nothing compared to what is happening in the Indian Ocean area, and I think it makes you realise that there are more important things. I think we have all got to support it. I want to associate myself with Councillor Carter's statement. That's all I have got to say.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Lord Mayor, I would like to, on behalf of the Labour Group, endorse everything that the Leader of the Council has said, and offer our full support, not only for the sentiments that he has raised but also the proposals for the projects, which will be

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com long-term just as such as short-term, and I would also like to share with him our gratitude for the magnificent response of the Officers, who dropped everything. You know, people do criticise bureaucracy and say it is a blocking. I think we saw over the Christmas period the response was really based on humanity, and they have been first-class in ensuring that we drop all the barriers and ensure that people can have easy access to collection boxes and others so they can raise money, and I know, like many other people in this chamber, I have been inundated with people who want to raise money on behalf of people in the tsunami, because I think Andrew has covered our main feelings on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, when we share our lives with our family and loved ones, and it always made me think about the role of the media when we were sitting in our homes watching this tragedy unfold and watching millions of lives being destroyed, thousands of people dying, and millions of people in probably the most vulnerable part of our world being exposed to further diseases, poverty, who already live fragile lives.

I would also like to express our sympathies to those people elsewhere in the globe who were in that part of the world, including, of course, Andrew has mentioned it, one of our Officers, and I am sure there are other people we know who have been affected by the tsunami disaster.

The one thing that media also does, I think it has done, is actually give us great hope for the future, because never in my life, and I am sure I speak for everybody, have I seen such a tragedy but have I seen such a response by ordinary people. I have been very touched by stories, everyday stories, of people who are pensioners, young people, who are literally giving all their money away for the week to help these victims, and I think that should inspire all of us in this chamber and elsewhere to do as much as we can to make sure that these victims are not forgotten over the next five, ten, fifteen years, and that is why I was pleased with some of the projects that the Leader mentioned, because I think we have a moral duty to make sure that they are not forgotten and that we offer all the support we can over the next few years and, indeed, I think ten to fifteen years. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor Wakefield. Councillor Leadley. Sorry, is it Councillor Finnigan?

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: As I say, we do look similar, I must admit, sartorially speaking.

We would just like to support and fully endorse the comments that have been made across the Council Chamber about this particular disaster. Certainly in Morley it became very real to us. We have a Methodist Minister who works in Morley who has lost over 30 relatives as a result of this particular disaster, and that very much has brought it home to us in Morley that we must do something practical to try and move and support communities in any shape, way, form we can.

In Morley, we are following a similar route to Leeds. We fully support Leeds' approach, but we are trying to make links with a specific village to help and assist them with the rebuilding of an orphanage that has been destroyed as a result of this particular disaster, but I think I would endorse entirely what Councillor Wakefield is saying about a spirit of optimism coming out of this particular disaster.

It is clearly the case that people accept, and they are often leading politicians on this thinking, that we live in a global village and we do have obligations to our neighbours, and that means across the globe, and I think the glorious thing to come out of this particular disaster is the fact that people are ahead of the politicians and are saying quite clearly and quite loudly to us that we do have an obligation, we do have a responsibility, and we are going to do something practical to help and assist our neighbours that far away across the globe. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Can I ask that we all stand now. Thank you. (Council stood in silence) Thank you. You may be seated.

ITEM 1 - MINUTES OF MEETING ON 3RD NOVEMBER 2004

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, can I move that the minutes of the last Meeting be received?

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Second, Lord Mayor.

(The Minutes were accepted)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com ITEM 2 - DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I have got a list of declarations of interest from Councillor Smith, Councillor Ogilvie on two items each. Does that include you, Councillor Wakefield?

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: It does, yes, on two items.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: On the same two?

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: No, one on the health debate and one on the unmade roads. Given the nature of the question, and the fact that I live on an unadopted road, I think I ought to declare an interest because I can hear the steam-roller now!

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: We will look after you, Keith.

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor Wakefield. So I am announcing that the list --- Councillor Nash?

COUNCILLOR C. NASH: Can I declare a prejudicial interest in Item 10, please.

THE LORD MAYOR: Item 10, Councillor Nash. Alright. Have we got any further declarations or corrections? Councillor Atha.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Personal interest on Item 11, the White Paper.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Can I invite Members, by a show of hands, to confirm that they have read the list and agreed to its contents in so far as they relate to their own interests? Thank you.

ITEM 3 - COMMUNICATIONS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (Mr. P. Rogerson): There are no communications, Deputy Lord Mayor.

ITEM 4 - DEPUTATIONS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: As regards deputations, Deputy Lord Mayor, there are four deputations and the details of the relevant groups are set down in the order paper.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, I move that all these deputations be received.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Sorry, I can't hear you.

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: I move that the deputations be received.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: I second, Deputy Lord Mayor, although my light isn't on either. I don't know what is happening with the speaking lights today.

(The motion was carried)

(The first deputation was admitted to the Council Chamber)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Good afternoon, and welcome. In accordance with the Procedure Rules of the Council, you have a period of not more than five minutes in which to address the Council. Would you please start by giving the names of the deputation and the spokesperson.

MR. LAMB: Deputy Lord Mayor, Members of Council, we are here today as residents of Garforth opposed to plans to build a prison in our town. Allow me to introduce Pamela Lamb, Colin Warner, Brian Colley and myself, Alan Lamb. Between us we have lived in Garforth for almost 100 years, so I hope you'll agree that we speak with some authority on behalf of the residents of Garforth.

In November last year it was revealed by Councillor Andrew Millard via the Yorkshire Evening Post and an extensive leaflet drop that Garforth was earmarked as one of 300 potential sites for a new prison. The Garforth Residents Association organised a public meeting which I attended. Our MP admitted that he had learned of these proposals some time before they were made public but felt it was not in the public's interest to reveal the plans at this stage. He did, however, organise a meeting between the Prisons Minister and Garforth residents. Unfortunately, on returning from this meeting it was reported that the GRA had received assurances that there were no plans to build a prison in Garforth. The impression this gave is highly misleading and deeply irresponsible as it will lead people to think that this prison has been stopped. It has not.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com I decided to contact the Prison Service directly myself. I found out some extremely worrying information. Garforth is on a short list of only six potential sites in the West Yorkshire area. Surveys have been undertaken and the site deemed suitable. There are also plans in place to downgrade and ultimately close down Wakefield Prison, which houses Category A prisoners, so the chances of Garforth having some of the worst offenders land on its doorstep are very real. Just to be absolutely clear, in reality Garforth is on a list of six sites. Work will most likely begin on the chosen sites in around 18 months. Time is running out.

We are not here to create a political football out of this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it would be hugely disrespectful to me and the other good people here today to suggest that we are here for any other reason than we are completely and utterly opposed to any plans to build a prison of any kind in Garforth.

Just so there is no doubt, you will be interested to know that on discovering that Mark Dobson, Chair of the GRA, was also leading a deputation on the same subject, I passed on all my contact details in order that we could combine and speak with one united voice. I felt that he would be a more appropriate spokesman than me as he is supposedly apolitical. Mr. Dobson refused to even discuss the possibility.

I think I speak for most people in Garforth, and indeed the country as a whole, when I say this country needs more prisons. Crime, and in particular violent crime, is out of control. Thousands of crimes are committed each year by criminals on early release schemes designed to ease the burden on our ageing and overcrowded prison system.

Several years ago, the restaurant I worked in was robbed. I was bundled into a tiny office at knife-point by four masked men and ordered to hand over the contents of the safe, before being sprayed in the face with CS gas. You will understand, therefore that, like the victims of muggers and murderers, rapists and paedophiles, I would sleep a lot easier knowing that the vile perpetrators of these crimes were locked up behind bars. You will also understand my horror at discovering that the very same kind of people are about to be housed on my doorstep.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Some will say that the prisons have to go somewhere, so why not Garforth? I'll tell you why not. Garforth is a thriving town, well situated and already heavily developed. It has excellent primary schools, one of which is a mere 500 yards from the proposed site. It also has one of the best secondary schools in the region. Unemployment is less than 1%. We don't need the jobs a prison would bring. It would mean more houses being built and more green belt being destroyed. House prices would plummet, and the whole complexion of our town would be changed forever.

This issue will ultimately be decided by national Government, so what we ask is that all those of you elected to represent our views, and indeed anyone who has an interest in stopping these plans, come together with the loudest and most powerful voice possible. Our MP and others have sought to play down the proposals, which is the most dangerous possible thing to do at this time. So whether you are a resident, business person, Councillor, Member of Parliament, or anyone else, it is in no-one's interest to build a prison in Garforth. Please get behind Councillor Carter and the new administration to stop this. The Government must get the message loud and clear. This prison must be stopped. Thank you very much. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Yes, Deputy Lord Mayor, could I move that the matter be referred to the Executive Board for consideration.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Second, Lord Mayor.

(The motion was carried)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Can I thank the deputation and indicate that their comments will be referred to the Executive Board for consideration. Thank you for keeping to your time as well. Thank you.

(The first deputation left the chamber and the second deputation was admitted)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Good afternoon, and welcome. In accordance with the Procedure Rules of the Council, you have a period of not more than five minutes in which to address the Council. Would you

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com please start by giving the names of the deputation and the spokesperson.

MR. DOBSON: Thank you. Deputy Lord Mayor, Council Members, my name is Mark Dobson, and I am the Chairman of Garforth Residents Association.

With your indulgence, I would like to speak for the Residents Association on the issue of a proposed prison in Garforth and seek your support for the White Paper before you today. I wish to outline the reasons why we do not feel Garforth to be an appropriate area for such a project. I speak to you today with a mandate from the residents of Garforth, following our public meeting in November last year.

Why is the site, just off the A642 leaving Garforth, inappropriate for such a project? Firstly, within the last year the current adopted UDP categorised the land as holding, and I quote, "key employment opportunities". This could mean, amongst other things, a business, retail, distribution centre or, indeed, light manufacturing. It was given this status, and again I quote, "to preserve the site's availability for the full range of employment opportunities". A prison, with the very, very narrow range of employment opportunities it would offer, does not fit within the Council's categorisation, which was accepted by the Secretary of State.

The Government claim they want to build prisons in urban areas with a view to both urban regeneration and the creation of employment opportunities. Garforth currently has unemployment at below 1%, so a prison may bring jobs into the area but not create jobs from within the area. The land under consideration is actually semi-rural with surrounding agricultural and green belt areas. Again, this does not fall within the Government's own guidelines. We therefore believe the Garforth site is not suitable on any level. In truth, there are many areas in the country, and indeed West Yorkshire, that would benefit from a large capital spending project such as a prison. We are keen, however, to avoid looking simply like NIMBYs, attempting to pass our problem onto another area. That is not the case. Our argument is based on fact, and the fact remains Garforth is the wrong site.

These were among the key points I put to Paul Goggins, the Home Office Minister with responsibility for prisons, when I met him in December last year.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Also on that visit I presented the Minister with a 2,000 signature petition signed by Garforth residents, along with individual letters. Not only was the Minister made aware of the technical arguments, we were keen to show him the strength of public feeling against the plan. Today I am seeking political support. Colin Burgon MP has already pledged his opposition to the prison in Garforth publicly, and today I am seeking the support of Council Members.

We told the Minister we would campaign actively against any future planning application that may be forthcoming on the prison, and left him in no doubt as to the numbers we could get to object if any application was made. Whilst we realise Council Members cannot interfere with the planning process, your support against a prison in Garforth is vital. We thank Councillor Murray for setting down the White Paper before Council on this issue and trust it will find cross- party support. This issue is not and cannot be allowed to become a political football. That will not best serve the people of our community. The Minister made it clear that whoever was in government following the next election, the wheels of the Civil Service keep turning and these plans will still be on the table. As both the Government and the Opposition are committed to a prison building programme, and whilst many of us would no doubt support that, the area chosen for such a project must be the right one. Garforth is the wrong site, it is as simple as that. That is why we must act now and speak with a single voice on this issue.

To conclude, we must say there was much concern in Garforth at the slightly sensational and inaccurate way the news was first broken. Whilst we were obviously pleased the information was made public, the rather crude political one- upmanship that motivated its release did nothing to serve this community. Hopefully, how information of this nature is put in the public domain in future is something the Council will address as a matter of urgency.

Deputy Lord Mayor, Council Members, thank you for your attention. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, in moving the item to be referred to the Executive Board, I would just like to express my personal regret that we have heard two deputations today rather than one. (Interruptions) I think clearly this is a matter that

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com shouldn't become a political football, and I think what we have seen today is the start of something becoming a political football, and I think it is a pity that efforts that were made to ---

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Is this speech in order?

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: -- try and merge these two deputations didn't succeed, and I am afraid that Mr. Dobson has rather turned it into a political football.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: In seconding the reference, you will give me the same forbearance as you have given to your colleague, I am sure, Deputy Lord Mayor. It is the Alliance which told us when it came into this rainbow coalition that we are going to have back at this Council deputations for the benefit of democracy, and here we have democracy in action. Two different organisations come and want to speak to us on the same subject, and you don't like it, and you get up and say we shouldn't have two speaking. That is your sense of democracy, it is not ours. I second. (Interruptions)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Members of Council, can we call for the vote, please? Thank you. (Interruption) Sorry, can we just have one through the chair, please. Can I thank the deputation and indicate their comments will be referred to the Executive Board for consideration. Thank you for your attendance.

MR. DOBSON: Thank you. Good afternoon.

(The second deputation left the chamber and the third was admitted)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Good afternoon.

MRS. MONAGHAN: Good afternoon.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: In accordance with the Procedure Rules of the Council, you have a period of not more than five minutes to address the Council, and would you please start by giving the names of the deputation and the spokesperson.

MRS. MONAGHAN: My name is Judith Monaghan, I am a parent and Chair of Governors at Aireview Primary School, and I will be our spokesperson today. This is

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Jeanette Hudson, she is a parent and also a member of staff at our school.

We are here as representatives of Aireview Primary School to express our objection to the decision made on 17th November by the Executive Board to reject the recommended proposal to address the problems of surplus primary school places in the Stanningley Planning Area. We also want to question on what basis this decision was made.

Firstly, we wish to point out that none of the members of the Executive Board declared a specific interest in any of the agenda items, yet Councillor Carter has continually supported Rodley Primary School throughout the Primary Review process. In fact, he spoke at the meeting on 17th November about what Rodley School had been previously promised, and the difficulties it now faces as a result of this ongoing review process.

Aireview School was not mentioned throughout the discussion and, on numerous occasions, the phrase, "when a school is closing" was mentioned when, in fact, the proposal was to close two schools.

Our school has been involved in the Primary Review process since 2002, which has resulted in low intake at reception level and pupils being transferred to other schools due to the uncertainty of the school's future. During this time, prospective parents have also been informed that the school was due to close. This latest decision has compounded the problems regarding surplus places in the area.

The consultation process for the last proposal was a time-consuming and costly process, and the decision not to implement it has resulted in stress and strain for both staff, pupils and an immense financial strain. Due to the continuing decline in pupil numbers as a result of the Primary Review, Education Leeds has been subsidising our school budget, but this will not continue in the next financial year. The implications of this decision will be devastating to both staff and pupils with the possibility of some staff ultimately facing redundancy.

Why should public money continue to be spent funding two sites and two schools when the Aireview building and site can more than adequately accommodate all the pupils and staff from both Aireview and Rodley

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com schools? An amalgamated school would enable the children to be educated in same age classes with a one- form entry, whereas at the moment they have to be taught in mixed age classes. It would also be more cost effective as it presently costs 500 more per pupil to educate a child at Rodley than it does at any other school in the area.

Every 1 that is currently spent on a surplus place is 1 not being spent on the education of our children.

The proposal made provision for Early Years education and after-school club opportunities, and a further delay in the decision-making process means yet another year lost in being able to provide these much- needed facilities. 52 positive responses were received in favour of Early Years provision. This facility would have provided the lifeblood of the new school and would have undoubtedly aided its future growth.

All stakeholders and members of the public were consulted on this proposal and the majority were in favour of it proceeding - 170 for the proposal and 87 against. Hence the decision by Education Leeds to recommend it to the Executive Board. Why was it therefore rejected when Education Leeds, who are responsible for education matters within Leeds, were satisfied that it was the best solution available to solve the problem of surplus places?

We want to know why the consultation report was not fully discussed at the Executive Board meeting.

My daughter is a pupil at Aireview and she accompanied me to the public consultation meetings and asked me why, when the majority of people were in favour of the proposal and wanted it to go ahead, did it not do so. I want to be able to answer her question honestly, and at the present time I am unable to do so. Therefore I request a written report by the end of this month detailing the reasons behind the Executive Board's decision to reject the proposal. This will enable me to not only answer her but to be able to give everyone associated with Aireview a detailed explanation as to why the decision was made.

It would also confirm that the decision was taken on sound educational grounds and not as a result of political agendas.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com How many times, we also want to know, could the Executive Board ---

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR. I am sorry, I will have to ask you to finish there, because the five minutes are up.

MRS. MONAGHAN: Okay, thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, could I ask that the matter be referred to the Executive Board for consideration.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Second, Deputy Lord Mayor.

(The motion was carried)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. In accordance with that vote, your comments will be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration. You will be advised of the date of the meeting and the outcome of the consideration. Good afternoon.

MRS. MONAGHAN: Thank you.

(The third deputation left the chamber and the fourth deputation was admitted)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Good afternoon. In accordance with the Procedure Rules of the Council, you have a period of not more than five minutes in which to address the Council. Would you please start by giving the names of the deputation and of the spokesperson.

MS. (?HYGO): Good afternoon. My name is Lynne Hygo. I am the Chair of Governors at Rodley Village Primary School. I will be the spokesperson. I have with me (?Eta) Benson and also Pam Dickinson, both Governors at Rodley Primary.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: You may start.

MS. HYGO: Rodley Village Primary School is a small, friendly, family-orientated community, in which all children, parents and carers play a full part.

We would like to thank the Executive Board for postponing their decision about the proposal to close our school and merge us with Aireview Primary School.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com According to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the current Government is, and I quote, "committed to thriving, vibrant, sustainable communities". By closing our village primary school, rather than developing the community and allowing the local children, parents and carers to be stakeholders in that thriving community, it will mean that children will have no sense of belonging to the community in which they live and therefore no responsibility towards it.

Rodley Village Primary School is the only school serving the village of Rodley. There are three schools within a mile of each other in Bramley: Stanningley, Summerfield and Aireview Primary Schools, with another - Bramley Primary School - very close. Whilst taking the Stanningley area as a whole and looking to reduce surplus places across the area, in this proposal to close Rodley Village Primary School and merge us with Aireview, all the education provision, that is three schools, will be concentrated within one mile in Bramley. Whilst we recognise that the surplus places issue needs addressing, it would make more sense geographically to group Rodley with the Farsley and Calverley schools rather than the Bramley schools. If Rodley Village Primary were to close, there will be no primary school between Aireview Primary in Bramley and Calverley C of E in Calverley. This is a considerable distance, approximately 3 miles, to be left with no primary school. Rodley is a village and a community with its own unique identity. Rodley Village Primary School has strong links within the community: The church, youth club, Rodley Rockets Rugby Club, Rodley Young Ones, which is the mums and tots group, and the Nature Reserve.

We feel that this proposal is short-sighted, as there is currently a lot of development for housing and planning for housing in the area. The children in these new family homes will need the education places that are currently considered surplus.

Our village has already lost the butcher, the baker, the Post Office, the petrol station, Brownies, Rainbows and the playgroup. Removing our school will ensure that Rodley will no longer be a village with its own identity and heritage. Rodley will become a commuter belt, swallowed up in the Leeds Metropolitan District Council and merely a through road from Bramley to the ring road.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Rodley Village Primary School currently hosts a youth club. What effect will the loss of this facility have on the young people of our village? We are the focal point, holding village barbecues, being a polling station, and involving the local community in collecting produce for the less fortunate at harvest time.

The Aireview site is up an extremely steep hill from Rodley village. Parents with young children and push-chairs will not only have to travel up Town Street, possibly up to a mile, but the climb the hill to the Aireview site. There is bound to be an increase in car traffic through the village in order to transport children to and from school.

The community of Rodley and the Governors of Rodley Village Primary School feel that several other proposals should be considered.

Firstly, it would make more geographical sense to group our school with the Calverley and Farsley schools rather than with the Bramley schools. This would ensure a more reasonable distribution of primary schools throughout the area.

Secondly, the refurbishment of Rodley Village Primary School in its present location would still be an option and would provide further community use.

Thirdly, other sites within the Rodley village area, both Council-owned and non-Council owned, should be investigated and considered for a possible new school build. There would be considerable revenue from the sale of Aireview Primary School land, selling off the present Rodley Village Primary School buildings and land currently allocated as education land in the UDP which could be used to build a new school.

And finally that the original 2002 proposal of a new school in the Club Lane site in Rodley needs to be looked at again.

Rodley village needs a guarantee that this uncertainty will not hang over the village school again. Rodley children need to have stability and a continuity of care, a settled and comfortable environment, and to be educated within their own local community.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com The future needs to be secure, as both schools are currently suffering uncertainty which is affecting both the intake and the current numbers.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you, bang on time. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: I move that the matter be referred to the Executive Board for consideration.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: I second, Deputy Lord Mayor.

(The motion was carried)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you for your deputation. In accordance with that vote, your comments will be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration and you will be advised of the date of the meeting and the outcome of the consideration. Good afternoon.

MS. HYGO: Thank you. Good afternoon.

ITEM 5 - REPORTS (a)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, I move Item 5 in the terms of the notice.

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: I second Deputy Lord Mayor.

(The motion was carried)

(b)

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, I move in the terms of the notice, with the addition of Councillor David Hollingsworth replacing Councillor Andrew Barker on the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Board.

COUNCILLOR PROCTER: I second, Lord Mayor.

(The motion was carried)

COUNCILLOR GABRIEL: Deputy Lord Mayor, I'm sorry, I can't hear what our colleagues are saying at all. The volume needs to be turned up, please.

COUNCILLOR COULSON: Neither can I, Lord Mayor. I haven't heard Mr. Hamilton since the meeting started.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com MEMBER OF COUNCIL: It might be a good thing!

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Your comments will be noted. Someone will see if they can attend to that.

COUNCILLOR GABRIEL: Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor.

ITEM 6 - QUESTIONS

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: My Lord Mayor, will the Executive Member for Social Care confirm that he is committed to maintaining front line services for older people in all areas of the City?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Deputy Lord Mayor, I am reluctant to claim that we are more committed than you were, and I am not vain enough to suggest that we are --- Wrong way round. I am reluctant to claim that we are less committed than you were. I am not vain enough to claim that we are more committed than you are. We have carried forward the commitment of the Group that ran Social Care before we did.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I am still trying to unravel the rambling statement I have just heard, but if I can just be a bit more precise and help Councillor Harrand, could he explain to the Council why, without consultation with Ward Members, why without an Executive Board decision, there were three old people's day centres closed at weekends in the wards of --- Well, they are called Bramley Lawn in Bramley, Holbeck in Beeston and indeed Nayburn Court in Whinmoor, when the occupancies of all three of those were either the same or indeed more than other day centres in the City, such as Burley Willows in Headingley?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Deputy Lord Mayor, the decision that was made by management to close these four day centres is one which I approved, and continue to approve. It is temporary. It will be reviewed at the end of March, and it bears no resemblance to the closure of four complete day centres permanently that was suggested not so long ago.

We have looked at the results of the consultation. There has been one service-user complained. She complained to the manager of the centre, she was quite happy with the resolution that was suggested, and she will take the new opportunity being offered to her. Not a single carer complained

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com to the head of the -- to he centre manager or to the Head of Adult Resources or to the Director of Social Services or to me. Not a single member of staff complained to the Head of the Adult Resources or the Director or the Executive Board or me. Not a single Councillor has even now complained.

COUNCILLOR HANLEY: Because we didn't know, we weren't told.

COUNCILLOR ATKINSON: Not true.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Not a single Councillor has even up to today ---

COUNCILLOR HANLEY: Because we weren't told.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Can you sit down, please, Councillor Armitage.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Not a single Councillor has complained even up to today.

COUNCILLOR ATKINSON: Not true.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Well, it is not in anybody's files that we can find, to the Head of Service or the Director or the Executive Board Member.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Atkinson, please will you remain in your seat.

COUNCILLOR ATKINSON: I do apologise.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: The letter you have got there wasn't a reply to anything. It was precipitated by me when I knew what had happened. Nobody had written to me, and nobody had any cause to write to me.

This thing will be reviewed at the end of March, and I feel sure that if you go ask the people concerned rather than spend your time issuing these peevish petty little press releases about, "Nobody asked me", you will find that people are really a lot more content than you are. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HOLLINGSWORTH: Would the lead Member responsible for Early Years services like to comment on the OFSTED report in respect of Early Years provision?

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR CASTLE: Deputy Lord Mayor, as the Member responsible for Early Years services, it gives me great pleasure to comment on the performance of the Early Years service in the recent OFSTED inspection of the LEA.

In the recent LEA inspection report published on 5th January, OFSTED judged support for Early Years as a Grade 1. There were only two Grade 1 judgments awarded in the report and Early Years represents the only Grade 1 for direct service delivery.

The report acknowledges the high national standing of the Early Years services, as recognised by the Beacon Award. It praises the collaborative working with Education Leeds and cites the Children's Centre and Extended School programme as good examples of how the Early Years service works with Education Leeds and other partners to ensure the Council's vision for the education and care of its younger children is effectively delivered.

The report praises the support given by the Early Years service to the Early Years and Childcare Partnership, and identifies this as a good model of cross-sector participation and close partnership working.

The report singled out the innovative use of qualified teacher support in non-school settings and the scope of Foundation Stage training as strengths of the service, stating that all sectors received very good support from Early Years.

I hope if Members haven't already done so, they will have a look at the exhibition outside in the ante- chamber. I have to say that, when I have visited Early Years establishments, I have been impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of our staff, and believe that everyone who works for Early Years should be thanked and congratulated for all their hard work.

To sum up, Deputy Lord Mayor, the Council should be proud of its Beacon Early Years service. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR WADSWORTH: Does the Executive Member responsible agree with me that the reinstatement of the Unadopted Roads Programme, shelved by the previous administration, is a further example of the administration listening to the concerns of residents

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com and acting to improve their local environment? (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR ATHA: You crawler. Crawler.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Yes, my Lord Mayor.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Excuse me, Councillor Carter. We now have got improvement in the sound on the microphones but we can't hear because of Members speaking. I will just get that point over.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: What part of, "Yes" don't they understand, my Lord Mayor? Yes, the answer is, "Yes", (Applause) and I do thank Councillor Wadsworth because it gives me the opportunity to address some comments to the numerous Members on the Opposition benches who presumably agreed to the scrapping of this programme and who are now busy writing to me and e- mailing me about roads they wish to see included in the reinstated programme, my Lord Mayor.

What I can tell you is that at the Executive Board in February there will be a paper officially reinstating the programme. The probability is it will be a three-year programme, in excess of 1 million in each of the three years, and there will be appended to that the list of prioritised streets, which I have to say we have taken almost directly from what was previously the case, priorities I hope remain priorities, and whilst I do appreciate that all of us as Ward Members want to add other streets, we will add other streets to the programme but they will not start to queue- jump. That would be unfair to everybody, and we have to take on board the fact that the Officers actually have reassessed all those streets that were in the original programme, so I am very pleased to say, "Yes, we are living up to yet another of this joint administration's commitments", and I look forward to the thanks of the Members opposite, many of whose wards will be included in the programme. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Oh, Lord Mayor, there is no supplementary - I wonder why? I wonder why. A bit too much work, I think, probably.

My question is: Will the Executive Member for Social Care state whether or not there is a recruitment ban on non- essential posts in the Social Services Department?

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Lord Mayor, we were fascinated by the idea of there being non-essential posts anywhere in the City Council. (Laughter) Would you like to give us a list? We would be interested in a list of the non-essential posts that are in your budget and why City Council taxpayers are paying that.

There is one major gap in the City Council's Social Care structure at present, and I would like to work on that as soon as I can, but I don't think there are any non-essential posts in Social Services.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Well, I think that is an interesting response. I note, Deputy Lord Mayor, and I ask the question of the Executive Member, did he agree to the creation of a Human Resources specialist post at PO6?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Yes.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Project Manager's post at PO6?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Yes.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Two Business Change Team Leader posts at PO4?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Yes.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Yes, six Business Process Implementation Officers at PO3/4?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Yes, you have done that one twice.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: At a total cost of some 600,000, and does he think that is more important than 20,000 being spent on Nayburn Day Centre and the others which he has closed at the weekends? (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Good question. All these people worked for us already. None of these people are new recruits. They are doing jobs in Social Care at present. They are not being additions to any payroll whatsoever. These are essential workers doing even more essential work. The 600,000 is a transfer of costs from one budget heading to another.

The vacancy in the Social Care structure at present seems to be the provision of a Labour Party

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com spokesman on Social Care. (Laughter) It is currently being done on a job-share basis between the Chief Whip and the Leader of the Labour Party. Now, I can think of three or four really good candidates to be your Social Care spokesman, so if you would like to have a word with me afterwards I will nominate them, but you can't go on like this. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR EWENS: Lord Mayor, could I ask the Executive Board Member for Lifelong Learning to comment on the LEA OFSTED Report published on 5th January 2005?

COUNCILLOR HARKER: Deputy Lord Mayor, the inspection report this year judges that the Leeds LEA is a highly satisfactory LEA, and in their report the Inspection Team went further and rated as, "Good" our ability to improve even further. I hope that all the Council will agree this is a brilliant achievement and the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people.

Set in context of the judgment of OFSTED February 2000, this report charts a tremendous epic journey of progress and achievement. Today we need to pause to celebrate and acknowledge the achievements that have been made.

The report, as we have already heard, singles out Early Years education and the support given to our schools by our Financial Services Group as, "Excellent", Grade 1, and among other aspects of the service rated as, "Good" was the effectiveness of corporate planning, the alignment of resources with priorities, the quality of advice given to Elected Members, the quality of leadership we receive from senior Officers, the work being undertaken to improve school performance, and the support given to Governors, and the support given to improve school attendance, and I think we should all celebrate those things. Those were all rated as, "Good".

And finally in this list of those items rated as, "Good" is the leadership provided by Elected Members. (Applause) I would like to draw attention to the paragraph (Interruptions) if you hold on, you might find I have even got praise for one or two -- well, one of you. (Laughter)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: It's not you, Peter, don't worry about it.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR HARKER: I would like now to draw attention particularly to the paragraph in the report that praises the work of the Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Board, which the inspectors singled out for praise, and I think it actually does say a lot about the way scrutiny was developed over the last three years, not just on Lifelong Learning but across all Scrutiny Boards. I think it is something this City can actually be proud of and, as I said, it was going to come, and I think it would be churlish of me today not to acknowledge the work of Brian Walker in setting up and then supporting the work of Education Leeds, often I suspect, against serious opposition from his own benches, and so I also couple with Brian Walker Keith Wakefield who last year continued to support Education Leeds.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: You are pushing it a bit now.

COUNCILLOR HARKER: And on the benches that now make up this administration - the Greens, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats - there has been consistent support for Education Leeds over the last three and a half years, and to emphasise that support I am going to paraphrase some words on our behalf from the report: "Education Leeds has won the trust and support of the leaders of the political parties. Most politicians" - I am sorry it is only, "most politicians, other Council officers and the majority of schools. This is a strong alliance that underpins the capacity for further improvements in this City. In just three and a half years, led by Chris Edwards, Education Leeds have turned round the service to this LEA in schools -- provides for schools", and I would like to put on record my appreciation, and I hope the appreciation of this Council, for the leadership, hard work, imagination, innovation and at times good humour that he and his team have put in to turn round education in this City. I think it would also be appropriate to acknowledge the hard work of some of those Officers of Education Leeds who are no longer with us but have moved on elsewhere, and I would like to single out one person, Debra Hibbert.

There are still chapters to write in this story. (Interruptions) In welcoming the report, I acknowledge that there is still work to do and the report lists them, but I am confident that with us all

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com working together education in this City is on track to tackle the problems of behaviour and exclusion, and to raise attainment where it needs to be raised.

This administration will work in partnership with everyone who contributes to education provision in the City to improve the life chances of every child, so that no child is left behind. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR ROBINSON: Deputy Lord Mayor, does the Executive Member agree with me that his recent announcement on increasing the number of Police Community Support Officers to ensure that every Ward in the City can access the services of a PCSO is further proof that the current administration is working to improve the quality of life for all the residents of this City? (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Can I say that was a first- class question. (Interruptions) My Lord Mayor, the simple answer is, "Yes". I do believe that it will enhance the quality of life for people across the City. Crime and the fear of crime is one of the biggest issues in our communities. This policy of increasing the visibility of policing in areas, which has been neglected in the past, will certainly help enormously on getting rid of some of the fear that people have about crime.

Every area in this City deserves to see an officer on their streets. These PCSOs will be well targeted in the community and complement existing resources and report to the Area Committees. I would like to point out this is just one strand - one strand - of what we are doing in the Community Safety area. Can I give you some other examples? I am certain Members opposite would love to know them. CCTV - we are now introducing for the first time mobile CCTV in the City. (Interruptions) First time mobile. Mobile.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Our budget, thank you.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: We will talk about your budget in February. We will talk about your budget in February.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: We are not locking the Members up opposite for what they robbed out of Social Services ---

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Although they ought to be.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Progress also is being made through burglary reduction initiatives aiming to increase household security. Can any of us forget the ASBOs that were issued to aggressive beggars last August? Indeed, the dramatic headline in the YEP that those had saved a person's life must be something that everyone in this chamber is pleased about. Dispersal orders to break up gangs recently issued in Harehills. We are improving (Interruption) Can I just say that I keep hearing this jibe at the side of me and on no occasion, not once ever in the new administration, has the Members opposite ever not supported me on this particular issue, and they are continuing to support me. Thank you.

We are also improving the co-ordination of Neighbourhood and (Interruption) Now, you have had your turn, shut up now. We are improving and co- ordinating the Neighbourhood and Street Wardens. We have produced an effective Joint Working Group on tackling firework misuse, as you are aware, Keith.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Yes, you missed me out.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: I think that is why it was effective! (Laughter)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: What about lap-dancing?

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Did he say "slapdancing"? I look forward, my Deputy Lord Mayor, to the PCSOs making a difference on our streets, and it is part of a message that I think all this Council should get together, we are going to be tough on crime. Thank you, my Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause) Oh God, he is asking a supplementary.

COUNCILLOR ROBINSON: As a further supplementary to that, I wonder if you can assure me that the said officers will be on duty at anti-social hours, such as the evenings and also at the weekends.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Well, the answer is, "Yes", because they are PCSOs. What you are referring to is wardens, and wardens have a different contract of employment, but the PCSOs operate police hours and they are available at different times of the day.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR LOWE: Will the Executive Member for City Services please confirm that the streetscene programme will be rolled out to all areas of the City?

COUNCILLOR SMITH: Deputy Lord Mayor, yes, the streetscene programme is currently being rolled out as planned across the City. Details of the individual service roll outs relating to streetscene were reported during the December 2004 cycle of meetings to all ten of the Council's Area Committees. In addition, the details of the streetscene roll-out programme have been fully scrutinised at the City Services Group and Board. On that basis, yes, I can confirm that in line with these reports the streetscene programme is being rolled out to all areas of the City.

COUNCILLOR LOWE: Will he also confirm that, once the roll-out has actually taken place, that the spending across the City will be sent to me so that I can see that it has been equally apportioned?

COUNCILLOR SMITH: Equally apportioned across the City?

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: Appropriately apportioned.

COUNCILLOR SMITH: Appropriately apportioned, yes. Appropriately apportioned.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Equitably.

COUNCILLOR SMITH: Equitably, indeed.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: I think it was a, "No".

COUNCILLOR SMITH: The strategy being adopted is to ensure that the standard of streets right across the City are equally good, and we do that by improved co- ordination of streetscene services. The outputs are what we are measuring, not the inputs, and in different areas of the City it will require a different input in order to achieve the same standard of output, and if I just pick on --- Well, the starkest comparison is the City & Hunslet Ward, which includes the city centre. The spending in City & Hunslet Ward is in the region of 1 million more than in any other ward in the city, and that is because it includes the city centre, which requires a 24-hour, 7-day service.

Clearly, if we were to spend the same amount of money across all the City, well, if we spent the same

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com in Rothwell, and indeed in Armley, as is spent in City & Hunslet, then, you know, we would have people going perhaps round with a toothbrush cleaning the gutters, so it is about outputs not about inputs, and the strategy is to ensure that the output is the same across the City. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR RHODES-CLAYTON: Would the lead Member responsible for Youth Services like to comment on the recent Youth Services OFSTED Report?

COUNCILLOR BENTLEY: Deputy Lord Mayor, Leeds Youth Service was inspected by OFSTED at the end of September. OFSTED's conclusion is that the Leeds City Council provides an adequate Youth Service, offering adequate value for money.

This judgment is based on a new point assessment framework which was introduced about 18 months ago. More than a quarter of the Youth Services inspected under this framework have been assessed as inadequate and approximately half have been assessed as adequate.

The OFSTED Report highlights some significant strengths of this service. In particular, they were impressed by the work which takes place with schools by partnership work and by the strategic leadership and management of the service.

OFSTED also commented on the wider variety of subjects offered by the service. These range from motor vehicle repair to horticulture, and give our young people the opportunity to try something different. Some subjects are accredited, enabling our young people to achieve and be successful.

We received particularly positive feedback about our work in Herd Farm, the health education work, and the work with the Leeds Youth Council. In fact, you may recall that some of the Leeds Youth Council members actually participated in the OFSTED Report.

Members may wish to know that OFSTED visited 26 youth work programmes. 20 of these were selected at random, and we know from feedback that 96% of the programmes visited were considered, "Adequate" or better and 40% were considered, "Good" or better.

OFSTED also identified some weaknesses of the service, for example we have too many unqualified staff

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com and we need to involve voluntary organisations more in the strategic planning and delivery of the service.

In the formal presentation by OFSTED of their report, they expressed a belief that appropriate actions had been initiated during the past year to identify our weaknesses.

The message is quite clear: This is a service which is doing a good job, and I believe it is on track to be doing a very good service. Thank you. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: We seem to still be having some problems with the microphones, so I think --- We understand they has been turned up to the maximum, but could you just make sure when you are speaking not to cover the microphone with papers and just see if it improves any. Thank you.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: No, it won't.

COUNCILLOR SHELBROOKE: Deputy Lord Mayor, will the Executive Member for Leisure please confirm that we now have for the first time ever a city-wide network of mobile park patrols, and this is evidence yet again of the current administration delivering on their promises to the residents of Leeds? (Applause)

COUNCILLOR PROCTER: Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor, and can I thank one of my colleagues for that surprise question. (Laughter)

I am very pleased that we now have a City-wide (Interruption) No, no, this isn't the Art Gallery proposal, no, no. I am delighted we have now got a city-wide Parks Watch Scheme. As Members opposite and certainly Members in this administration recognised at an early stage, indeed before we took over as an administration, it was one of our key targets that we wanted to provide a universal Parks Watch Service city- wide.

Indeed some Members in the Labour Group initially identified when I was last year the Chair of the particular Scrutiny Board that had responsibility for looking at this matter, they identified some of the problems that were there with the Park Watch Scheme, not least of which the employees were only employed on a temporary contract, so we had a number of issues in terms of recruitment and most importantly retention.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Members may also recall that when this administration did come in and announce that this was our intention, to provide a universal scheme, the mechanism of funding that scheme we felt would be welcomed by Area Committees, and indeed I and a number of Officers of the Department went along to Area Committees to see if we would find favour with Area Committees making up the balance of funding. It is somewhat regrettable that, whilst Members opposite may nod their heads and say, "Yes, yes, isn't it good we have got a universal Parks Watch system", the reason that we had to switch the funding stream for it to be centrally funded rather than being funded out there by the Area Committees was because some of your Area Committees actually refused to come up with the goods and support the very service (Interruptions) that you now want to trumpet from the rooftops you are so supportive of.

So again, coming back to the question, yes, absolutely delighted we have got a universal service city-wide in all Wards of the City and, yet again, another administration commitment being fulfilled. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, could the Executive Board Member for Lifelong Learning update Council on the Building Schools for the Future programme?

COUNCILLOR HARKER: Deputy Lord Mayor, work is currently being undertaken to finalize the outline business case for Phase 1 of the programme for submission to the DFES next month, hopefully for approval by the Treasury in April.

Phase 1 of the SF will include five schools, three of which will be largely rebuilds and they are Allerton High, Rodillian and Pudsey Grangefield. Two other schools are included in this phase and they are Templemoor and Cockburn, and they will be extensively refurbished or remodelled.

The estimated capital cost of Phase 1 of the programme is approximately 77 million. Of the total scheme in all its phases, we now understand that four of the schools will be built using PFI, and these will be Allerton High, Allerton Grange, which is in the second phase of the building programme, Rodillian, and Pudsey Grangefield. As a result, if further PFI

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com credits become available, it is proposed that the new school plan for West Leeds may also be subject to PFI, but final confirmation of this is awaited from the Treasury.

The outline business case will therefore have to be amended to include Allerton Grange in order to secure maximum PFI credits, although the school will still be delivered within Phase 2 of the programme, along with the refurbishment and remodelling projects at Farnley Park, Priesthorpe and Crawshaw Schools.

Phase 3 will include the refurbishment and remodelling projects at Intake, Parklands Girls and Corpus Christi High School and Mount St. Mary Catholic High School.

It is anticipated, subject to Treasury approval of the outline business case in April, that the new and refurbished schools in Phase 1 will be completed and operational by September 2008. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: We have run out of question time now. Any outstanding questions will be answered in writing.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Oh shame. I think it is a shame.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Don't worry, it's on the minutes, Bernard.

ITEM 7 - RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXECUTIVE BOARD

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, in moving the minutes of the Executive Board, I would like, if I may ---

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Recommendations, please.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Recommendations, sorry, of the Executive Board, I would like to comment on Minute 106, 107 on pages 109 and 110 respectively. I can either do them now or when I wind up, whichever is in order.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: We are on Item 7.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Oh, sorry. We are getting above ourselves. Sorry, 24 years, Deputy Lord Mayor, is a long time.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR McKENNA: He has waited 25 years.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Don't exaggerate, James. Item 7, Recommendations of the Executive Board. I would like to move in the terms of the notice.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: I would like to second and reserve the right to speak, Deputy Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Deputy Lord Mayor, I wish to comment on page 53, paragraph 2.1, which is the Licensing Act. Two comments or two points to actually make on the Licensing Act. The first is, regardless of whether we like it or not, we are in a situation where it will bring 24-hour drinking across the country. Now, we think that this is fundamentally flawed, and we don't think we are alone on that. We note that there are great concerns within the NHS about the expanding costs they have got of dealing with binge-drinking, and we note the comments from many senior police officers who share those particular concerns.

We think it is fundamentally flawed. We think 24-hour drinking is something that is a step too far. We think it will bring to Leeds the rather unedifying opportunity for shoppers who are going into the Merrion Centre at 9 o'clock on a Saturday morning to find over binged-up drinkers floating out of the nightclubs up there at that particular point and being vomited onto their shoes. Welcome to a 24- hour city. That is one point, we think it is fundamentally flawed. We are stuck with it, but we do think that we will come to regret the introduction of this piece of legislation.

But the other point, the other great concern that we have had certainly in Morley is the cost o covering this, and I know those concerns are shared by a lot of other Members in the Council. Back in September we raised, with our local MP, Colin Challon, God bless him, our concerns about the Licensing Act and how much it would cost us to implement it. We thought - perhaps we were being a bit cynical but we thought - this was an attempt by central Government to pass on some of the responsibilities but very little of the cash, and that we ultimately, as Council Taxpayers, would be left with the bill.

Now, we raised these concerns with our good friend Colin Challon. Colin wrote back and said, and I quote, "There is a slight chance that your article" -

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com this is a letter to the newspapers, "'Fears Over the cost to the Council of Drinks Licensing Switch' dated August 20th inspired by a member of the Morley Borough Independent Party may go uncorrected. This claimed that the cost of the new licensing arrangement may fall on the local Council Taxpayer", and this is what you will love. This is what you will love, "This assurance is something that we all look forward to. The Minister who took the legislation through the House of Commons, Richard Caborn MP, has assured me categorically" - assured me categorically - "that this will not be the case, and if any reader would like a copy of his letter I will gladly send it to them."

I am sure we are all reassured at this particular point, so there I was up in Morley thinking, "Not a problem. Three cheers for Colin Challon. Fabulous man, he has saved us again in Morley. Thank God for Colin Challon", and at that point it rumbled on, it rumbled on, and we were trying to get some clarification about what the real costs actually were and who was going to pay for it, and I note that our Legal Services Department who aren't prone to making historical -- hysterical statements basically have suggested in their consultation letter back to the Department for Culture, Media & Sport that it is still going to cost us a heck of a lot of money. There is some suggestion of anything up to three- quarters of a million pounds, so not only do we get the problems of binge-drinking and 24-hour vomiting, but we also get to pay for the privilege of that.

So we thought we would take this up again with the saviour of Morley, Colin Challon MP, to see what he had to say about it, and this time he tells us that we have nothing to worry about because there is a special grant coming to us from central Government for this. Now, I personally don't know anything about this special grant, and I am hoping that somebody can clarify this special grant that Colin Challon and his mate Richard Caborn have guaranteed for us so that we aren't going to be left with these particular costs, and any assurances that can be given will be gratefully received, and I am sure any comments you make will be passed on to the voters in Morley. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR McARDLE: Deputy Lord Mayor, I have an interest in this - I like a drink ---

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: In moderation.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR McARDLE: In moderation, yes. Actually, I have come down today and I have listened to Radio 4's "World at One" and 15 minutes of this was taken up with this very same Licensing Act, where senior police officers, Council Leaders have all been putting their concerns. It has even been suggested that Members of Parliament are extremely concerned at such a late stage of the proceedings. So, having said that, having read through the draft policy, I think it is fairly thorough and fairly positive, and I would suspect that it will be subject to a bit of nit-picking and hole-picking but I generally support it, particularly the CIP - that is the CIP, not the CAP - that is the Cumulative Impact Policy. I think that is on Appendix 4. I think it certainly does put a certain responsibility on premise- holders to take on board their responsibilities, and I hope that the recommendations from Officers and from this policy actually helps or attempts to address these premise-holders to take on board these recommendations to take on staff training, the pre-application consultation with the police and environmental health officers. I think the enforcement reviews are appropriate as to responsibility, and we always have to consider the worst case scenario, i.e. the 24-hour vomiting and the 24-hour bingeing. I think that is right and appropriate.

I think it is also right to review this after six months, come April 2006 from the date of the second date, which is very likely to be November.

I think, as my colleague has already mentioned, the major concern are the fees. I predicted that it would take around 750,000 originally to implement this. In correspondence I received from a senior Legal Officer, that is 742,000 within the transitional period. I think that is a rather large and extremely onerous burden for Council Taxpayers to bear, and I think certainly I agree with my colleague Councillor Finnigan that this is a flawed legislation, and I think we have got to make the best of it. Perhaps it will change in some way, shape or form after the six month monitoring period. Certainly it gives the Licensing Committee the right to amend this policy if they think it is flawed or wrong in any way, shape or form.

Finally, I am not going to go on too long, I think it is very appropriate and I would like to put on record the efforts and endeavours of all the Licensing team who have done a marvellous job under very

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com difficult and very trying circumstances; everything has been at the last minute, and it is not through their own fault, it is from central Government; they have really pushed this to the wire, and I would like to put on record the Officers who have dealt with this, particularly Jill Marshall. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR LEADLEY: My Deputy Lord Mayor, I refer to agenda Item 7, page 53, paragraph 2.2, where there is mention of a successful complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman about the City Council's handling of the installation of a mobile telephone mast, and more detail of that is given in the report beginning on page 63.

Although we may note with regret the details of that particular case, I believe that it did give proof of a much broader problem with telecom installations, which is that often their determination is under telecommunications legislation rather than being planning applications in the strict sense. As we see in this case, which dated back to 1999, the operators in effect were able to award themselves permission because they had not heard from the City Council within 28 days.

Since then, there have been some changes in legislation and there has been a strengthening of the code of practice on consultation and quality of design, but even so I believe that the Ombudsman's report indirectly showed the need to bring all telecommunication installations fully into the normal planning system, so that all will be treated as straightforward planning applications.

If that were the case, all that operators could do, if they heard nothing from the local planning authority within 8 weeks, would be to start a planning appeal on the grounds of non-determination, and that would cut out a lot of the confusion and a lot of the public anxiety which surrounds mobile telephone masts. Thank you, my Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR ELLIOTT: Deputy Lord Mayor, I wish to withdraw my comment.

COUNCILLOR BRETT: Deputy Lord Mayor, can Councillor Gabriel hear me?

COUNCILLOR GABRIEL: Yes.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR BRETT: Thank you. I wish to speak briefly about the Food Safety Service Strategy, which has been prepared by Environmental Health Officers in line with the Government's regulations. This is a forgotten service. It is a bit like the best football referees, that in a good game of football you don't notice the referee, and I think that with our Food Safety staff the same things apply, that if we don't hear about them or hear of them, they are doing a good job, and I would just like to take this opportunity to thank them for the work that they do. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR CLEASBY: Lord Mayor, I wish to speak on the Ombudsman's report, and that would be very brief, but could I just supply some information to Council based upon the previous speakers. When I was Chair of Scrutiny Board (Central & Corporate) I was empowered to write to the Minister and all our MPs asking for their support over the Licensing Act and the very proposals about the money which we were very concerned about. It is interesting that many of the MPs did get replies, did accede to my request and supplied us with copies of their letters. It is interesting that the contents of the letter were very similar to the contents of the letter that I received directly on behalf of the Board, which was effectively a (inaudible) by the Minister, but it does appear that the Minister may well be the son of a traditional licensee, because I see that in the months that ensued his proposals were watered down. (Laughter)

Now, Lord Mayor, if I could speak briefly on I think it is 7(b), the Ombudsman's complaint, it is a disgrace that for four years this has not been resolved and has now taken a second complaint to the Ombudsman which has been accepted by the Ombudsman, and now I fear that the new administration could be falling into the trap of the old administration and not actioning this and getting sorted, because on page 66 there is a statement to complete outstanding works by the end of December 2004.

Now, Mr. X, who is a friend of mine now because of this, assures me that that is not the case, and I just ask Councillor Carter to make sure this is sorted, and could I ask the Chief Executive to make sure those other proposals he monitors to make sure no further time is lost to resolve this problem and prevent further disgrace, for want of a better word, on this Council. Thank you, Lord Mayor.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR MULHOLLAND: Deputy Lord Mayor, apologies for stepping in at this point. I was supposed to be speaking in a different area of the agenda, but I was told I should actually make my comments here and, as you know, I always do what I am told.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Except by Councillor Janet Harper.

COUNCILLOR MULHOLLAND: Leader of Council, please behave yourself.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: He was supporting you.

COUNCILLOR MULHOLLAND: Still, please behave yourself. You will get told off ---

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: I won't do it again.

COUNCILLOR MULHOLLAND: I just very briefly wish to welcome the policy to restrict the number of pubs, bars, clubs and takeaways in Headingley and Hyde Park. I do want to take this opportunity to point out to officers that actually they have missed one on the map; there is actually one more that you haven't got. The only reason I know that, it is the one I actually happen to frequent. This is a very positive move, a very positive move indeed. Residents in Headingley are, frankly, sick and tired of the noise and the litter and the general nuisance associated with having too many licensed premises and too many takeaways in a residential area of this nature, and I think very much I want to salute the fact that this administration has listened to residents, and I would like to remind Members on this side that this was not on the agenda at all under the previous administration.

So, Deputy Lord Mayor, I just want to say, "Thank you", on behalf of Headingley residents. This is another example of this administration doing what it promised to do, and that is to listen to people, to act on what they have asked us to do, and thereby making Leeds a greener, cleaner, safer and more prosperous place to be. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR LOBLEY: I would just like to briefly comment on 2.2 on page 53 regarding the mobile phone mast. I have recently had a similar experience in the Roundhay Ward and held a public meeting on the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com subject, and it has been very interesting looking into the Government legislation on this subject, which is incredibly woolly in it wording, and after you have looked into it in some depth you realise that the discussion of health issues are completely disregarded by the current legislation; they are not taken into account at all, residents' concerns over health issues.

The discussion of concerns about siting them near schools, when you actually look in more depth into the legislation, is incredibly weak as well, and in actual fact after looking at this for some time the only thing that you seem to be able to object on the grounds of is the siting and visual impact of the mast.

Now, we have been lucky where we are because the mobile phone operators tried to put the phone mast into an area which is historic park, urban green corridor, green belt and conservation area, so about as inappropriate as you can possibly get, so it looks like it is going to be refused by the Planning Department. However, the impression I get from the Government legislation is that basically when they have taken 22.5 billion from the third generation mobile phone operators there ain't nothing that is going to get in the way of these phone masts going up anywhere, and basically what we need to do is bully this Government, and I would expect to see support from all parties on this, into having some proper legislation that means that there is some local accountability here.

This should be something which is handled in a similar way to planning applications, if not exactly the same as planning applications, so that there can be local involvement from local Elected Members. The current situation is an absolute disgrace and my colleagues and I will certainly be writing to the Office of Deputy Prime Minister to outline how appalled we are now we have been through the mill of looking into a mobile phone mast application and just how little there is that local Elected Members can do to affect the siting of such masts. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Lord Mayor, I am going to deal with the licensing issues, because they fall under my portfolio.

I think that the jury is very much out, isn't it, because we are being confronted by a whole raft of new legislation and powers which are being imposed on

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com top of really a very fluid situation with the city centre in any event, and the City as a whole, as it changes and grows so dramatically, so I think it is very difficult at this juncture just to be overly critical of some of the changes. It is absolutely right that we need to wait and review and see what is happening.

I will come back to some of the specifics in a minute. I think, however, and this is a bit like, you know, do you want the good news or the bad news? I think it is very much good news that, for the first time in a long, long time, it seems to me, we are actually being given powers concentrated on the Council itself. You know, there has been, certainly in my two decades here, a succession of powers taken away from local government, and I think this is a very welcome reversal in fact that all licensing powers are being given to us as an authority so that we can take things in the round, and that additional powers are being given to us.

The bad news, of course, as both Councillors Finnigan and McArdle said, is the potential cost to us. Now, that, too, is still a bit of a moveable feast, but certainly on the figures as currently presented to us you are quite right, it does look as if there could be a significant additional cost to the authority and that, of course, is not a new phenomenon. Unfortunately, we are increasingly asked by central Government to do all sorts of things, and it is good that we are given the responsibility, but it is very bad that we are not given the commensurate amount of money to then fulfill the policies that they are asking us to carry out.

I don't know anything about this supposed fund you have talked about, and I am somewhat sceptical of it because we did recently meet with the Leeds MPs and, although it would be wrong of me to go into detail of what was discussed, because obviously it was an off- the-record discussion and if we start betraying confidences then there will be no dialogue between ourselves and the MPs. I think suffice to say they were somewhat startled when we started putting to them the cost implications of the changes in the way in which licences would be charged for, and they did undertake to go away and find out what was going on.

Of course, it is not just the fact that we are going to have to potentially pick up the bill for the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com licensing, it is also what I consider to be startling inequality that has actually been introduced into the cost of licensing for the licensees themselves. Of course, it masquerades as equality but it is to me completely wrong that, for instance, a huge nightclub in Leeds will see itself saving thousands of pounds on its future licensing application whereas your everyday little public house or restaurant would see its licensing fees potentially rising when he can't possibly hope to have the same level of income fall through its doors that the nightclubs will have.

On the question of what Councillor Mulholland said, as I say, this is indicative of lots of other powers to do with licensing that we are using, and I think we have to now wait and see and look in the round to see how our control on street drinking, about the issues of restricting further licences in given areas fit with the question of 24-hour licence arrangements and, once we review that in six months time, then I think we will be better able to judge exactly what is happening, but it will be kept firmly under review. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, just to touch briefly on Councillor Harris's comments, which I entirely endorse, we have written to the Department of Culture, Media & Sport as an authority setting out our considerable concerns about the legislation, and if I tell you that the deficit that we are anticipating in the transitional period is 742,000, and that in the first year of operation we are anticipating a deficit of 468,000, I wish the Government, as much as I welcome them passing services to us, would pass us the money with which to implement them.

I also have to say that to put some figures on the point that Councillor Harris made, you know, we are looking at establishments that -- current large establishments that currently pay licensing fees of between 4,000 and 8,000 paying 574 and 240 subsequently, and small establishments, many of which are part of regeneration in some of our small town and village areas and some of our urban areas, being faced with significantly higher licensing fees.

You know, I must say one thing: I do sympathise with Councillors McArdle and Finnigan. I do think that our MPs have voted for this legislation. I do wish they would spend a little more time studying what it is they vote for before they then go to the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com press and complain about it when it is too late. It sometimes strikes me they spend a bit too much time pretending to be Councillors in absentia rather than studying the legislation they are being asked to vote for, glibly vote for it, and then complain about it. Well, my Lord Mayor, we have every right to complain, and complain vigorously.

Now, the subject of telecommunication masts runs on very handily in terms of that, and can I first of all assure Councillor Cleasby, as I have already assured Mr. X - because he is also in correspondence with me - that the rest of the works are now in progress and will be completed but, of course, Councillor Cleasby is absolutely right, we cannot have, and this administration will not fall into, the same lax way that the previous administration undoubtedly did as regards telecommunications masts, and the main point that I have been given from the Department, and I expect this to be dealt with, is that decisive action is now being taken to radically change the way we deal with these matters.

You should be aware, Members of Council, that the customer Service Manager's post to manage handling of the learning from customer feedback and complaints has been created in response to this particular case, and I can go further than that because, in the light of the Minister Keith Hill's statements, which I find quite amazing considering it is his Government's Planning Regulations that put this Council in such a spot, but in the light of Mr. Hill's comments, the Development Department, amongst the lead Members we have now set up a working group to be chaired by Councillor Campbell, the other two Members to be Councillors Fox and Councillor Amanda Carter, and the senior officer to be dealing with this Sue (?Wraith), are going to be studying all matters relating to telecommunications masts and bases in the hope that we can make some sense out of the situation.

We are also, and we have already tabled a White Paper resolution for the next Council Meeting which I shall be moving, seconded by Councillor Blackburn and supported by Councillor Harris, welcoming the report of the - let me get this exactly right because it is rather complicated. I will tell you in a moment. -- welcoming the report of the National Radiological Protection Board's Advisory Group in January of this year, which has called on the Government to review the planning process associated with the erection of mobile

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com phone base stations, and not only asked for a review but asked for an independent review of this. We welcome that because, if you have seen the papers today, you will see that health fears are again being raised and we shall be calling on the Government to relax planning guidelines to allow us to consider health implications before it is too late.

I have to accept, and indeed the reports that I have referred to accept, there is no hard evidence but there is a growing feeling and a growing body of evidence that there are risks attached, and I have to ask this Council, are we seriously going to wait for another 20 years until it is too late and then wish we had done something when we see the effects of mobile phones and masts on the upcoming generations? I hope we are not going to have a situation where we say in 20 years' time, or somebody says in 20 years' time, "I wish we had done more before". So we will be pressing the Government as a Council, and again the Members of Parliament. You know, when Gordon Brown got this extra 2.5 billion from the mobile phone companies -- 22.5 billion from the mobile phone companies, we have all been around a long time. Things like this don't come as manna from heaven and there is, I think, an undeniable connection between these very lax planning regulations that frequently put residents, Elected Members and Planning Officers in a very difficult position when dealing with these and the fact that the Treasury has creamed off 22.5 billion extra, and I wish our Members of Parliament, when they write objecting, realise that they have again voted in Parliament on things that have caused this to happen.

It is a serious issue, and we certainly take it seriously, and I am sure at least Members around here will be happy with the steps that we are beginning to take. Thank you, my Lord Mayor. (Applause)

(The Recommendations of the Executive Board were carried)

ITEM 8 - RECOMMENDATIONS OF COUNCIL BUSINESS COMMITTEE

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: I will get this right, my Lord Mayor, this time. I move Item 8 in the terms of the notice.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: I second, my Lord Mayor and, if I need to, reserve the right to speak.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com (The Recommendations of the Council Business Committee were carried)

ITEM 9 - MINUTES

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, I move the minutes in the terms of the notice, but I again repeat what I said initially. I would like to comment on pages 106 and 107, minutes 109 and 110, and ask through you, Deputy Lord Mayor, whether I am in order commenting now or should wait until I wind up this particular item?

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Carter.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Thank you very much, my Lord Mayor. Both the items refer, in one way or another, to the OFSTED, and I do want as Leader of the Council to join and endorse Councillor Harker's comments and thank the staff of Education Leeds for the excellent work that they have done over the past few years to bring us to the state where we have received such a very good OFSTED, and that is not to be complacent, and I know that Councillor Harker is not complacent, and I also think, and he couldn't do this himself, that we should thank Councillor Harker and his team on education matters for the work that they have put in.

I have to and, yes, it is political but I do want to remind Members of Council from precisely where we have come, and I realise this may be uncomfortable for certain people, but before I read the extracts that I wish to read I would also endorse the comments Councillor Harker made in respect to Councillor Brian Walker and indeed Councillor Keith Wakefield, because it would be unfair not to indicate that in the OFSTED report, both the one that had the LEA functions removed from the Council and indeed the one that we have just had, there is positive comment about the way all parties have worked to ensure support for Education Leeds.

But, Members of Council, there are still people in this chamber who were implicated in the OFSTED of 2000, and I want to read a couple of paragraphs from that to contrast with what has now been said. Paragraph 11 of the 2000 OFSTED, "The reason for the manifold weaknesses is clear. They derive from poor leadership in the past. Elected Members have been heavily involved in the management of education in

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Leeds for many years and, for instance, local Councillors are still able to influence the provision of additional funds to schools in their ward. This gives rise to confusion about where accountability lies. The Council allowed the Education Department to run without a permanent Director for four years. The first attempts to appoint a new Director were abortive, partly because some potential candidates were put off by what the District Auditor and a recruitment consultant describe as 'perceptions of political interference'."

Paragraphs 90-92, "There is overwhelming evidence from certain senior Councillors, a large number of headteachers and some other partners, that the lack of a permanent Director for four years produced a damaging hiatus in strategic planning."

Continuing further in those paragraphs, "However, many headteachers and some partners feel that for at least the past decade the level of interest taken by leading Councillors and some other politicians in the operation of the Department led to a confusion in the respective role of Members and Officers. Crucially, however, investigation with the District Auditor in 1996/97 found that there had been inappropriate interventions by some politicians in parts of the City. When the District Auditor continued his investigation into the management of the LEA in 1997 he reported that the Education Department had not facilitated him in his work in the investigation and it was left incomplete. Furthermore, in 1999 actions taken by two Elected Members in respect of one prospective applicant for the post of Director led to censure by Council. Overall, the evidence of this inspection is that the very high level of political involvement in the management of education in Leeds has been a potentially destabilising influence on our schools."

That is a horrific indictment in an OFSTED only four years old. You do well to sit in silence. Some senior Members involved in that sit in this Council today. The OFSTED that has been received in January of this year 2005 says, "The leadership of Elected Members has improved markedly since the previous inspection and is now good", and I include in that happily Councillor Wakefield. There are others I do not include and would never, ever include. "The scrutiny function is performed exceptionally well", and what a pity we didn't have scrutiny four years ago, ten

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com years ago, when Members here were calling for scrutiny over and over again and, on this side, were refused scrutiny over and over again. Would the children going through our schools ten years ago have had a better chance if we had had scrutiny, if we had had less political interference and a properly run education authority based on providing the best possible educational chances for all our children? I think, Members of Council, that would undoubtedly have been the case.

I make no apologies for reading out those extracts, because it is important that every Member of Council remembers from where we have come to where we have now reached, and that is not to be complacent, but it is to accept that we must never, ever go back to the position that got this damning OFSTED set of comments only a few years ago.

I hope that parents and children in this City can now be confident that, whilst mistakes will be made, obviously, and whilst everything is not right, and whilst things need to improve, at least politicians with separate agendas are not manipulating appointments, not manipulating funding, and not manipulating day to day management, because that is the indictment that was included in this OFSTED report in the year 2000.

My Lord Mayor, I have pleasure in moving the minutes. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, I second and reserve the right to speak.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I now invite comments on the minutes.

(a) Executive Board: (i) Central & Corporate

COUNCILLOR DOWSON: Page 116, minute 130, I would like to comment on the Cumulative Impact Policy. I take it this means that the policy will actually protect residents in areas where an accumulation of licensed premises and takeaways impact or affect their lives. If this is the case, and I have to ask, Headingley and the city centre, why just these two, and why not Horsforth? Why not Chapel Allerton?

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Councillor Mulholland mentioned that this administration listened to residents. Well, they obviously have not listened to the residents of Chapel Allerton. In Chapel Allerton, for example, residents, many of whom have lived there long before most of the bars and restaurants opened, have been affected by increased incidences of anti-social behaviour, petty crime, noise from boisterous revellers leaving the licensed premises, from car doors slamming, from car engines, and from taxis who persist in beeping their horns to call the customers out. Parking nuisance - many residents can't get in and out of their own drives because of the cars inconsiderately parked by people using these premises. You have increased litter and, in the case of some of the premises, to attract customers light pollution as well.

Now also with the possibility of 24-hour opening, the lack of adequate transport provision must be called into question. Poor or non-existent bus services at night and with the withdrawal of Council funding in March leading almost certainly to the withdrawal of the Nightlink bus, I would ask that the deputation made by myself and my two ward colleagues Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Rafique to Legal Services asking for Chapel Allerton to be looked at and included under the Cumulative Impact Policy to be undertaken as soon as possible. The residents of Chapel Allerton are actually saying through us, "Enough is enough." (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Well, you know, in a few minutes time, or in a couple of hours time, we are going to be dealing with White Paper 1 which, as I understand it, was tabled by Councillor Nash without anybody in the Opposition leadership knowing about it. Attempts then made to see if it could be withdrawn. Who knows what chaos is going to ensue and I have got to start by answering this point on CIP by making exactly the same point to you: Do you not speak to your Leader? Because had you spoken to your Leader he might have told you what he said at Executive Board when this matter came before us, and he might also have said what we said back to him when it came to Executive Board.

There was no substantial discussion or point raised on Chapel Allerton. We discussed the whole question of this experimental CIP policy and why it was being introduced initially on a trial basis in Headingley and the city centre, and the hoops and the very extensive and difficult legal hoops that we have

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com had to go through in order to do it, and we did all of that, and we voted, which Keith Wakefield supported, and then as a throw-away after-thought he said, "And by the way, a place where we may have to look at in the future is Chapel Allerton" and we said, "Yes, you are probably right. We will look at Chapel Allerton in due course", and that is exactly what was said. There was no other attempt by your Leader to raise the question of Chapel Allerton in the whole of that discussion and, as soon as he mentioned it, we quite openly, without reservation, said, "Of course Chapel Allerton and other areas of the City will be considered in the fullness of time, once we properly understand what these rules are, how they can be properly enforced and introduced, because it is, and I emphasise, these are very, very new powers and controversial powers. There are all sorts of other issues impacting and, as I said earlier, the whole question of our ability now to stop street drinking, and all these things are going to impact on what is going on.

We have made it absolutely clear from day one as an administration we do not want yobbish, uncontrolled anti- social behaviour in this City. We are not killjoys. We want people to enjoy themselves. We want to encourage people to enjoy themselves, but where we find a minority of people making life awful for the majority, we will do something about it.

Now, you should be welcoming what we are doing in Headingley and the city centre because it is a first major step in that direction but, for heaven's sake, you know, Rome was not built in a day. What will happen if we go hell for leather and introduce CIPs all over the place, or attempt to, if we get into conflict with the views of the police in different parts of the City, get into conflict over public consultation, which is an essential aspect of it, where will that leave us? It will actually discredit the powers that we have got. We will be put on the back foot and, instead of being able to use them, will be hesitant about whether we should introduce them any longer.

I give you an absolute assurance, Chapel Allerton and any other area of the City will be properly considered after we have gone through this initial trial period for the city centre and Headingley and if, after that in consultation and due consideration, it is deemed appropriate to introduce a CIP into Chapel Allerton or Horsforth, or anywhere

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com else, then we will, because we will not have any yobs running this city. (Applause)

(iv) Neighbourhoods & Housing

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: My Lord Mayor, I would like to invoke the Rule 14.16 personal explanation.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I understood that, because you have not already spoken, but if you can exercise the right to find some other minutes to mention it.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I will.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Alright, if we could move to Neighbourhoods & Housing.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: It is unfortunate, the last two contributions ---

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: My Lord Mayor, I am prepared, even though I haven't discussed it, I am prepared to move relaxation or whatever it is, suspension of Standing Orders to allow Councillor Wakefield to comment if he so wishes. Would somebody support that?

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Second? We have agreed.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Thank you, Councillor Harris, because I think your comments about my position and my comments were totally unnecessary, as well as being false and misleading, and I don't understand the motive behind it, because I can remember clearly saying at the Executive Board that Chapel Allerton was becoming a problem area for the development of licences, if anybody knows it, and indeed there has been pressure from local Members to do it. The answer, the response to it was, "We haven't got the resources at the moment and we will go ahead with Headingley." When it came back at the following Executive Board minutes, I corrected the minutes because it didn't reflect the comments I made at the previous Exec Board and they were subsequently amended, and there was also reminded that this was an area that was becoming again a key problem spot, so I don't know what your motive is, Mark, whether you genuinely misheard, kind of misrepresented it, but I can recall very clearly that Officers subsequently made the amendment, and I have confirmed that with Councillor Blake.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR HARRIS: I think I was very good, allowing him to speak, for heaven's sake. I did say that, Lord Mayor, that is the first time anybody has allowed the Opposition to do that. That is called freedom of speech --- (Applause)

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: You weren't there. You weren't even there.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harris, can we sit down. Councillor Wakefield, Neighbourhoods & Housing.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: It is amazing how a person that wasn't there can remember everything that went on. Is that freedom of speech? Have we seen freedom of speech this afternoon when we have seen a set of stooge questions to the Executive Board? I thought we were bad but that is the worst performance I have seen. Is that freedom of speech? Is it freedom of speech that the Chief Whip, the stooge there, was chanting and showing disrespect to a delegation from Garforth ---

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield, could you move your amendment, please.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I tell you, that wasn't fair.

In moving on now to more emotive --- (Interruptions) Behave Brian, because you will be frozen out shortly, don't worry.

The reason why I thought this reference back should come back - not reference back, it is reference to the Scrutiny Board, because this is a topic that is very emotive as all sorts of, I think, sensitive issues and problems, and I think probably this isn't the right forum to debate it but it is our only opportunity, and I accept that when people are in this room they are bound by Whips but what I am pleading for is that we could all agree with this, because I am not asking people to break Party Whip. I am asking people to take a step back, think about this reference back, and hopefully agree with us to take more time to think about what is a very, very important decision, and that is the closure of two hostels in this City, one single- sex young men, 17-24, and the other one about women fleeing domestic violence, so both of them provide a crucial service.

Now, as I said to Councillor Les Carter, I am very aware of the difficulties that this decision has.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com I didn't expect Councillor Les Carter to pull out miracles. I said I accept that the Supporting People budget, which is a national budget given to local authority, is under some degree of discipline now because the costs have doubled over the last year. I said I accept that that means you have got to make a 2.5% cut in the Supporting People budget across the City, and I also accept that some of these hostels that these vulnerable people are in are not up to decent standards, and none of us would want to see our children being put away in some of these hostels, because they are not in acceptable conditions, and in some ways you are institutionalising a very difficult and sensitive problem. I acknowledge that.

I also acknowledge that there is more of a drive to be more proactive, but I put it to this, being proactive to stopping homeless requires accommodation that is decent across the City. All of us in this room know about homeless problems, know that we cannot get appropriate accommodation for our people, so it is easier said through the commission than done, and there are three reasons I want you to support this, and I said I don't think it is going to politically embarrass anybody.

The first reason is the report that came to Executive Board under 4.2 had a set of figures that didn't quite match like with like. They were talking about the costs of service per individual across the board and, quite frankly, they were not measuring the same service. I don't blame anybody for that. I certainly don't blame Councillor Les Carter for that. It was a report that I think tried to explain the pressures on a budget.

The second reason I want us to think long and hard about this is that you may have seen quite recently from Shelter that the figures for homeless have gone up to over 100,000 nationally. I am not proud of that, but I think we have to acknowledge that and we have to acknowledge there is more to do in that area. Since 1997 as a result of a housing shortage homelessness has gone up to 100,000. People are being forced into bed and breakfasts and are being forced into hostels where we would like to accommodate them. You must acknowledge that before you can say we have got the solutions and say there is plenty of spaces in other hostels. That is a fact, and it is there in black and white in any paper or any journal you want to read.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com The second reason, or the third reason, I think is important is that the Deputy Prime Minister, the OPDM's office has acknowledged this, and he has given 150 million to local authorities to address homelessness and, on top of that, a further 90 million to refurbish hostels, to refurbish hostels. Now, none of that information was available at the time that the report was written, so I can understand why there are difficulties, but I am really asking Members of this Council to really think whether we should take a bit longer, refer it to Scrutiny Board, have a look at the cost - people have spoken about the use of Scrutiny - have a look at the cost, have a look at the available accommodation if you close two of these hostels before we rush into a decision that closes two of the most important hostels. They may be poor condition but the conversations I have had with people who are in here, at least they are accommodation and are support for people, particularly women fleeing violence.

I don't think it is going to, as I say, embarrass anybody. I really put it to Council, think long and hard. We are not asking you to reverse the decision, we are not asking you to break party discipline. We are asking you to support a reference to Scrutiny Board so we can all come back in here and be satisfied that we have thoroughly examined all the issues and all the implications of this decision. Thank you, Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: Deputy Lord Mayor, I would just like to add a few small points to those already made by Councillor Wakefield. It is just to perhaps give some Members who have not been around that long a bit of information about the background to our homelessness service, and quite how decisions have been made in the past, because I think it is very important that we have always taken a long view of how we have tackled homelessness and, as a city, we have actually made steady progress over the years, and some Members who have been around for a long while will remember that we didn't have some things to be proud of, and I think of, say, Shaftesbury House, think of the Marsh Lane Hostel, I think even in some ways the Brett Gardens Hostels, which were not good accommodation, but we have always, and I think we have had cross party support for saying, "Right, we have a strategy for doing things to tackle these problems", and I think particularly of Shaftesbury House in terms of that, where we had a 10 year strategy to empty people out of what was a human

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com dustbin and find better accommodation, and that is what we did as a city, and it did take 10 years.

You know, there was a huge amount of searching through the City for alternative accommodation that would be suitable for a very difficult and vulnerable client group, but we got there in the end, but what we have done is, in the past it has been about, "Right, let's be considered about what we are doing in homelessness."

We have also got committed staff in all our hostels. It is not an easy job. I am not saying it is the most difficult but it isn't an easy job to deal with pressured homeless individuals and families. There is a lot of aggro there, so I think we have got a group of dedicated staff there who have worked hard for us over the years. And what do we have? We have a decision that they suddenly get dumped on them that we are closing two hostels and we are putting another one out to tender. What message does that give to those staff? What message does that give to the staff in our remaining hostels? I think it is very clear. You know, it is almost like there is a new message here. Well, in the past we may have taken a bit of time to think about these things but, right, this is the message now. We are going to close these, we are going to get on with it, and to me that is the wrong way to deal with your staff and it is also, I think, probably the wrong way to look at the problem because homelessness, as Keith has said, is not just an emotional issue, it is an issue where you are subject to so many changes in terms of legislation and demand, and there is a big issue at the moment with demand, and we have to be absolutely sure that we are doing the right thing and not make some kind of rushed decision.

We are not saying to you, "Your decision is absolutely wrong." There are pressures there which have pushed for a decision, not least of which is the Supporting People regime, which is completely different from how we used to operate, and very much in the past Leeds City Council was in a position to say Housing Benefit picks up the bill for any hostel so, you know, it doesn't matter to us. It does matter under the Supporting People regime. We have got to be kind of driven by costs and, you know, have concern about effectiveness and efficiency but, at the same time, we should be measured about how we do it, and I will second Keith in saying please refer this to Scrutiny. It is the right place for a measured scrutiny of the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com proposal, and then we can all feel reassured that the right decision is being made. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, can I stick to the same tone as the other two speakers, because it has been treated as a serious subject. It is indeed an extremely serious subject, but can I just make two points to start with? This question about rushing to a decision: Members may be surprised but this decision is going to take at least 7 months to bring into being. Now, I hardly think anybody can accuse us of rushing to a decision. Seven months. It is not next week. It is not yesterday. It is not the day before.

Can I make the other point as well which has been made, that is the question of increasing -- the number of homeless are increasing. The number of homeless in Leeds fortunately, and I am delighted about this, and you must be as well, is actually falling, and falling quite substantially. So let's not, first of all, just go down a wrong track. Let's keep it on the straight and narrow.

This administration, and I am going to say this and I mean it, this administration is not here reducing homeless services. I promise you that. There is no way I would stand here and accept reducing homeless services. We are changing homeless services. That is what we are doing. We are changing homeless services. We are changing to enhance the needs of homeless people, putting greater emphasis on prevention. Prevention, that is vital, and ensuring that we do not institutionalise people, because that is the worst thing we can do, put people into hostels and leave them there. They should be back in the community.

There are three strands to this policy: Prevention, and a lot of people involved with homelessness are involved with drugs, and obviously a lot of work has to be done in that area. Secondly, there is emergency, and there can be no argument there - in an emergency people have to go somewhere and we have to have accommodation which they can go in. And the third, the most important, is resettlement back into the community, people back into the community, being able to live in the community, and the reality is we simply do not need the current level of hostel

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com accommodation. Certainly not the cost that we are paying.

Members opposite talked earlier about a strategy which they put in themself in the past. They put a strategy in, and that strategy resulted in closing two hostels, one in 2001 and the second in 2003. They were Brett Gardens, Unit 1 and Unit 2. That was your strategy. You gave two reasons at the time for that: To create normal tenancies in the community - that means people back out into the community in proper homes - and you also gave the high unit cost of the accommodation. At that stage it was 950 per week. So you did it for cost and you did it because, like us, you believed people should be back in the community not left in there.

I have got to say I don't remember, and somebody can correct me if I am wrong, union representatives writing letters to the Evening Post protesting. I wonder why. I wonder why when this administration does it they are writing in that way and the previous one, none whatsoever.

The costs of the two hostels, regardless of what you are saying, of Prospect House and St. Michael's Lane are 1.1 million, paid for out of the Supporting People budget. Indeed, my Deputy Lord Mayor, the cost of keeping people in one of these hostels is similar to what we would have to pay to accommodate a homeless person in the Queens Hotel, which is a complete and utter nonsense.

My Lord Mayor, I am not going to go and dig too deeply and go on forever on this particular subject. If the Scrutiny Board wanted to look at this, it would be for them. They have their own performance, they can look at the decision, and it would be for them to say, "We want to look at it." They are certainly going to have plenty of time in 7 months to look at it. There is going to be no rush to do that. There is no decision that is going to be made that was going to turn overnight and finish overnight.

But what you have got to also remember, and it was said earlier, that this money is coming out of Supporting People. Supporting People is given to us by Government, and currently the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Prescott's department, are reducing that by 2.1 million. Now, all that money currently is spent on people who are in need, every one are in need, and for

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com us to ignore that --- Councillor Wakefield didn't get up today and tell me which 2.1 million, which other person in need he wants to knock it from. He didn't say that at all. He just, you know, brushed over it. My Lord Mayor, to continue to fund expensive hotels which are not needed would be wilful irresponsible management of the budget. It would threaten the quality of the vital services that we provide. It would mean finding services for those suffering domestic violence, or among other most vulnerable groups in our society.

Deputy Lord Mayor, this administration takes its duties to provide for the homeless very seriously, but not only do we have a legal and moral responsibility to them, and we do have a legal and moral responsibility, we also have to the taxpayers and the people of Leeds. We cannot justify these unnecessary costs to them, and certainly not at the expense of other vital services. Failure to take action would jeopardise other essential services. I therefore ask Council to reject this amendment. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I now call for the vote on the amendment.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Recorded vote.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: Seconded, Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: No lights. (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: -- organising the Members. He is going in to get Members, an Officer of the authority, and he is also sorting out people's desks. I thought employees of the Council weren't allowed to do that, my Lord Mayor.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Has anyone else got any problems? (Interruptions)

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Can we just see whether they will be activated? Because this is the first vote of the afternoon, just to remind Members that even ---

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: The lights are not working.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, he is still out, acting as a whip, an Officer of the authority. He is running in and out of the doors.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: We are all here.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Are we all going to do it by name? Councillor Gabriel, is your light on now?

COUNCILLOR GABRIEL: My light has never been a problem. (Interruptions)

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: In the hope and expectation that the arrangements will --- (Interruption) Right, well, we can deal with those separately at the end.

Just to remind Members, because this is the first vote of the afternoon, that up to the completion of the vote being announced any Member may change his or her vote. It is the final press of the button which is the one recorded for voting purposes. With that, then, would all Members please ensure that they are in their allocated seats. We can deal with the generality of the vote and then pick up the specifics at the end. Right would those Members who can, then, please press the button marked "P" on their unit in order to activate it.

COUNCILLOR LYONS: Are we taking the right vote? As far as I am concerned, they are sat in their allocated seats --- (Interruptions)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: We have already discussed that arrangements would be for their vote to be recorded. We have got the electronic --- We will wait while Councillors Gabriel and Dowson sit down.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: My Lord Mayor, what the rules deal with is the request for a vote to be recorded. They don't specify whether that is mechanical, electronic or by writing. The first part of this vote will be the electronic vote. If anyone's vote has not then been recorded, the details will then be collated. So those Members who have pressed their "P" button in order to activate the unit who are in favour of the amendment in the name of Councillor Wakefield, would they please press the "+" button. Those Members who are against that motion please press the "-" button, and any Member wishing to abstain and have that abstention recorded please press the "0" button.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: Excuse me, both of my "+" and "-" buttons are on, my "For" and "Against" buttons, both are on. (Interruptions)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Right, the vote is complete.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: We have 45 "Yes" to the amendment, 49 "No" and no abstentions, so the amendment is lost.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Lord Mayor, I want to raise a point of order under Council Procedure Rule 14.15. As this vote was being taken, no less a person than the Leader of Council made certain allegations about an Officer of this authority doing things untoward which he shouldn't have been doing. I take very strong exception to that. The Leader of Council should not attack Officers here unwarranted, and it was a totally wrong allegation being made, and I ask him to withdraw it and to apologise. COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, by way of personal explanation, I said, "Is Mr. Fisher whipping in Members of the party?"

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: No, he is not. That is my job and he is not whipping anybody in.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Is he checking everybody is in their seats? He has certainly done so in the past. I have seen him doing so. I had every right, therefore, to assume he was doing it again. If he was not, if he was not, then I am entirely satisfied, but I hope he will not do so in the future.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Apologise.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: It is all you are getting.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: I shall still write to the Chief Executive on the issue.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Carter, can you sit down, please.

THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICES (Ms. N. Jackson): Harris.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Sorry. I do apologise. It is sitting up here. Right.

COUNCILLOR McARDLE: Page 125, minute 158. Speaking as a resident of --- Can everybody hear me?

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: No.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR McARDLE: Shall I continue? I know that was confusing, but please can we be quiet and listen to Councillor McArdle.

COUNCILLOR McARDLE: It is page 125, minute 158. Speaking as a resident of Morley, we were, if not the first Council, one of the first to implement PCSOs, and we welcome the implementation of the two PCSOs per ward. I think it is a marvellous gambit by this administration. It shows they have a commitment to law and order throughout the City. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR SELBY: My Lord Mayor, can I take it the microphones are now working? I wish to comment on minute 124, page 114.

Deputy Lord Mayor, until the Crime & Disorder Act, until that was introduced, little was done to tackle the problems of low level, thuggish, anti-social behaviour that affect society. The courts and the police were powerless to do anything, but under our Labour Government powers were introduced to tackle this problem that blights the lives of many of our constituents. Using those laws, our previous Labour administration actively took action, with the support of the Conservatives but legislation opposed by the Liberal Democrats, actively took action against those who deliberately and wilfully set out to cause mayhem to those in our community. With the support of other parties, multiple orders were applied for and obtained to stop those elements in our society who have ruined the lives of their neighbours and the rest of the community.

Lord Mayor, the report that went to Executive Board sets out a statement and summary of policies designed to tackle anti-social behaviour. A very lengthy, detailed document it is. We are told that there are many initiatives proposed to prevent anti- social behaviour. Fine in theory, but are they being pursued? There is reference to alley-gating as one such initiative, and many people want to see rights of way closed in high crime areas, in addition to the alleyways as well, but what is being done to close those alleys and ginnels to make it harder for those anti-social elements to get away from the scenes of the crimes? Some work has been done in Hyde Park and Harehills, welcome though that is, but where else? We have just now got round to doing the first order to

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com close a highway. Under the Countryside Rights of Ways Act, introduced by a Labour Government, powers were given to close such rights of way and application was made by the previous administration to get that order.

Application was made in 2003. Information was provided to the Minister providing details of crime figures, letters from residents, elected representatives, the police, all supporting applications, not just for closures in the ward I represent but other wards as well. That application was approved on 29th April, although the Council was aware of that in February. Those orders came into force on 25th May, but what has happened since 19th June? What has been done? One closure order, as I said, as been made in the Crossgates area. Many others have been identified. Residents in my ward, in Brooklands Court, in Lambrigg Crescent and Murton Close would like to know, as I am sure ward Members and residents would like to know about similar applications in the Wensleys in Chapel Allerton, the St. Albans estate in Gipton and the Langley estate in Bramley. What we do know is that a working party has been set up, and that is fine, but what realistically has happened since then?

All I can say to those constituents who complain to me is, "Well, you have seen the press report with the comment from Les Carter. He sympathises." Well, Les's sympathy may be fine, but to the person who has their windows smashed, the person who has eggs thrown at their car, and the culprits run away through the ginnels and rights of way that exist, it doesn't help.

Officers carried out a lot of work prior to the application being made. I accept that some work has to be done in terms of implementing the highway closure, but a lot more does need to be done. What worries me is that it seems to be doing this on a one street, one highway at a time, and there must be about 40 that need to be done, and at this rate it is going to be 2010, 2015 before we actually get anything done. More urgency is required. Thugs are getting away from their crime, police are hampered in their battle against crime, and the administration's current policy of complacency is helping them.

The report that went to Executive is meaningless unless positive action is taken to implement the initiative. So what I would like to

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com know, from whichever Councillor Carter is running this Council, is, can we have an assurance that adequate resources will be given to ensure that that work will be carried out? When is it going to happen? When am I going to be able to go to the constituents who complain to me in Brooklands Court, in Lambrigg Crescent, in Murton Close, to say this highway or this right of way will be closed so that the thugs, the anti-social elements are prevented? Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: Deputy Lord Mayor, can I follow on from my colleague Councillor Selby? I was just going through the statement on anti-social behaviour and there is the definition in there, "Anti-social behaviour is behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household", and then it gives a list of examples and we start off with, "Racist behaviour or language, threatening to use violence or using it, writing threatening, abusive or insulting graffiti" and carries on, "Arguing and door-slamming, offensive drunkenness" and you get to the bottom of the list and we have, "Playing ball games in the streets". Now, I always thought that we were the puritans here, not you lot. I always thought that we were the ones who were the kind of killjoys, and I am somewhat concerned that that fairly innocent activity, just in that, defined as it is, is not very helpful. I think we would all agree that there are issues with persistent ball games being played, but I hate the thought of the full might of Leeds City Council's anti- social behaviour staff being kind of concentrated on five- year olds kicking a tennis ball about, but otherwise, of course, as Les would know, I would welcome the document.

A couple of other things, and I almost don't dare to touch on the issue of PCSOs after Frank's probing question and follow-up, you know, but I think there is --- I must just say I very much welcome the kind of late conversion of everybody to ASBOs and PCSOs. It is not so many months back that I remember sitting in here and listening to Keith Louden saying that ASBOs were a complete waste --- Do you remember Keith?

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: I don't remember Keith.

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: No, I thought you might not. (Laughter) I always welcome the sinner that

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com repenteth, you know, but I think there are serious issues about PCSOs. I say I recognise the issue about, you know, there was a political commitment to introduce two per ward, but that does raise concerns, and I think the experience that we had over the Headingley Freshers' Week is one, and it is about that old issue of abstraction that we know and love, that all of us have experienced when we have dealt with the police. You know, you think that you have got resources going into your ward and then suddenly you find they don't seem to be there, and you get on to the police and they will say, "Oh well, there was a major incident that we had to deal with. Terribly sorry about that", and you feel that you have absolutely no control over what is going on, and I am somewhat concerned about how this will work in practice. You know, will we find that all our PCSOs are fully occupied? Will the PCSOs in Wetherby, where there are very low crime areas, or which is a very low crime area overall compared to other parts of the City ---

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: You wouldn't have them there?

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: No, I didn't say that. Andrew, I didn't say that, did I? What I said was, will they be fully occupied? And my question is, how are we going to monitor the way that they are used? How are we going to ensure --- How are we going to check after 6 months, after a year, to ensure that they are fully used?

ACOUNCILLOR A. CARTER: That is clutching at straws.

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: It is not clutching at straws.

There is a huge issue in the city about closing the gap and that issue is about how wards like Hyde Park suffer from crime, how wards like Armley suffer from crime, how wards like Harehills suffer from crime. Now, if we are to say, "Well, you know, we may have the resources doing bugger all in certain parts of the City and we will not use them to deal with problems ---"

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Tell the Council where you wouldn't have PCSOs. Come clean. Pudsey?

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: I didn't say --- Andrew, I am not there to respond to your questions, Andrew, as you well know.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Finally, just one little comment on the issue of energy efficiency. I welcome the comments that came from the Executive Board about a recognition that there are issues to do with private landLords in this City, and to do with housing associations not pulling their weight to ensure that our housing stock, the City's housing stock, is brought up to date in terms of its energy efficiency, but I would like to stress the importance that looking at energy efficiency in properties has to go hand in hand with looking at the regeneration of areas, demolition issues, and it cannot be an issue that we just say, "Let's put on one side the issue of energy efficiency and how we deal with that in our stock." It has to be part of a wider strategy that looks at the fitness of much of the private stock in this City, particularly in certain inner city wards. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR HARINGTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, this is page 115, minute 127. The words "Gipton" and "arts" may not seem like they go together. Gipton Arts Centre might seem like it is or in danger of becoming some high-faluting idea dreamt up by middle-class comers-in who think, "The poor people of Gipton need the arts, don't you know." (Laughter)

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: I wish I had said that.

COUNCILLOR HARINGTON: However, this decision has been 8 years in the making. Yes, there certainly have been some comers- in involved, but there has also been an annual pantomime, "Oh yes there has" - I thought I would get that in first. There has also been good links with local schools who want a public space so that they can show the work, the very amazingly excellent work that local schools do, a public space for that to be seen, and also an increasing amount of young people who are involved in dance, so what we have here is not a question of the poor people of Gipton need the arts, but the arts in various ways are already happening and we would like to encourage their development in a place that doesn't stink and doesn't leak.

However, there is a great deal to be done because, as we all know only too well, a brand new building may be an opportunity for some brand new types of destruction by various local young persons, and so a lot of work has got to be done with local people, local young people, to try and help them be ready to use it creatively. And coincidentally, this comes at a time

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com when local youth services are recognising that their best work, or much of their best work, if not most of it, has been arts-based, and so our steering committee has been involved, is involved, with discussions with the arts and with the Youth Department to try and get the best kind of work to prepare for the centre, and we hope use the centre as a base for that work in the future, something extra for young people, and especially so that they are ready to use it creatively.

Can I say also that I hope this centre will be a way of underlining what is so crucial for the City as a whole. Yes, there needs to be new investment in buildings in the city centre. It is wonderful that we have such an excellent Playhouse, wonderful work by Opera North, but if arts only means what people come to the city centre to enjoy and doesn't mean what goes on in the surrounding areas, then no gap is going to be closed at all.

There is some fantastic work being done by the Playhouse and by the Opera in the local community, and I hope that this centre will be an encouragement for other such work to happen so that arts can be felt to be what it can be for the whole City, because very few things can contribute to a person's self-esteem, their sense of self-worth, their sense of importance, as can being involved in some kind of artistic activity, whether it be painting, pantomime, music, whatever.

The last point I want to make is that some of us who have been around with this for 6 years now have not always found the process very easy. Hoops appear, different goalposts appear. Yes, hoops and goalposts - it is not always clear what game you are playing. What it really means then is, for all of us in our various Area Committees, to make sure that the best system is in place so that, when there is an idea from somebody local, that idea can be probably looked at and, if it is good, sustained and helped to be brought to fruition.

So I would like to congratulate the Executive Committee on supporting this excellent local initiative. I hope it will be seen that Gipton and arts do go together and, in fact, that arts should be together with all areas of the whole City so that the gap really can be closed. And, finally, tickets for our next pantomime, on the 9th-12th February, "Bluebeard", will be on sale next week. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com MEMBER OF COUNCIL: Jump on the bandwagon.

COUNCILLOR TAYLOR: Deputy Lord Mayor, can I just sort of associate myself with all that Councillor Harington has said about everything that is going on in Gipton, and can I also just sort of take it a step further to say that, as a Governor of the school, that Oakwood School, which I know has an enormous amount of talent, it is jolly good to see the confidence of young people there as they are developing their artistic skills, and that has to be congratulated.

Can I also just sort of inform each and everyone here today that the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England has also agreed to considerably support this project through the Church Urban Fund, which is another good example, Les, of the way that we in this new administration are working together in partnership, and long may that continue. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I ask Councillor Les Carter to sum up, please.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: I don't know if I can remember it all!

Do you know, my Lord Mayor, two score and four years ago when I last sat in this chair, I am certain it was bigger. (Laughter) Mind you, I'll tell you what, two score and four years ago hasn't changed what happens over there. It is still the same coming across, isn't it?

Well, let's just go on to the Gipton Arts Centre first. Can I, first of all, thank Councillors Akhtar and Taylor for their approach to me and telling me how much I had to do this, and it was through their pushing and shoving and really hard work that it is there. I have to admit to you all, I have ruined my own reputation with my own group completely. Even my culture vulture thinks I am a bit of a softy now, don't you, John?

But, no, seriously, I know about the Arts Centre and I hope it is going to be a great success. I think it will be a great success. I thought I might have been offered a free ticket to your pantomime, but never mind, I won't get one.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Ooh, is it true all the Labour Group are starring in it?

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Stuart, thank you for your comments on PCSOs. Morley was one of the leaders on this, because Morley Town Council, as you know, paid for extra PCSOs very early on, and I know speaking to people, friends I have in Morley, that it has worked it has given an impression --- Well, not given the impression, it has given a fact, there are more police or appear to be more police on the street and it is working. Now, we are hoping to get that right across Leeds.

Before I go on to Richard, can I just go back to my friend Brian. Brian knows he is pushing against an open door. He knows I would close these things tomorrow if I could. Now, he talks about money in the budget. What he fails to tell, like his predecessor just recently or earlier today, it is their budget. So why didn't you put any money in, Brian? Why didn't you? You can't have done. It isn't there. I can't find it.

But having said that, I am not going to knock about with it, let me just come back a stage. He also knows that this Countryside and Rights of Way Act of 2000, if someone objects to it, it could lead to a public inquiry, and currently we have, and somewhere in this ward which he is playing pop about, some of these people are objecting to it.

Now, what Brian doesn't accept, and it is fair, he is a Labour Councillor, he doesn't believe that people in the community should be able to say, "No" to anything. They should tell them and then they should accept it. Now, that's their policy; they have always operated it, no consultation, you will do it. Now, I can't just do it because I may have to have -- it could be a public inquiry.

At the moment, there are 160 footpaths which people are proposing to close, and I don't say we shouldn't close them, and I will push to see they are closed because it will help our crime reduction figures if we can get them closed. But, having said that, I will do it properly, and it is with the will of the people not against people. (Applause)

Now, Richard danced and he did a wonderful bit of tap- dancing there. Did he? He wasn't going to

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com say which ones he doesn't want PCSOs in. He doesn't like PCSOs going into Wetherby. Did you notice that? He didn't like it. I wasn't even certain whether he wanted them in Pudsey, and you were dancing away, dancing away. Who are these PCSOs who have nothing to do? I know of no PCSOs who have nothing to do. They all work jolly hard, as far as I can understand.

But he did raise one point which is an interesting point, an important point, and that is abstractions. If there are riots somewhere in Leeds, or even in Bradford, the Chief Constable must use the resources in the way that he wants to use the resources with no argument, no debate, nothing to hold us back. We should say, "Do what is right and proper for the particular place", and I wouldn't argue.

What we have got to be careful of is the abstractions which aren't really of that nature; it is some Chief Superintendent pushing them across somewhere else. So what we have tried to say in the agreements we want to get is that they can be moved. It is equivalent to two per ward and they can be moved round within wedges, but that has to be reported to the Area Committee, so if anybody is doing that if anybody says that --- There might be a reason for doing that, but if somebody does it, they have got to be able to explain why they are doing it, and we are saying that has got to go to the Area Committee. The Area Committee can then say, "Hang on, why did you do it? Why did you move those PCSOs?" and somebody then is going to have to have a good explanation. It won't be just because they fancied it, or because, "Somebody was away there and I needed to do this and I needed to do that", and that is what we are trying to do with that.

But I was a bit sad, Richard, that you didn't just congratulate me, like the Member for Pudsey.

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: I'm sorry.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Well, I know you're sorry, but it is too late now. I am not going to forgive you that easy. But having said that, these PCSOs are something which we said as an administration we wanted. It is something that we are going to have. We are going to ensure - I think everybody is working together on this - that law and order, presence on the street of police is something that we are all pushing and working hard for, and I really do hope that you will come on

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com board the same way as the Morley Councillors have come on board. Thank you, my Lord Mayor. (Applause)

(vii) Children's Services

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: Deputy Lord Mayor, I would like to speak to minute 136 on page 118, which covers the progress of the implementation of the provisions within the Children's Act. It goes without saying, I think, that everybody in this chamber welcomes the opportunities that are coming through the Children's Act, but I would just like, before I actually put my reference to the point I want to make, to pay particular tribute to the members in my group who have always put children at the heart of their agenda, and just to say I would like to pay tribute to those people who actually made sure that we did get good OFSTED reports which covered Early Years and, as Councillor Armitage and, looking around Councillor Murray is not here either, but Councillor Gruen, but Scrutiny, Councillor Driver and Councillor McKenna, all of them and everyone in their work implementing the work of the Council have always, as I said, put children right at the heart, and that is the reason why you are able to bask in the glory, if you like, of the good OFSTED reports that have come through. And I would like to also say that the work that was done by Members on this side was also against a systematic cutting of resource going into those services under the previous Tory Government. (Interruptions)

Could I just pick up Councillor Jennings. As I know, as all of you know, we all regard the work that we have to do with great seriousness, implementing the provisions of the Act, and we just have had issued a great deal of guidance which lays out the responsibilities of the Director of Children's Services and also the lead Member, and I am sure we can all sleep safely in our beds knowing that Councillor Jennings is now the responsible Member for all the children in this City.

The role of the lead Member in this is absolutely critical, and Councillor Jennings, when he has commented on this in Exec Board, always makes reference to the fact that it is not political, but I have to say, running through all of the guidance, it does make reference to the fact that the role of the lead Member is a political role in that you have the responsibility of ensuring that the role of Members throughout this is put into place, and under these

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com provisions you actually have the powers of delegation across different Members responsible for different areas of the Council.

I would be very happy if you could outline your thinking, if you like, Councillor Jennings, around the clarification of the role of politicians, all politicians in this City, and what it is that you expect us as Members to do, and the progress that you have actually made in coming forward with the changing roles that Members will have in this area. Particularly, I would be very grateful if you could explain to us what you are doing about the role of Area Committees, and particularly the relationships with district partnerships and with all the partners that are going to have to come together to implement the provisions of this Act.

There is another serious point that I had opportunity to raise at Executive Board, and that also is around the role of the Change Manager that you are hoping to appoint very shortly, as I understand it. The role of the Director, the future Director, of this post has got to be one of the most important appointments of this City. The level of this post of the Change Manager is well below Director level, from what I understand, which means there won't be Member involvement in the appointment, and I just want you to explain to us how you get the confidence to ensure that this Change Manager will be able to work across an incredibly complex range of areas of work, bringing together accountability from all of the partners in the City. Thank you.

COUNCILLOR DRIVER: Deputy Lord Mayor, I want to take up the same minute, and indeed the same role and responsibilities issue with regard to the lead Member for Children's Services, because, as I read the papers, the report which the Director of Lifelong Learning, Social Services and the Chief Exec of Education Leeds put together, we are being asked, within a relatively short time, to be able to produce our local version of the Children Act, if you like, and a key figure in this is, as Councillor Blake indicates, what the Act calls the lead Member for Children's Services.

I just wanted to pick up two of the responsibilities as a sort of way of getting a sense of where we are at with the progress in dealing with those responsibilities. One is a kind of issue of principle or values, and the other is a rather more practical

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com question. The issue of values I want to ask about comes in relation to a point made in 5.3.2 of the responsibilities of lead Members in the paper that went to Exec, and what it says is that one of those responsibilities will be ensuring that the proper governance and monitoring processes are in place within the local authority. The key word is, "proper". What do we mean by "proper"? Who is making that decision? This is peculiarly an Elected Member role - yes?

Councillor Carter this afternoon has talked about what he alleges is improper behaviour. What are our standards? Who is setting the criteria? How is that process being pushed forward in the crucial 12/18 months we have got to do that particular exercise? So I want a rather specific answer to that question.

The other one deals with the role of children and young people. One of the responsibilities of the lead Member which is made very clear is that he or she, or maybe it is more than just one individual, I am not quite sure how it works out, but they, let's say, they have a responsibility to ensure that I think the correct word was a real contribution - not a token one I suppose that means - a substantial contribution is made by children and young people to the whole process of developing and monitoring a relevant and effective service to their lives.

We again have a very short time in which to bring this about. Again, I would like to know what is being done, what steps are being taken, who is being involved in this, and what are the areas of responsibility. This is a comment. I think I am perfectly entitled to ask as many questions as I like, Councillor Jennings, and I will continue to do so. So I look forward to early answers to both those questions. Thank you.

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: Deputy Lord Mayor, I am going to address immediately one of the questions, and I don't know about anybody else, and I don't know how long you have been a Councillor in this Council, Councillor Driver or Councillor Blake, but I thought questions were asked at Question-time. I will here and now apologise. During your two - speeches is slightly over-egging the pudding - but through your addresses to this Council I think you asked something like 38 questions of me. Now, earlier in the Question-time session, which went on for half an hour, we managed to

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com answer seven questions. How you expect me to answer 38 in the - is it four minutes or five minutes I have available, I really do not know. (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR McKENNA: Have a go at it.

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: Oh, I'm going to have a go, Jim, don't you worry. I'm going to have a go.

When I talk about - and the first question which I am going to answer is - when I talk about keeping politics out of this, I do not mean keeping the politics out of my position, or anybody else's within this administration. I would have hoped, though, we could have kept party politics as much as possible out of this particular issue. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR DRIVER: I didn't mention it.

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: It is party politics, Councillor Blake, I referred to - cheap party politics in many cases. If you wish to turn the future of the children and young people of this City and the services --- (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR DRIVER: I didn't accuse you of party politics.

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: No, I am talking to Councillor Blake at this point, Councillor Driver.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: You are not, you are talking to the Deputy Lord Mayor, actually.

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: Oh, am I? Yes, she probably understands. (Laughter)

If you wish to turn the children and young people of this City, and the services that this Council and all the other agencies involved in providing services to them, into a political football, we can do that. Councillor Carter earlier gave us enough ammunition to attack various Members of your group over the services that you provided to the children of this City.

Now, Councillor Driver, I am addressing this point to you. Do you associate yourself more with the OFSTED inspection of the LEA of the year 2000 or the year 2005? Because I know which one I associate myself with, having been interviewed by the inspectors

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com for the 2005 inspection. I understand, maybe incorrectly, that the period described in that OFSTED report of the previous decade included a time when you were the Chair of Education, so please don't start pontificating to me about the role of senior Members in Council, because I have a damn sight better idea of what we should be doing than you. (Applause)

I will agree that Councillor Blake did ask some questions that need answering. I am not going to answer them here and now: (a) I haven't got time ---

COUNCILLOR McKENNA: You are accountable to the Council.

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: Yes, so ask me questions in Question- time. But what I will offer Councillor Blake, and any other Member of this Council of any party, what has been offered time and time again is a briefing with me and with Officers to answer the questions.

COUNCILLOR McKENNA: Don't you have any ideas of your own?

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: Yes, I do, Councillor McKenna.

COUNCILLOR McKENNA: Tell us. Tell us.

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: No. You don't need to ask me. Read the papers. On the point of Members' briefings and seminars, if you haven't received it already, there will be an invitation coming out for all Members of Council to attend two seminars at the end of this month on many aspects of the Children's Act, including, Councillor Driver and Councillor Blake, the role of the lead Member, over which we have to consult, and that will be carried out later this month.

I did make some points over what I was asked by Councillor Blake. I must admit, actually, I didn't bother writing down anything at all when Councillor Driver spoke.

I think we got a bit of an indication earlier this afternoon - two things said by two different Councillors over there. Oh, I will answer the question about "proper" control of finance. We heard two things said by Councillors from the Labour Group this afternoon that I think give a little tell tale to what they think is proper financial management.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Councillor Gruen seems to think there is nothing wrong with having non-essential posts funded in Social Services, and Councillor Wakefield used the extraordinary description or, sorry, phrase, that recently there had to be an introduction of discipline into the Supporting People budget. Do you mean that meant for years it was run without any discipline? I think it probably was.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: It has only been going one year. Get your facts right. (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR JENNINGS: As a final point, as most of you probably know, I am not a natural Guardian reader but this morning over my muesli and yogurt, before I shaved off my beard, and before I put my sandals in the cupboard and got out my sensible brogues, I did read an article from the Guardian, and I think if I just read a couple of highlights from it, it might suggest what that party thinks about children's services. This is the Guardian, remember, not exactly well- known for being a friend of the Right or more a friend of the Labour party. The headline is, "Pig in the Middle" and then under it it says, "The Government's failure to honour a pledge it made at the last election to provide 200 million threatens to decimate community-led children's play schemes." The final sentence of the article is a quote from a Mr. Dobson of a London Council. He says, "Children don't vote so the 200 million is a soft target. We are letting children down. It was important that they were being recognised and valued." They are by me. They are by this administration, and I promise you, we will work with those values in our minds. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR DRIVER: My Lord Mayor, a point of personal explanation. In talking about values, Councillor Jennings, I wasn't referring to anything other than what it specifies in the document which is, "the proper standards of governance and monitoring." It doesn't say anything there about finance at all, so I hope it is that you are going to pick up on and give us some leadership, so that we can in fact begin to debate what we think is proper as a group on both sides of the Council chamber.

(viii) Social Care & Health

COUNCILLOR OGILVIE: Deputy Lord Mayor, I would like to comment on minute 137 on page 119, which relates to the Social Care portfolio. Following the rather

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com garbled and wholly inadequate answer by Councillor Harrand to the question from Councillor Wakefield, I would like to comment on the closure of day care centres for some of our elderly residents, with particular reference to a day centre in my ward, Holbeck Day Centre.

At the beginning of December, local residents started to contact myself and my ward colleagues about rumours that were swirling round that the day centre was closing. We had to tell these residents that we certainly hadn't been informed about this decision, and we immediately contacted the Area Manager for Social Services, Inner South, and complained, Peter, contrary to what you said earlier; we did complain that we hadn't been involved with the process, and his response was quite interesting because he actually replied that he didn't know anything about it, he hadn't been informed of the decision.

Later, at the Area Committee of the Inner South on 8th December, members of the public asked him about the rumours that had been swirling around, and again he said he was not aware of the decision. That left us and members of the public with the impression that the rumours were false, so you can imagine it was quite a shock to then receive an e- mail from Mike Evans saying that the decision had actually been taken. Then, of course, shortly before Christmas we received a letter from Councillor Harrand finally admitting that the decision had been taken.

It has been suggested, however, that the decision was actually taken in October, so why did it take so long for Councillor Harrand to inform Ward Members involved of the decision? Could Councillor Harrand confirm when the decision was taken, by whom, and when was he involved with that decision?

The other issue I would like him to address is the issue of attendance at day care centres. Holbeck has an attendance level of 64% at weekends. That equates to 22 of the 35 users, which I actually think is a pretty healthy level of attendance for a weekend, and actually demonstrates a real need for that service. Often, weekend users can be the most vulnerable older people, the ones who don't have friends or relatives to visit at weekends. And why is it that Burley Willows in Hyde Park can stay open with an attendance of 56% but Holbeck, with an attendance of 64%, closes?

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Lord Mayor, in criticising the way that this decision has been handled, I want to make it clear that I am not criticising Social Services staff. Myself and my ward colleagues recently visited Holbeck Day Centre and were very impressed by the range and breadth of services on offer for elderly residents, and also impressed by the way that they have had to deal with the consequences of this decision, so I just want to pay tribute to the hard work of those particular staff. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR ATKINSON: Deputy Lord Mayor, on the same minute, page 119, minute 137. We were not fortunate in Bramley, Deputy Lord Mayor, to hear the rumours that my colleague Adam has spoken about. We received an e- mail on 29th December from an Officer, Mike Evans, sent by Linda Hall. This e- mail was addressed to myself, Councillor Hanley and Councillor Taggart, and copies were sent to Peter Harrand, John England and various other Officers of the Council.

I was quite shocked that, as a Ward Councillor, I had not been informed of a decision to close on 1st January in Bramley the day centre. I just stated to you that it came on 29th December at 10.52. In it it clearly states that the decision took account of a relatively low uptake of 67% of this service at weekends, and it would also allow the redeployment of some of the staff to continue to maintain essential services. It quotes also, "All staff and service- users have been consulted individually. All service- users have chosen an alternative service to maintain their level of support, and members of staff have agreed."

I couldn't believe this. I contacted my ward colleague, Councillor Hanley. I asked him if he had got half an hour or so to spare and could we go to the day centre, and that is exactly what we did. We visited the staff, long conversation. The staff were given two days notice, we understand, of what was happening. I did not, and I admit I did not, go talk to the elderly residents who were there that day. How could I? How could I go over to them when they were there enjoying their social company knowing that at the weekend where they should be coming they would not be going?

Councillor Harrand made a statement earlier today that we had not informed the office. That is not true. Councillor Harrand, after our visit of

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Councillor Hanley and myself, we came back, we contacted the office. The Officer was away. We put our comments to the department, and the questions that I asked were, "Could you please tell me on what basis Bramley was to close? Who had made the decision? When was the decision made? And where were these people going, and who had been consulted, and could I have a list of who has been consulted?"

It is quite strange, Councillor Harrand, that in the evening of the 29th when the Council mail came, a letter came from Councillor Harrand. In this letter it stated that we, "would be aware of the opening hours of three of our day centres are to be changed temporarily. One of these is in your ward. We have consulted with staff, service-users and carers individually, and have all chosen alternative arrangements." I don't think so. I understand, and I quote - where is Suzie? - "However, I understand that", Suzie, "you were not told of the changes in advance. This was an oversight. We were wrong. I apologise. We recognise the valuable involvement of local Members in these centres, and we are grateful for your support. This omission will not happen again. Peter Harrand."

On the 30th of the 12th - and time is going out, I see - I received another e-mail and, Councillor Harrand, it says you have got the comments and it says you have been consulted in it. It also states to me, "The decision to suspend on a temporary basis the service of some of these day centres at the weekend was made by the Director's Management Team in October of that year", that is this year, which is last year. I am only quoting what is said here, and it does state, as it says here clearly, "As stated in my earlier e- mail on staff and services that our lead Member Councillor Harrand ---"

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I have to stop you there, Councillor Atkinson.

COUNCILLOR ATKINSON: -- "has been consulted." Please come and see what you have done to the people in Bramley who use the day centre. It is a disgrace.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Atkinson, could you sit down, please.

COUNCILLOR ATKINSON: I'm sorry, I can't hear.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Deputy Lord Mayor, clearly Mr. Mike Evans was a busy boy on 29th December because he also sent a very similar e-mail to Suzie Armitage, Pauline Grahame and myself, again copied to all sorts of people, but I note not copied to the Director of Social Services. Exactly the same thing, it starts off, "You will be aware from recent press coverage". Well, thank you very much, Social Services, if that is the way we have to find out how decisions are being arrived at. And it goes on about the low uptake of Nayburn Centre, 67%, and it says, "All service-users have chosen an alternative." Well, well, well, what do conscientious Ward Councillors do? They go back and they check with the service-users, don't they? And what are we told from the service-users? Well, we are not told that they were made many options and given many alternatives. What we are told is they were told, "This service is being withdrawn, find yourselves something different."

Very interesting. Not so many months ago in this Council a Member stood up and said this, "Many of you, like me, choose to stand -- well, you all choose to stand for local government presumably because you all believe in local government, and over the years we have watched it whittled away by both major parties, but I think we have reached the stage now where there is an attempt to turn us all" - I quote here - "into political eunuchs, quite frankly, where all we can do is come in here and make a few speeches, but we can do blessed all else." Who do you think made that speech? Councillor Andrew Carter, complaining about decisions made with no involvement of Members of Council.

And then we come to Councillor Harrand telling us, and that was my attempt earlier on to differentiate between essential user services and the saving of 20,000 and what by no means anyone in this chamber can say are essential posts that I quoted earlier on. By no means can that be the case, and next time probably we will quote some of the non- essential posts which Councillor Harris and Councillor Carter have told us about year in and year out.

But here is another quote about savings, "Well, I tell you, some of you have come to understand -- would believe almost anything, but how can you believe that a man can stand up and first of all say the situation is so critical these places have to close and all this money is to be saved. He is so strapped for

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com cash he is going to spend a lot more money on improving other things." So we are so strapped in Social Services, we have heard for six months, but we can afford 600,000 on staff. We can't afford 20,000 on these centres. It is a disgrace.

What is a greater disgrace, and what I think the top of the office ought to think about too, is that no Member has had an involvement in this. We are told earlier on by Councillor Harrand, the soft face and the iron glove behind it. We are told earlier on by Councillor Harrand this was an operational decision, but we know he was involved because every time I mentioned something earlier on in terms of staffing, "Ah, yes, I know about that. Oh yes, I know about that". The e-mails implicate him. His fingers are all over this, and yet there is no decision made, nothing recorded, no minutes, no scrutiny, no Executive Board opportunity.

Deputy Lord Mayor, in the absence of the proper workings of the Council internally, my colleagues and I have decided that we shall refer this sad episode to the Council auditors, and we have written today to the Council auditors, and we clearly see not only is there maladministration but I can now see why this alliance kicks in together; you lot make the decisions and you are protected in your wards because your day centres have much less attendance than these day centres - much less attendance - so if you are going to close those with 67% and more attendance, then you certainly ---

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: You have forgotten Doreen Hamilton ---

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: I don't have to forget anybody. We are talking about now and the future and your stewardship and your governance of the Council, and these matters will be referred and will be investigated by the District Auditor, but you have behaved quite disgracefully. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: My Lord Mayor, before I speak, because you know I am a quaking, nervous wreck, I just want to ask Andy if it is alright if I speak now? Is that okay? Thank you. Thank you. That is okay, I have got his permission. We are alright now.

I think it is actually interesting just to comment on that point where you actually see the sort of metamorphosis or the change in the approach from the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Labour Group. Let me remind you, six months ago you were all banging on that the unholy alliance wouldn't last five seconds, we would be gone into, we would destroy each other, we would cut each other's throats. You have abandoned that tack now and now it is, "Poor old Mark. Poor old Mark has to have Andy make his decisions for him."

I am not going to say anything more about Councillor Gruen's comments because I am going to refer to something when, in fairness to Councillor Gruen, I doubt if he knows which party he was in at the time, and in fairness to Councillor Ogilvie, my memory does sometimes fail me, but I am not even sure if he was on Council, but Councillor Atkinson was definitely on Council, and I have heard of "Holier than thou" speeches and the kettle calling the pot black, or vice versa, but I don't ever remember you making one little squeak over an old people's home being summarily closed in our ward.

COUNCILLOR ATKINSON: I did. I took you to court, didn't I, Councillor Harris?

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Memory is very short.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Oh yes. Yes, that is correct. That is correct, but I don't remember your vociferous speeches and campaigns. I don't, no, and now you come here talking to us, and Peter will deal in his own way with the other issues, but how exactly you come here and start lecturing us after you were quite happy (Interruption) Well, at least Cheryl Cliffe had the decency to go at the time. At least she had conscience and she went over the issue. You are just a hypocrite and sit there. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: At risk of changing the tone of the debate so far, Deputy Lord Mayor, I would like to thank Councillor Ogilvie and his Scrutiny Board for the contribution they have made to the debate on the Social Care budget for 2005/6. The papers I have seen are responsible and informed and intelligent, and perhaps you will pass those things on to members of your Scrutiny Board. I apologise for that.

Now, I would like to deal with some of the synthetic anger and this artificial outrage of the other side. We will see what it is really about. Let's first put Councillor Gruen right. The 600,000 there, I thought I told you an hour or two ago, was a

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com moving of funds from one Social Service's budget to another Social Service's budget.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: You could have saved it.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: We certainly could not have saved it, no. The only way we could save it was to sack the staff. If that is the suggestion, you had better put that in writing and we will have a look at it.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: You want to sack the staff, yes.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Do you want to sack the staff?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Can I make it clear again, we are not closing any day centres. We are not closing any day centres. We are suspending for a few weeks the Saturday and Sunday provision of meals. They will be resumed after a few weeks when we have got the staff sorted out, and the day centres ---

COUNCILLOR ATHA: And when he cold weather is over, and when the weather is fine, and people are comfortable.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Do you want to declare an interest? Are you one of these old --- No, you wouldn't. (Laughter) I say it once more, we are not closing any day centres, we are temporarily suspending Saturday and Sunday meals. That does not seem to me to strike at the basis of civilisation, whatever Councillor Atkinson thinks.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: It depends if that is the only hot meal on Sunday.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: I also want to make it clear that I accept full responsibility for this decision. That is the job that I have got, and that is the one that I will stand by, and I will answer questions ---

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: That makes a change in Social Care, doesn't it, Peter?

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Doesn't it just. I will also say I am not accepting the criticism of staff as well. You can have a go at me if you like, but it is not fair to have a go at senior members of staff. I don't think we are ever going to persuade you. All

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com this synthetic anger, you are not going to change that; it is on the record now. I suspect you will go back to your wards and misrepresent us, as you have misrepresented us for the last few weeks.

COUNCILLOR HANLEY: We don't need to do it, you are doing it for yourself.

COUNCILLOR HARRAND: Please represent then, we are not closing any day centres. Four references to closing day centres, we are not closing any day centres. And what is the priority? What are you really worried about? Bearing in mind that the service-users are content, all the carers are content, the staff are content, nobody has written to the Director about it, nobody has written to me about it, so what are you worried about? You weren't told on time. Well, I put that right. I apologised as soon as I knew. You were not told on time. We were wrong, I apologised. I will keep saying it as often as you like, but that seems to be the main burden of the speeches. It is your self-esteem and your self- importance that we are debating, not the welfare of these elderly people, and I promise you that self-esteem, that self-importance will be given the weight and attention that it deserves. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR EWENS: Deputy Lord Mayor, I find myself slightly out of order on this, because the numbers are wrong on the sheet. It is page 109, minute 106. I am as concerned about the future of education as anybody in this room, and whoever takes on Education I wish now to say something which I hope they will take as good advice.

I take as my text, "If music be the food of love, play on". Well, music plays on regularly for love. So does it play on for a whole pile of other things: Shopping, religion, signature tunes, entertainment. The thing music does not play on enough for is education, both mainstream and special education. "Why not?" you may ask. Why, when music is the most inclusive activity there is the powers that be chose to promote individual activities, reading, writing and arithmetic, and music was often pushed to one side instead of being regarded as of equal importance. This, it seems, happened when the gods of the literacy hour an the gods of the numeracy hour took the ascendancy and morning music and musical peripatetics in school activities shrank because of a shortage of timetable time.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com It seems there may be evidence now that the first of those children to be put through that regime of numeracy and literacy, who are now entering high schools, are suffering from an emphasis on individual success and achievement, not that I decry individual success and achievement but it is at the expense of teamwork.

Leeds is very good for music: International Piano Competition, street bands, children's concerts, choirs, jazz, pop, steel bands, Saturday morning classes, free lunch-time performances, orchestral concerts, operas, events in the park. Music is popular. People who can afford it, pay for their children to take part. Firms provide cash for musical instruments. So why does it become to be so regarded as insignificant in the formal educational process?

Why is it so dismissed as a career opportunity? Careers with music vary enormously: performing, producing, sound engineering, musical therapy, publicity design, teaching. There is plenty of choice. What good does participation in music do? Who does take part? The deaf drummer who won "Young Musician of the Year", the old lady who taps her foot in time, the student who is perhaps in a wheelchair, the inarticulate child who is able to join in, and the educationally disadvantaged child who also finds their own way of joining in. Everybody can sing. They can move. Dancers move to music. Priests incorporate music in worship. Politicians dramatize their entry onto the platform with music. Artists are inspired by music, and the Coronation Street theme tells you when to finish the washing up!

What are all these people demonstrating? They are demonstrating the power of music as a practice area for teamwork, as an inclusive activity, as an opportunity for self-expression requiring concentration, developing cognitive skills, requiring dexterity, singing, which is all that school music lessons were when I was at school. It is an aid to memory and a teacher of history, remember, "Some talk to Alexander" and "In days of yore from England's shore when Wolfe the dauntless hero came."

In and out of school, music can make, express mood, can be a non-verbal means of reconciling differences, it works cross-culturally, multi- linguistically, multi-nationally. Music is a unique

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com form of communication accessible to everyone. Music is a fantastic form of teamwork. Both listening and playing improves self-discipline and concentration. Joining in, singing along, keeping time is a group activity, teamwork. Composing and playing are examinable activities, as well as creative ones. Travelling about, entertaining others, meeting strangers. Groupies need music as much as anyone! Singing in a religious ceremony, on the coach going home from the rugby match, getting the baby to sleep. Music, making and listening, provides for all the desired outcomes of education. I would like to know if anyone knows of a better subject area which will promote them, and I hope that the new officers, or whoever the officers are in whoever does Education in Leeds, will hear what I say. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: There is no time to reply, Councillor Harker, so I am just inviting Councillor Andrew Carter to exercise his right of final reply.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I will address only a few of the issues because clearly it wouldn't be possible to, and I have no intention of, recapping over what colleagues have already said. However, let me deal first of all with Children's Services, because I want to lend some support to the comments of Councillor Jennings, and then Social Services.

First of all, on Children's Services, let me remind the Labour Party that it is this joint administration that initiated a post as high as Cabinet level on the Executive to deal with Children's Services. It is a measure of the importance with which we attach the new Children's Bill. I do wish -- -

COUNCILLOR ATHA: It is in the Act. We had to do that. It is a legal obligation.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: It is a legal obligation but we did it in advance of the legal obligation being --- (Interruptions) Well, my Lord Mayor, I simply put it like this, at the risk of sounding like Tony Blair, I simply put it like this, you had the chance to do it and you didn't. We had the chance to do it and we did. (Applause)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Now, my Lord Mayor, I have watched with interest over this past few months the developing theme coming from the party opposite as regards Children's Services. Councillor Jennings is quite right that there is no doubt in my mind whatever, and I have watched some of these characters operate for years, you know, remember, the new Members of Council, a little bit of education for you. Councillor Gruen is the man who can never see a belt without hitting below it.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: I have learned that from you, Andrew.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Thank God I learned nothing from you!

My Lord Mayor, there is something a little sinister about the developing theme, and I would just ask Members of the Labour Group to consider their antics and their evolving attitude towards Children's Services a little carefully, because it seems to me they are getting themselves in a position where the first time anything of a distressing nature happens, and regrettably in this world something will, they want to be in a position to blame somebody, and they are cynically and carefully, and it is typical of the jabbering parrots on the left, to adopt that sort of tactics. I have to say, I am rather surprised at Councillor Wakefield in particular to allow this sort of policy to be adopted by his colleagues.

Now, Social Services. Councillor Harrand said he is the politician in charge, he takes responsibility. My God, Members of Council, why did that not happen over there? We had Councillor Bradley --- Now, I think the electors of Morley actually must be mind-readers because they must have realised before anybody else did that she had left the Social Services budget in such a mess she would probably have had to resign, so they did her the favour of not having to trouble her to resign, and they threw her out. (Interruption) No, not "Dear, dear" at all, because the Social Services budget, Councillor Gruen - Councillor Gruen, if you are listening - the first thing to be reported to the new Leader of Council by the head of our Financial Services on taking office was that the Social Services budget, what, three months into the financial year, was 10 million growing and growing out of kilter, and then movedup to 18 million.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Now then, we still have not established who on the benches opposite knew. Now, we guess Councillor Murray knew because he absented himself from the last debate, but we have got Councillor Wakefield who denies knowing anything. Now, Councillor Wakefield said to me Councillor Harrand should resign. Councillor Wakefield, if anyone should resign it is you, and I will tell you why. I will tell you why, because you are damned if you did and you are damned if you didn't, because if you didn't know the budget was 15 million up to 18 million out of kilter, then you should have done. If you did know and told this Council you didn't, then you should resign anyway, so don't --- Because I will tell you why. We are now grappling with the most difficult problems in Social Services that you have left behind. My God, every day we find something else you lot have left behind. It is like shovelling manure daily.

My Lord Mayor, (Interruptions) if we may go on to PCSOs, I will say only this. Everybody in this City deserves a service in combatting anti-social behaviour, and this administration is going to give everyone a service in combatting anti-social behaviour. (Applause) And I challenge Councillor Lewis at the next Council meeting to tell us where he would reduce the PCSO cover, or can we take it it is all those wards that didn't have it before we took office, and we know which those are, and we will gladly tell the electorate.

Finally, my Lord Mayor, I wish to congratulate Councillor Harington on his speech. He always interests me and always amuses me, but I do think his project in Gipton and indeed the project supported by the Liberal Democrat Members, is a worthwhile one.

Whilst Councillor Gruen was giving us his usual tirade, I couldn't help but do a bit of doodling and I just wondered who some of the characters in your pantomime might be, and who they might be played by. Of course, Widow Twankee, the part cast itself. Of course it is Councillor Atha.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: And I would require a fee. (Laughter)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Bernard, to see you as Widow Twankee, I would pay the fee.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Can we have that in writing?

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Of course, my Lord Mayor, we come to the part of Peter Pan. Well, that of course would have to be John Illingworth. He is always in Never-Neverland. And then we have Baron Stonybroke. You may well grin, Ted, you fit the part perfectly. Who else but Tommy Hanley? I am sorry for those of you who are too young to remember Tommy Hanley, but Ted most certainly does. And then, of course, we have got certain other parts. Buttons, well, the boy lead, James Lewis, ideal as Buttons. Now, the Ugly Sisters (Laughter) Now, my Lord Mayor, at this point I am sure Councillor Gruen is thinking, "Here he goes. I am going to be one of the Ugly Sisters" but, my Lord Mayor, he is not. I couldn't find a place to put him. I can't think of a pantomime that has a mangleworzel in it. And then, of course, in all of these stage productions if you have ever watched, what is the programme, the Muppet Show, there's two grumpy old men, Waldorf and Stattler, who hang from the balcony perpetually interrupting and complaining, and Mick is too good a friend of mine to cast in that role, but I have a really good listen now at Councillors Driver and Taggart, and they make two splendid grumpy old men. (Applause) My Lord Mayor, it leaves us, of course, without a Prince Charming. I couldn't find anybody for that, and a Fairy Godmother, and I couldn't find anyone for that either. But all the rest, I am sure Members would agree that the rest of my casting was perfect. Thank you. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I now call for the vote on the motion to receive the minutes.

(The Minutes were received)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. At this point I suggest that we break for tea. Just before you all rush off, I would like to invite the visitors in the gallery to come and join us, and also I do believe that I heard two mobile phones, so I shall inform the Lord Mayor's office that they will be looking forward to a donation. We are due back about 20 past 6, please.

(Short adjournment)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Before we start with our White Papers, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Civic Architect, John Thorpe on being awarded the OBE. (Applause) And also to mention

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com with regret the death of David Whiteley who, I understand, was a Leeds City Councillor for a couple of years. That death was omitted, I am sorry, at the beginning of procedures. So now I call on Councillor Nash.

COUNCILLOR E. NASH: My Lord Mayor, I move under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 14.10 that the motion in my name relating to Marsh Lane Rail Station be withdrawn.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: I second.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Can I call for a vote on the motion to withdraw.

(The motion was lost)

THE LORD MAYOR: Can I ask Councillor Nash if she wishes to ---

ITEM 10 - WHITE PAPER MOTION - MARSH LANE RAIL STATION

COUNCILLOR E. NASH: Then in that case, my Lord Mayor, I move the resolution formally, accepting the amendment.

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: Seconded.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: I will be very brief about this, but I thank Councillor Nash for tabling the resolution. I was interested to hear earlier in the day that Councillor Gruen was indeed the Chief Whip of the Labour Group. It would appear that he can't get his party's act together on these issues, but I think the issue is of such importance that we certainly aren't going to waste Officer time and Member time in getting together information about the motion then to have it withdrawn when it has been tabled for so long. I mean, I have to ask the question, what precisely do the Opposition think they are doing?

But the issue itself is a very important one, and there is a commitment already from the Council about opening more railway stations and more halts, and we have a great concern, of course, and the great concern is that so much of the money in the Transport Settlement that the Government have announced has gone yet again to the south of England, to Crossrail and various other things and, whilst we still have not got a commitment for Supertram, we have to, as a Council, I

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com think be minded of the fact that we need many other different forms of transport besides Supertram. For those of us in large parts of the City, Supertram alone will not resolve the problems of transport congestion, and that is why we amended the resolution to include other railway stations and halts outside of the city centre, because for a long time many of us, particularly in the west of Leeds, and I think of Horsforth in particular, and my colleagues and I in Calverley and Rodley, and other areas, have been calling for much more priority to be given to the opening of stations on those particular lines and the provision of Park & Ride, because that for us will be the only way of improving public transport and lessening congestion.

So we thought it very important that, as this motion had been tabled, it gave us the opportunity to bring all those issues to the top of the agenda, and I am very pleased that Councillor Nash has accepted the amendment, and I do hope that the work that we are asking for being done here will be done, because I see an opportunity, and particularly in regards to Marsh Lane, where we know in that vicinity a lot of regeneration work is about to go on, there must be a chance through 106 Agreements and the rest for us at least to provide the wherewithal for trains to stop.

Of course, we then come up against the big obstacle, and the big obstacle is that the Government, which now is in charge of the Strategic Rail Authority, or whatever it is now called, needs to ensure the money is available to provide the rolling stock so we can actually have the trains to stop at the stations that we can help in providing, and that is going to be critical, and it is an issue that we shall certainly, I think, want to pursue with the Members of Parliament.

We have said this over and over again today on too many occasions, you know, and this has not just happened in the past six months but over the past eight years, time and time again we see money going to Sheffield, and I am sure we shall come back to some of the other money the Government has been recently giving to other areas later in the day but, you know, when do the Members of Parliament in Leeds start to punch even their weight, let alone above their weight, and help us deliver some of these things so that we can see some real, comprehensive addressing of the transport problems in the City, and all of us in the administration all know that heavy rail must play a

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com major part, particularly in those areas where, as I say, quite frankly, Supertram, as welcome as it will be, will do nothing.

So thank you, Councillor Nash. You are looking a bit sullen over there. That's better, give us a smile, it's New Year. You know, this is a very important issue and I am sorry that your Chief Whip has sought to gag you, or whatever he has been doing. I mean, I don't know what's been going on amongst you lot, and I don't wish to interfere too greatly in that, but it is nice to know, isn't it, Councillor Harris, that 2005 has commenced for the official opposition in the same way as 2004 concluded - leaderless, rudderless and in total confusion. But nevertheless, my Lord Mayor, they have done us a favour by this, or somebody has ---

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Apart from that, we're alright! (Laughter)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: -- by getting this paper on the agenda, and I am delighted. I am delighted that we have a level of unanimity, so I move the amendment which has been accepted. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Shelbrooke, and it is his maiden speech.

COUNCILLOR SHELBROOKE: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. As already outlined by Councillor Carter, there are real possibilities for the site at Marsh Lane. I am sure that it could play a part in regenerating the east of the City, which I know is of much importance to the administration.

In seconding our amendment, I would like to expand the intended spirit behind the White Paper into our support for improving transport networks throughout the City. As stated in our amendment, we support the reopening of Marsh Lane, along with other out of City stations.

Leeds is a vibrant and cosmopolitan city. The city centre is booming with development, employment, retail and entertainment throughout the day and night. It is only right and proper that people from across the City are given the opportunity to access the city centre and all it brings. At present, this is certainly not the case. I am sure that no-one in this chamber would agree that Leeds has an excellent rail

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com system. Our trains are often too few, too dirty, too expensive and too unreliable. In the past, whilst I have been without a car I have had to use the rail network to get in and out of this City on a regular daily basis. My Lord Mayor, I can assure you this is one of the most frustrating times I have ever experienced commuting to and from the City. When a train is cancelled during rush hour, the next train along cannot physically get all the people on board, and your arrival for appointments cannot be guaranteed.

There is also serious under-investment, which unfortunately has become as traditional as Yorkshire Puddings in the north. Sometimes it seems that Alistair Darling's chequebook is not able to travel outside of London and the south-east, not even with a free ticket from David Blunkett! (Applause)

My Lord Mayor, there is a serious lack of confidence in our rail network and no trust that it will get you from A to B. The ability to get in and out of the City has taken on a new dimension with the Government's plans to introduce 24- hour alcohol licensing. Next year we are to have 24-hour drinking up and down the country. The pros and cons of this have been debated but what is clear is that the current rail system contradicts the proposals and generally will not hold up.

My Lord Mayor, whilst it is estimated that 20,000 people are on Leeds streets on a Saturday night, the last train out of Leeds City Station to Garforth and Micklefield is at 22.51. Being someone who enjoys the many benefits our City offers in the evening, you always have to make the choice of either leaving at 10.30 when the night is really just getting started, or having to pay upwards of 25 for a taxi back to the outlying villages such as my own at Micklefield.

Services elsewhere do not fare any better. One train an hour is allocated to serve the student population at Headingley on a weekend. Trains to Guiseley finish before midnight, and don't even get me started on the Sunday service - you might as well walk.

I acknowledge that there are other forms of transport people can use. I also acknowledge that rail is not the only form of transport where improvements could be made. However, we have a duty to ensure that viable alternatives are provided, especially on an evening, if only to discourage

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com drink/driving and anti-social behaviour brought on by the frustrations of trying to get home.

I also acknowledge that there are other issues to consider. Unfortunately, Leeds City Station takes on a different life after 9 p.m. and the security should be improved both within the city centre and at any outer city stations. The net result is that people do not make use of the train network because there is no incentive to do so. In short, my Lord Mayor if we are to have 24- hour drinking, 24- hour entertainment in a 24-hour city, then we need a decent rail system that will serve the people of Leeds properly every hour of every day. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Leadley, he has not withdrawn?

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Sorry, Lord Mayor, it would all have been "Supertram, Supertram, blah-blah-blah." (Laughter)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Anne Blackburn.

COUNCILLOR A. BLACKBURN: It should say "D. Blackburn" not "A. Blackburn".

COUNCILLOR D. BLACKBURN: It wasn't the Deputy Lord Mayor's fault, I don't think, it was printed that way.

Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. I would like to support this amendment. Let's be honest, if you live in the west of the City our public transport system is appalling, and if you go up the Aire Valley we have a railway line there that years ago used to have lots of stations on it. The Bradford line used to have a lot more stations on it; the Huddersfield line, and on top of the ones that are suggested here, I could name Armley Station, Armley Moor Station and Farnley & Wortley Station at the bottom of Dixon Lane on Whitehall Road. All of these, if they were brought back into operation, would take cars off our roads.

At the last Executive Board meeting - I think it was the last one - we passed a bus lane for the bottom of Wellington Road which will help to solve some of our problems with buses being held up, but this would go far, far further in solving the problem. I support the amendment, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR W. HYDE: My Lord Mayor, I wish to support the amendment to the White Paper as well. I hope that in doing so I will be able to provide some clarification, perhaps for those Members who are not aware of the role of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority in this matter, and the provision of new railway stations is the responsibility of the PTA and they, in turn, need the support of the train operators and the agreement of the Statutory Rail Authority, so it is not just a matter of finding money and doing it.

Currently, the priorities identified in the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority Rail Plan 5 are Glasshoughton, and that is scheduled to open next month, Low Moor, which is programmed to open next year, Horsforth Woodside, Kirkstall and Apperley Bridge. The last three of these schemes are currently at the planning stage and issues around the provision of additional trains, which has already been referred to by colleagues - a really serious problem - and additional carriages and various route studies are currently again being investigated.

The reopening of Marsh Lane Station, or indeed its repositioning nearer to the Parish Church, which has also been proposed, is one of a further 25 schemes held on a reserve list by the PTA. In terms of cost, Marsh Lane is likely to prove to be extremely expensive because of need to provide new tracks and new signalling, in addition to the cost of meeting the train capacity issues which apply in all the cases.

However, Deputy Lord Mayor, on a more optimistic note, officers of the PTA are currently talking to potential financial partners. These discussions are part of the authority's second Local Transport Plan and will culminate in recommendations being reported to its Rail Working Group, in other words, this is the right time to review the need for under-provision of new stations and if a convincing case, and if specific funding, and if new rolling stock - and they are all big "if"s - can be identified, then I am sure that Marsh Lane and indeed other Leeds stations on the reserve list, some of which have been referred to already but, for information of Members, the full list currently is Calverley, Armley, Arthington, the White Rose Centre, Methley, East Ardsley, Elland Road, Osmondthorpe and Thorp Park will all receive the support of the new administration, the new Conservative/LibDem administration, Deputy Lord

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Mayor, on the Passenger Transport Authority. Thank you.

COUNCILLOR CAMPBELL: Deputy Lord Mayor, I also am rising to support --- Well, I am actually rising to do something I thought I would never do, and that is rise to support an amendment put forward by a Conservative Leader of Leeds City Council. In fact, on a couple of occasions this afternoon I have had to take my hankie out and clean glasses, because I couldn't believe what I saw.

I am speaking on behalf of the others. You will notice on Councillor Carter's amendment he refers to another group called "the others", and that is me, and in particular I would like to raise the subject of the restoration of the rail link into Otley. The track bed is still in position. There is space available to put in a station. I think it really just needs a commitment from the Strategic Rail Authority to accept the principle.

Now, I think we have already said earlier on about a slightly less than enthusiastic approach from the Strategic Rail Authority, and a very unenthusiastic report from Alistair Darling, and so, when this item appeared on the agenda, if Councillor Carter hadn't proposed an amendment I know I certainly would, because I think actually we should be saying, "Thank you" to Councillor Nash, because Councillor Nash actually has brought to the Council an ability to discus the provision of rail facilities within the City, and it is rather sad, I have to say, that she has been cut off in her prime by Councillor Gruen, which is a bit unfortunate because those of you who were Members, and I am sorry that some of you were not, those of you who were members of Plans Panel when Councillor Nash was a member of Plans Panel will know that she waxed eloquently on more than one occasion, and at length, I have to say, about the virtues of the Marsh Lane Railway Station, and I was hoping that she would have that opportunity to give you the full benefit of her knowledge that he has so succinctly given to us on Plans West in the past.

In fact, I well remember, and this again is a bit of a problem, and I really think you ought to address this to Councillor Gruen, because not only has he prevented Councillor Nash speaking in support of this, but he has also done something else and that is, at the last Plans West meeting where we did discuss

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com this, Councillor Nash raised the subject and luckily we had Councillor Taggart there, and Councillor Taggart was able, at length again, I have to say, to regale us with some really interesting facts about the Leeds to Selby rail line, and I can see by the look round the Members opposite that you are desperate to find out these things, and unfortunately we are not going to get a speech from Councillor Taggart today.

But on another issue, I would actually say, "Thank you", Councillor Nash, because we have been able to raise this particular subject. It is something that actually we all have an interest in. As Councillor Carter says, heavy rail is the answer to large parts of this City. It is not the tram, and it is not the guided bus, which will be valuable but not in our area of the City, and if we have the opportunity, and I think we have it today, to raise the profile of rail services within the Leeds area and make it clear, as we said to our local MPs and to central Government, that we believe that this is the way forward to provide the best service for the people of Leeds. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR BRETT: Deputy Lord Mayor, Marsh Lane Railway Station would probably be partly in my ward, and would certainly have significant positive effects on people living in east Leeds. It is strategically and practically very advantageous to have a rail station near a major bus station. If the millions of pounds necessary to reopen Marsh Lane Station ever allowed this to happen, I would certainly welcome it. It is sad that we are in these circumstances, but it is a bit rich that the Labour Party at least in one or two individuals have raised this now. My colleague Councillor Kirkland confirms that my memory of the early eighties, the then Liberal Party suggested moving the City's major bus station to a site adjoining the City station and were ridiculed for proposing such a radical idea at that time. It may have been the Qqueens Hall site in Sovereign Street that we had in mind, but the point is that an integrated transport system for Leeds was possible then, before the new bus station was built. I would dearly love to believe it is possible now, but I fear the cost would be impossibly high. It is a pity that when Labour had the chance they didn't move the bus station to a site beside the City's railway station. Thank you.

COUNCILLOR BALE: Deputy Lord Mayor, I am pleased to support the amended motion calling for the opening of

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com additional railway stations in order to strengthen the commuter rail network and ease road congestion. The economy of Leeds is clearly going to evolve to require a continuing increase in the number of people employed in the City, and it is equally clear that much of that growth will be people commuting in from the outer City and beyond. That is an inevitable consequence of being a regional capital, and I think it is one that we really need to examine very seriously.

From Guiseley and Rawdon alone, where much of that residential growth is going to occur, the growth will be considerable and the A65 corridor is already choked. I am pleased, therefore, that of the PTA's priority sites for new stations three are relevant to the north-west wedge of the City - Apperley Bridge, Horsforth Woodside and Kirkstall. That is how it should be, because our part of the City isn't going to be helped by Supertram, but help really is needed, as anyone commuting into Leeds from Guiseley, Rawdon, Yeadon and Horsforth knows only too well.

Heavy rail, in the shape of the Harrogate line, the Wharfedale line and the Airedale line, really is our equivalent of Supertram, and there really is the basis for an excellent public transport system there, except that the stations don't exist. On the Wharfedale, line the trains run non-stop from Guiseley into Leeds. On the Airedale line, they run non-stop from Shipley into Leeds, about 10 miles in each case. The logical thing clearly is to provide intermediate stations to encourage people to leave their cars behind and to travel on what, in terms of the infrastructure, is an under-utilised railway line.

But Council must not assume that opening new stations is an easy option and that all that is required is the investment in the stations. That, as has already been said, is not the big issue. A new station at Kirkstall, for example, would provide passengers with a choice. We are very keen on choice in the Conservative Party, but the choice in this case would be a choice between joining a train that had been full from Guiseley and joining a train that had been full since Shipley. The problem, as has been said, is investment in rolling stock. There is a need for increased capacity, and that requires a funding regime designed to encourage investment, which is precisely what this Government is not providing.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com If you don't believe it can be done, look at the graphs of increases in passenger numbers and freight tonnage in the years from the early nineties to 1997 and see just what can be done when a climate for investment is created on the railways. It can be done but, Deputy Lord Mayor, the present Government has damaged the confidence of investors by its micro- management and its policy switches.

Most recently, the Rail White Paper of July 2004 proposes to strip Passenger Transport Executives of their franchising powers, and such investment as there is, as has already been said, is heavily weighted towards the South-east and London. So there is a message, I believe, that must go to central Government. In this regional capital we have the opportunity in one part of the City, a very important wedge of the City, we have the basis of an excellent public transport system, and that can be provided if the Government will create a climate which will encourage investment in public transport that the City and the region so desperately needs, but I do think we have to recognise the opportunity is there, the will is there, I believe as seems to be in this Council chamber today and I know exists in the Passenger Transport Authority, but changes in Government are needed and, in particular, a climate that will encourage investment in the rolling stock. A single carriage costs 100,000. That is the scale of the investment in rolling stock and in signalling. The infrastructure is there. Let's utilise it. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR E. NASH: My Deputy Lord Mayor, the reason my Group asked me to withdraw this White Paper was not because they were against the opening of Marsh Lane Station, or any other station for that matter, but they wanted more information to draw up a wider plan, but here we are.

This resolution is not to the exclusion of other stations, and I was very happy to accept that amendment. The crucial difference with Marsh Lane is that it will be primarily to serve commuters, not local residents, because there aren't very many at the moment.

My Lord Mayor, commuter traffic is at a dangerous level in this City. Nine years ago, when there was a sudden fall of snow, this City was gridlocked and tragically two people died because they were stranded. It was not the snow which was the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com problem but the sheer volume of traffic in the City. Since then, year on year, traffic has increased. A few months ago there was a very tragic fatal accident in the City & Hunslet Ward, near Yorkshire Television, and it was a fatal accident. Traffic was held up for five hours from the whole of West Leeds and North-West Leeds.

The City & Hunslet Ward which I represent bears the brunt of traffic congestion, but all wards suffer from commuter traffic passing through them. To get even a small percentage of these cars off the road would be an advantage to us all.

Marsh Lane Station would benefit not only commuters but also the visitors to the Playhouse, the College of Music, the Yorkshire Dance Centre, the BBC, the Markets, the Victoria Quarter and nearby Royal Armouries. In fact, the station could be renamed Royal Armouries at Leeds. What a coup this would be for this great museum and this great City. I move. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I now call for the vote on the amendment.

(The amendment was carried)

(The substantive motion was carried)

ITEM 11 - WHITE PAPER MOTION - LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor ---

COUNCILLOR McKENNA: Lord Mayor, I'm sorry I did come late to Council but can I declare a personal interest on Item 11 and, if I may, on Item 12 at the same time as a non-executive member of Leeds West Primary Care Trust. Sorry, Andrew.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: My Lord Mayor, I make a similar declaration on the same item.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, in moving this resolution, I begin by giving a little background to the reason why Councillor Harris and I decided that this resolution should be tabled. Two things, really. The first was the fact that, like many other people, we learned of the cash crisis facing Leeds Teaching Hospitals through the front page of the Yorkshire Evening Post, a point that we have been able to make

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com quite pointedly, really, to the Chief Executive, and I have to say at this stage that, since tabling this resolution, Councillor Harris and I and Councillor Blackburn have met with the Chief Executive of the Teaching Hospitals Trust and we have agreed that there will in future be much more regular meetings between us all to discuss the state of Health Services in Leeds and to make sure that we are not again faced with the position of reading about crises in the newspaper, and I come back to that in a moment.

The second reason is this, that every Member of this Council has agreed, signed up to, and supported a Maternity and Children's Hospital in the City, and only a matter of a few months ago when one Member of the Health Scrutiny Committee questioned where the running costs were coming from, and that generated highly political comments from both the Chair of that Scrutiny Committee and Councillor Jarosz, did we begin to get extremely concerned as to precisely what was going on.

Now, so there is no room - no wiggle room, as they say - for anybody, let me make it quite clear that this administration is entirely behind the provision of a Children's and Maternity Hospital in the City of Leeds on the St. James's site. We are also generally supportive of the reconfiguration of the Health Services required to provide that, but we are not - and I underline "not" - prepared to enter into an operation of spinning a story to the population of Leeds about where their Health Services will come from and when, an also we are not prepared to participate in a spin story in trying to camouflage from the people of Leeds what the services that will remain available at the LGI site will be.

We are aware that the Health Scrutiny Committee has already looked at part of the issue, and I come back to that a little later. We believe that the current funding crisis in the Health Service in Leeds, the necessity of the day care provision to be provided in West Leeds to make up for the number of treatments which will no longer be available at the LGI is essential, and it is essential that the provision of those services in the west of the City runs concurrently or in front of the provision of the Children's Hospital. Otherwise, what we will have is simply this: We will have, because I'm sure you are all aware, or I hope you are, that the bid to the Government for the Children's Hospital was predicated on the restructuring of Health Services across the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com City, and part of that predication was that 1,000 beds would go - 1,000 beds - and that the provision that would take the place of that would be in many cases this day care provision to be set up through LIFT schemes, partially there through the Wharfedale Hospital, St. George's at Middleton, and the rest, but all that has to be available before those bed spaces go, or I'll tell you what will happen, and in fact it already has happened.

As you know, the NHS Trust has had to implement a range of cost-cutting exercises because of the financial crisis that it faces. Part of that was the cutting of 200 beds, the closing of four operating theatres and I think the redundancy or the removal of a couple of hundred staff. That resulted in the bed management at the LGI and at St. James's reaching crisis point over the Christmas period.

The Government has set a target that all hospitals should reach 98% of patients not left on trolleys for more than four hours. Now, think about that target. It could mean that 98% of patients are left on trolleys for 3 hours 55 minutes. Well, I regret to say that over the past considerable time we have had to attend hospital on numerous occasions - the Health Service, that is, in case anyone starts shouting about private health care - and, you know, you see some of these people who are on trolleys.

In the first week of January, the target point fell in the Leeds Teaching Hospitals to 82%. At one stage at the end of the year we were, I think, second worst in the country. I stand to be corrected. Now, that is the removal of 200 beds, four operating theatres. No wonder that the clinicians, no wonder that senior doctors and consultants are so cross about the fact that the Government has written off the debts of the Mid-Yorkshire Health Authority. Leading plastic surgeon, Professor Simon Kaye, yesterday branded the decision as hypocritical. It is comparable with double standards. That is him referring to the fact that the Minister has refused point blank to write off the debts of the Leeds Teaching Hospitals.

Peter Whelan, Chairman of the Medical Staff Committee in Leeds, which represents 550 specialists, said it appeared Wakefield had been favoured because of its heavyweight political figures - David Hinchcliffe, former Health Minister, Chair of the Select Committee,

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Yvette Cooper, former Health Minister, wife of Labour candidate and friend of the Chancellor, Ed Balls. We are back to the same old thing, aren't we? What exactly do our eight comedians do, apart from raise a cheap political laugh?

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: They are doing panto at the moment.

COUNCILLOR R. LEWIS: Yes, the panto ---

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Well, you carry on, Richard. It is a very serious situation. It is a serious situation because the vast majority of people in this City will need the National Health Services at some time in their life. That includes probably all those people who have private health care provision.

So what we are concerned about as well is that it has a strategic effect. It has an effect on our Social Services Department. It has an effect on our Education Department. It has an effect on Neighbourhoods & Housing. It cross-cuts all the functions of the authority, and what we want to see, because let me tell you, you know, there will be a big announcement we all know shortly, I am sure, about the reconfiguration, but we have made it quite clear to Neil Mackay that we expected that to deal with the implications of a whole raft of services being no longer available at the LGI which means, Councillor Jarosz, a different place of treatment for the vast majority of our constituents in Pudsey, in Calverley and Farsley, in Horsforth, in Cookridge, in Kirkstall, you know, half the City.

Now, it is important that that message is understood by everybody and spelt out properly, and we are the only democratically elected body with a scrutiny function over the Health Service. I notice with interest the appointments of more and more defeated Socialist Councillors to the PCT, it is becoming a bit of a rest home for former administration Leaders, and the like, but the important thing is that everybody understands that --- Well, I will tell you what is pathetic, Keith. What is pathetic is that some of your colleagues ---

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Some of those comments are.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Some of your colleagues don't want their constituents to know what is proposed

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com until it is too late and it is after the General Election. That is not going to happen. (Applause)

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: Lord Mayor, can I declare an interest as I am employee of Leeds Teaching Hospitals.

COUNCILLOR GABRIEL: Can I declare an interest because I work for the Health Service.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Lord Mayor, I don't rise to second this White Paper with any sense of light-heartedness at all. It almost goes without saying, and I know many of us have benefited from the Health Service in this City, but be in no doubt I am devoted to St. James's where my children were born and where I was born and without whom I would most certainly be dead. There is no question of that whatsoever, and similarly to Cookridge, so I take no pleasure in having to stand here and really say that there is something terribly, terribly wrong with the way our Hospital Trust is being run in this City.

I said almost jokingly during our budget discussions over the last few months that if we actually had to make any cuts in services, and I will just give you a sneak preview here, we aren't, but if we had to, why didn't we just stand up as bold as brass and say, "Well, actually, cuts represent improving the service" and everybody said, "Are you mad?" But, of course, they were right, I was stark raving mad. Well, let me tell you, when Andrew, David and I met the senior executives from the Hospital Trust, that effectively is what they said to us. They actually tried to make us believe that a reduction of 200 beds and four operating theatres was improving hospital care in this City, and what I can't work out is whether they believed it or whether they were just trying to get us to believe something that was incredible. Either way, it is clearly unacceptable.

Now, it is a well-known fact, if you compare me with Andrew, that I am probably a bit more forgiving and easy- going and I like to see the better side of people, and after that meeting, because I am a bit gullible, I was half- prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and, in particular, they promised us faithfully that they would contact the Leader's office and speak to the three of us if there was another crisis, because the point we made was, not only because of the responsibility of scrutiny, that we have got an

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com absolute duty there because of scrutiny, but because we are the only elected accountable people in the City, other than the MPs, that are actually responsible for this City alone it was absolutely right that we work with them to try and deal with the problems they had and the changes that would have to be made, and we said to them openly, "We will support your changes. Take us into your confidence. Let's work through this together", and they promised us faithfully that we would never ever have to read anything on the front page of the Evening Post again. Have you seen that, Andrew?

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: I have. Today's paper.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Were you told? Did they phone and speak to you about it?

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: No, I wasn't told.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: They have not spoken to me about it. They promised us faithfully. I don't mean, if it sounds as if I am denigrating them behind their backs, but it makes it very hard to understand how on earth we are open-handedly meant to say, "Come on, let's work together and try and get to the bottom of this", and so reluctantly it seems to me that we have no option at all but really to take matters into our own hands now, and to have this detailed, cross-cutting scrutiny look at exactly what is going on, so that we can say, with our hands on our hearts and with a clear conscience, to the people of Leeds, when it does come to changes, and there will always be changes, that we can say to them, "We have looked at it. We have discussed it. We understand what it is going to mean, and we are putting our name to it" but without any of that, I am not voting for any of these changes because I am very, very anxious as to exactly what is going on there behind the scenes. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Deputy Lord Mayor, perhaps I ought to start by declaring an interest. My daughter is a student nurse. I don't know whether that is an interest. It is a fact that I am immensely proud about, and it will humiliate her when I show her it in the verbatim anyway, but I thought that was important to mention.

Now, it is very easy, I think, when we are talking about NHS crises to say, "Well, we blame previous administrations and we will add Disraeli and

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Gladstone and Thatcher, whoever it actually may be." I am not sure that that really helps and assists us, but I think what we do need to do is have a very close look at why we have ended up in the situation that we are actually in at this particular point. Kill off the politics of it and say, "How have we got to this particular position?" because certainly looking through the report which this refers through to, Scrutiny Board (Health) are doing an excellent job as far as I can see but you see some of the chronic headlines, "Under- funding on pay and prices, etc., amounting to 11 million. High nursing and A & C costs. Hospitals will get a reduced national tariff income of at least 1.3%, 1.7% productivity gains." You also see, "Consultants pay rises not fully funded" and we need to really examine and explore why we have ended up in the situation that we are in at this particular point, and I think there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about that.

Now, central Government state, and they are always telling us, there is more and more money going into the NHS. You should see the improvements. You should genuinely see that your health is moving forward and communities should actually gain, and when we examine that it is very difficult to try and reconcile what is being said by central Government and what we are being told here, and I think it is time for some clear speaking at this particular point. We need to figure out exactly where we are, and I think the people of Leeds want to know exactly where we are. They are bombarded with contradictory informations that are suggesting that things are getting better or they are not getting better, and I think we would fully support the view that this needs to be scrutinised very, very carefully.

Now, I suspect when we examine what the nurses are doing we are not going to find that there are chronic inefficiencies there. Clearly there isn't. They are working very, very hard. And I suspect that is the same with consultants. Now, in listening to other staff such as cleaners, where the numbers are clearly inadequate to cope with the situation that we are in at this particular point, I don't think anyone would suggest at this point that there are chronic inefficiencies there, but somewhere within this particular process or this particular system, whether it is in administration or management or bureaucracy or whatever, something is going seriously wrong, and I think it is time for us to have some plain talking

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com about what has gone wrong and where we are actually going in the future.

The second point that I would like to make is that there is genuinely a democratic deficit here. We are in a situation where there is very little control over the decisions that are made at that particular level. No doubt at all about that. If I do a poor job, you do a poor job, we go in front of the electorate, they throw us out. We have other senior staff, Chief Executives, who ultimately are only accountable to the Secretary of State maybe, and we are in a situation where we need to seriously look at what we can do to bring some democratic accountability into the NHS, because at this particular point, and people are clear about this, we are purely observers. We are not in a situation where we can be active participants in trying to identify what the problems are, where the difficulties are, and what we can do as communities to try and pull the thing together.

We will be supporting this particular resolution. We do think that we need to scrutinize where we have got, stop it being a party political football, and try and figure out where we have gone wrong and where we are going in the future. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR ATHA: My Lord Mayor, when the Labour Group decided to look at this, we were of a mind to amend it, and then we thought really we ought to oppose it on these very simple grounds: Not that we are in anyway worried about proper scrutiny. We think the proper scrutiny for the Health Service is the Scrutiny Committee set up for it. We are in favour of that, but we did see this as what appears to be a rather cynical ploy. Nearly all the issues raised by Councillor Carter's White Paper have been dealt with in detail by him and Mr. Mackay, and the other Leader, Councillor Harris was there, too, and I think the third Member. Are they saying they don't believe him? You are saying that, because you talk about spin. You talk about camouflage.

Quite frankly, I think it is a very dangerous thing, Councillor Carter, when you attribute a lower standard of integrity to others than you would claim for yourself, because that is why people here said you were being cheap in the end. You diminish the argument when you attribute to others a lower standard of integrity than you yourself claim, and so we oppose

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com this White Paper on the ground that we think it is a political ploy. We think it is cynical because you know the answers before you raise the issues. We think it is predicated on inaccurate facts, and we think above all that it is an attack on the scrutiny system, because you are proposing to take it out of the Scrutiny Committee set up for that particular purpose and putting it elsewhere. Why? Because you think you can manipulate the members of that other committee. Well, I think you are making a mistake about the integrity of the people on that committee, because I would have confidence whichever scrutiny it went to because the integrity of the individuals there has been proved over and over again.

The issues raised in the White Paper, some simple questions: What are the effects of the cash crisis on the Children's Hospital? The answer to that is, "None". I will repeat clearly for clarity, "None". Is there a cash crisis? Well, it isn't a cash crisis, it is a cash problem that has been with that Trust since its inception, since it was formed, and this you know. There was a 15 million deficit and another 15 million deficit, put together made 30 million deficit, from the very beginning, and despite 15 million savings per year in the Trust that has only been sufficient to meet the additional cost of the extra treatments the new treatments, the new drugs, all the things that we would want for our own wives, husbands, daughters, sons, relatives, and so that is really the background to that - not a cash crisis but a serious cash problem.

And what will endanger the Children's Hospital, Councillor Carter, is this quite ridiculous attack upon the Leeds Teaching Hospitals, because the strength of the case for the Children's Hospital was the unity of Council, of the hospitals, of the PCTs and of the citizens of Leeds, and here you are sending a message saying, "Spin, camouflage, cuts, desperation, change of Scrutiny Board." This is the wrong message to send, and if anyone risks the Children's Hospital for diminished reasons like this, they are not worthy of our consideration.

The facts are that the cuts proposed referred to are cuts which will be made in the costs but not in the service, and if you ask how it can be done, they brought in the National Audit Office to look at their own independent own efficiency, and they have come up with a scheme for savings between 30 million and 60

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com million. If they introduce those efficiency saving schemes it will be done without any impact on the medical services. This is the assurance we have been given. Until these people are proved liars, and there are people up here who are from the hospital, I will believe that, because we know it can be done because they have been making 15 million savings without these additional changes proposed by the National Audit Office. (Applause) I haven't finished yet.

You referred to the down-grading of the LGI. This is not down-grading. Councillor Carter, you were privy to the business case for the reconfiguration of all the services. You know about that. You know that the PCTs are setting up services in the local communities so people who want minor operations done, people who require minor treatments, can go there on their doorstep. You know this, but you don't mention it. You have not given a full story, you have given a biased story and it is because you are making attack upon the Leeds hospitals and thereon an attack on the Children's Hospital, and I deplore that.

If we make those changes, we will be able to do in the Leeds General Infirmary something that I tried to do when I was Chairman and Vice-Chairman 20 years ago of West Leeds - get rid of the old Nightingale Wards, which every nurse will tell you are not the proper place for modern medicine. It has advanced.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I have to ask you to sit down, please, Councillor Atha.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Well, what a pity. You are missing the very best bit, my Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR P. GRAHAME: Deputy Lord Mayor, I would like to thank you, Councillor Finnigan, for you have echoed everything that the Board is trying to do, and also not everything is minuted at Scrutiny Board.

Councillor Carter, as you mentioned the comment from one of your Members to our Board, whether you like it or not at that pre-meeting the comment was passed - I will not repeat it - and everybody at that pre- meeting knows so. That is why Councillor Schofield ran out of that meeting, and where did he go to? And Councillor Procter also knows because I repeated it word for word to him on the steps. Thank you.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Also, if Health is such an important issue, would you mind telling me why the Board Members from your party, the Conservatives, we have only had one until October. You have had a vacancy and, as it happens it is Councillor Schofield who has represented you all till then. We have had Councillor Millard's name on the list and he has denied being a member but then he turns up, funnily enough, the minute the Board gets publicity, like yourself, you take an interest. He turns up at the end of November for the two special meetings and his first official board meeting was in December. So if it is so important, why don't you speak to your supposedly Board members?

Also, as Executive Member last year you were involved with the meetings with the Trust, with Adam Cairns and Neil Mackay and the rest of the Executive, and you knew the proposals for 2004/5. Is that not correct? And I think the reason why you suddenly wanted to take this investigation away from Health is the publicity, that's all. Also, by the way, you have been looking at me all through your speech. I am not the Executive Member, I am the Scrutiny Board Member. Thank you. (Applause) COUNCILLOR JAROSZ: My Deputy Lord Mayor, I have not much to add to what has already been said, except to say my concern throughout has been, as Councillor Atha started, is that we need a united voice to make sure that we do get this Children's & Women's Maternity Hospital in Leeds. If we have not that united voice, this matter of finance, okay, there's lots of cuts, there's lots of different things that can be done. We know that there's a great many people in the Leeds hospitals who are over-hospitalised, that they use beds when they could use day beds much more often, and there are many different savings that can be made, but my main point is what Councillor Atha started with, in that we need a united voice. We need to be united together to make sure we get this hospital for Leeds. It is desperately overdue, as Councillor Carter and Councillor Mrs. Carter well know. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Can I ask that the gallery do not respond, please. It is not allowed. Thank you.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: The electorate silenced him, I had thought.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: My Deputy Lord Mayor, just a few comments, actually. I would just keep my

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com comments to (c) in this, and that is the proposals regarding the Leeds General Infirmary. I don't know what Councillor Atha was talking about but I am absolutely certain he would agree with me that the people of Kirkstall would want the LGI Teaching Hospital to remain. If he doesn't want that, then fine.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: It is going to remain.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Bernard, you have had your chance to speak. I didn't interrupt you. Now, be quiet, please.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: You might have done.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: I didn't.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: But it remains, the LGI remains.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Let me just go through it, then, if it does, and this is what frightens me. I have for the last five years been with a patient in that hospital for probably several weeks nearly each year for the last five years, and I can assure Members round here that it is becoming very much an annexe of St. James's. It is no longer the proud teaching hospital that it has been for so many, many, many years, and I am appalled at the way it is being treated.

If you talk about bed management, I will tell you a bit about bed management. I have seen it, because I have had my wife moved out of the ward that she should have been in for the service that she needed for her problems with breathing into a maternity unit, into a heart unit, into different units, and the last time I refused to let her be moved, and I would have fought with the damn person over the bed if necessary. I absolutely refused because when she went to the maternity wing, they had no facilities over there. When she went to the heart wing and I said to a nurse, "How is she?" "Oh, you know what it's like with hearts." I said, "Well, I do know what it is like with heart but what about breathing, because she has not got a heart problem. Will you read her papers. Will you look at her papers and read her papers."

Now, the other thing which I found last time, which is appalling, in my opinion, administrators, not medical staff, are going into wards, going through

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com files and saying, "I think that patient can be moved" and argue with the medical staff, "Move that patient." This is the bed management that is going on, and you talk about it is okay to cut beds. It is a complete and utter tragedy.

Now, if it is a promise and if the Trust will say publicly to me now, "Under no circumstances are we going to downgrade the LGI. It is going to remain as a major teaching hospital" then fine, I am happy, because West Leeds needs it. I don't want to put a little health centre somewhere in different places, one in Kirkstall, one in Cookridge, and say that is going to cover for what that hospital is. That hospital, I know in my case it has saved my life twice and my wife's life at least four times. It is a first-class hospital with first-class staff, with first- class teaching (Interruptions) with first-class staff who do not want that to close, and they are concerned, Bernard, and these are consultants who are telling me they are concerned that it is going to close, so all I am saying in support of this White Paper, it has got to be looked at, and that is an assurance I want to see very clear. If that is the case, I am happy, but if it is not the case, if I find they are down- grading it, then I will fight like hell.

The final point I make is, let's not forget the MP for East Leeds wants one hospital in this City. He is working for one hospital, and he wants to see the closure of the LGI because he wants St. James's to be the only major hospital, and he wants expansion there, and behind the scenes he is working damned hard for that. I know that, and I will do everything to oppose him on it. Thank, my Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR GOLTON: Sorry, Deputy Lord Mayor, I wasn't expecting to be up so quick. I am just going to comment very briefly on this subject, because it is just a comment on the budgeting aspects. Now, Councillor Atha brought up the issue that he said that the groups on this side were basically accusing the hospitals of having a lower standard of integrity. I don't think it is the integrity that we are actually arguing about.

I have been lucky enough, being someone who isn't a major accountant or someone who looks majorly at figures, I have been lucky enough to have a look at the departments as they have come forward with their proposals for the budget that is coming up very

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com shortly, but one of the basic things that I have been able to grasp is that you have your pressures and you make your savings and you cut your cloth accordingly, and I have to say one of the responses that came from the teaching hospitals in terms of how they had all of a sudden got to this point of crisis or financial trouble, as Councillor Atha calls it, it was really quite shocking because, yes, it is true they did inherit 30 million of debt. It is also true that they were quite good at finding savings year on year, but their savings which averaged round about 30 million a year, also had to meet pressures which averaged around 11 million a year, and it meant, obviously, that if you are going to get rid of 30 million and you are going to do it over quite a short period, just achieving 2 million saving a year isn't really a lot, it isn't enough.

Now, the only reason I think they were able to carry on doing this is not because they had a lack of integrity but perhaps it was lack of responsibility, and I have to say they were encouraged in this by other parts of Government. I see, for instance, the thing that they were relying on is something which was called "lumpy funding". Now, that is an expression that was mentioned by one of the managers at the hospital, and it is a term that I have never actually seen in any bureaucratic paper anyway but this lumpy finding basically, if I give you a translation, it is the equivalent of being a student, going to your dad and saying, "Sorry, I'm a bit short. You know, the year, a bit too much partying, you know, I'm a little bit short. Can you please pass us some money" and then dad goes, "Course you can, son." Now the problem was --- By the way, "dad" in this case was the regional office and year on year they were giving the Teaching Trust millions of pounds. Now, this is millions of pounds that they were relying on in their budgets but it wasn't actually supposed to be there in their budget.

Now, Councillor Atha, I have to say, I am not saying that they had a lack of integrity but it is plainly obvious that there was a lack of responsibility there in terms of basic budgetary rules that even I can understand, and that's one of the reasons why it is right that this paper is put forward. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR SCHOFIELD: Deputy Lord Mayor, first of all, if I could just pick up on the two scurrilous attacks on my attitude to the Children's Hospital, I

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com reiterate again my original comments were concerns about the finance, they were never about the need for a hospital, which I have always fully supported, and I would hope that my two colleagues on Scrutiny would take my statement at true value and stop this silly witch-hunt, because it is an irrelevance.

The Scrutiny Board have done a good job. All the people from all the parties have thrown their hearts and souls into getting to the bottom of this problem above all others. At the meeting in November, which is in the Minute book on pages 212 and 213, the ghastly details of the financial difficulties over the last 7 years are in there point by point explained by Mr. Mackay.

For Councillor Finnigan's benefit, there is a political blame to be attached, and that is to Chancellor Gordon Brown, because there are five points on page 12, page 13, where Gordon Brown is personally responsible. There is the under- funding, there is the current under-funding of the consultants' contract, there is the productivity squeeze, there is the shift between capital and revenue, and there is the shift in the development costs of 1 million which would impact on the hospital's attempt to fund the PFI for the very Children's Hospital that we are all concerned about, so the hospitals have been just landed with another 1 million debt by Brown for the very Children's Hospital scheme which we all aspire to.

Councillor Golton is quite right, the savings, the squeezes have been going on for the last 6 or 7 years but any savings have been more than offset by Gordon Brown's under- funding, 11 million short on what was promised and what eventually came to the staff. That is the financial background, but to assist my two Leaders, Councillor Carter and Councillor Harris, since their meeting yesterday I have received - and Councillor Blackburn - I happen to be on the mailing list for Mr. Cairns, the Director of Communications, and what he has here in black and white in the staff bulletins for November and December directly contradicts the attempts by Councillor Atha to pretend that the crisis is not already with us.

This is the list, the list of shame. This is what the hospital had to do in November and December already: Service on LGI wards 14, 15 and 16 has been merged. Service on LGI wards 41 and 43 has been merged. Ward 69 at St. James's has been closed to new

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com admissions since 26th November. The service on ward 31 at St. James's has been moved out to Ward 39. That was on 6th December. At Seacroft, a hospital Councillor Hyde and I have been much concerned with this year, at Seacroft Ward R closed on the quiet, Ward O at Seacroft closed with the loss of 24 beds on 26th November. Back to LGI, 6 beds in Ward 21 closed on 29th October. Across the Trust, 10 transitional care and post-natal beds have been closed, 6 general paediatric beds have been closed. Ward 61 at St. James's has been reduced from 7 days to 5 days. Ward 92 at LGI has already been turned into day cases only, and in ward 63 at LGI there is reduced in-patient provision.

And there is worse to come because in this month, in January, preparations are being made back at Seacroft to close Ward Q. That will be on 22nd January, and discussions are still to go on with the staff - this is in the bulletin sent to all the staff - discussions are going on for even more closures across all three hospitals.

That is the extent of the shameful list of what has happened already, let alone what is still to come, and Leeds has been badly let down by its Members of Parliament, all eight of them. They have not held the Chancellor of the Exchequer to account because he is to blame on five different counts of bringing this crisis about, and let's hope that we get some people of much better calibre after the next General Election, people like Councillor Lobley and Councillor Millard and others who will hold whatever Government there is to account and make sure that Leeds gets its proper fair share of what it deserves. (Applause) (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR CLEASBY: Lord Mayor, I normally rise to the sound of Members leaving the chamber, but surprising to find I rise and they are so happy, and I really am pleased about that.

It is unfortunate, and I do think we write White Papers and do put unfortunate phrases in, and I do think that if the White Paper didn't have the phrase, "has already undertaken an initial investigation" but simply said, "had started an investigation", then I think you would understand the meaning because, in anticipation of this White Paper being passed, as Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, which as you all know, apart from myself as

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Scrutiny Board Chair is populated by all the other Scrutiny Board Chairs, I have had the sense of getting Officers to do some work in anticipation. It will be coming, I hope you will accept, as a late item on Friday, if it is passed in a few moments time, and in that sense what I have had the sense to do is to simply put, and I will put to you as Chairs, that you simply take away the notion that you look at this White Paper and how it will affect your board.

Now, the interesting information, and you might like to see my notes here, Pauline, because the very first Scrutiny Board starts with the words, "H E A L T H", which I understand you chair and I think I, Councillor Carter, anybody else, or you continue and you finish your Health inquiry, but we all have to accept with a City as large as Leeds, with the reputation of Leeds, developing as fast as Leeds --- Councillor Carter has mentioned several times the North-West. Well, let's just take for instance Kirkstall Road, the A65, the massive development from the Yorkshire Post building goes all the way through to the massive housing estate at High Royds with a massive housing estate and office blocks on Kirkstall forge. Now, if, Councillor Atha, if the information that is being given is that the LGI is going to be reduced to the point our residents are going to have to get to St. James's, where the hell are they going to park?

We have already discussed transport in this City. Now, please, could we get together? Stop your notions about this being taken away. This is not being taken away. It is not my intention. It is nobody else's intention to take it away from you. It is an intention to spread it to the whole of Scrutiny to say, "Take it away. Look at it. Let's see how it seriously affects our City", so that the Leaders can take it back to Health people, because if we don't we are not planning a proper city, we are not planning a cohesive city, and I think it is time we started working collectively, totally together, to achieve that and not allow developers to come in to develop piecemeal, to allow non-elected people to effectively do the thins they are doing to get our City into trouble and then simply try to get themselves out of it, because that is how I see it, and that is wrong for our residents.

So I hope when we come to a vote that we are all voting together on this, and I can assure Council I will not be allowing Health to be taken out of this,

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com because there has to be within this a major Health element to the thing but there is, wrapped around that, a lot more scrutiny issues for our City. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, I think if you listened to what Councillor Grahame said, as I did, you would come to the same conclusions that I came to some considerable time ago, because as Chair of the Scrutiny Committee she gave no critique of the White Paper. She gave no explanation as to what the Health Scrutiny Committee was doing. She concentrated entirely on two personal attacks, one on Councillor Millard, the other on Councillor Schofield.

Councillor Atha, don't talk to me about cynicism, don't talk to me about playing politics. Let me tell you a bit of history. I don't normally talk about my family. My father was diagnosed with cancer in St. James's Hospital. The staff were wonderful. They explained to my mother and I in wonderful terms that he wasn't going to get better, that it was terminal. My mother died in the LGI, where she received wonderful treatment and twice they tried to revive her. My son was born in the Clarendon Wing. Regrettably, he has had to return to the paediatric services over and over again because of his asthma condition at the LGI and has received wonderful treatment, although it is what brought my wife and myself to the conclusion that a Children's Hospital was indeed needed, because if you take a child in to the LGI for emergency treatment they have to, of necessity, go in through Accident & Emergency, and that is not the most pleasant place in the world. My step-daughter has throughout her life, and certainly throughout the time that she has lived with me, had to have treatment at the LGI, and that has been excellent. So don't ever, ever again in this chamber accuse me of attacking the Leeds Teaching Hospitals, ever, and I have to say that for somebody of your experience I would have thought you would have reached the time in your political life where you didn't have to make a cynical speech, you didn't have to pretend there wasn't a crisis in nursing and in health care when there clearly is, and when 550 specialists say there is, and, Bernard, if it comes to choosing between the word of 550 specialists and you, and 550 specialists and the administrators of the Leeds Hospital Trusts, then I will choose the words of the 550 specialists any day of the week.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Can I also turn to Councillor Jarosz because, you know, it was Councillor Jarosz and Councillor Pauline Grahame who made the argument political months ago. Councillor Schofield has on the record stipulated quite clearly what his position was. The pair of you owe him an apology. It is right if you are conducting scrutiny that you question where the money is coming from. It is absolutely 100% right. That is what scrutiny is about. It is right to ask what the impact of certain other logistical re- arrangements in the Health Service will mean to the service for anybody within the city.

My Lord Mayor, to show you just how cynical it is, and why I have so little faith and I freely admit it, in what the Health Scrutiny Committee has so far done, here we have the feedback from our Labour MP in Pudsey. It says at the top, "We've got it". By, "We've got it", he is referring to the 240 million Children and Maternity Hospital. You know, everyone in this chamber knows that we haven't got it. They know, thankfully, that we have passed the first hurdle. That's what they know. They don't know how the Health Services in this City are going to be reconfigured. They don't know where, Bernard, and they don't know where those Health Services that won't be in the LGI will actually be delivered. There may be plans, but we are told that they are only plans by the administrators from the Health Service Trusts themselves, so don't say we should have said what is available when they don't know and we don't know; it is still a work in progress, and you should know that. And really I go back to what you said, because I think it is perhaps the most shameful display I have seen you put on, and the worst part, and I link it to what you are trying to do with Councillor Jennings, you know, it is insidious, it is poisonous. All of a sudden it is, "You lot over here" - us lot - are breaking ranks. It is going to be our fault if we don't get the Children's and Maternity Hospital. It is obvious the game they are playing. It is a disgrace, quite frankly, and I would say to Members opposite ---

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Here you are attributing standards of integrity to others lower than yourself.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: I would say to Members over there, and I look at the serious expressions on a lot of the faces, I would say to them, you want to think very hard on what has happened on the debates on Social Services, Children's Services and now the National

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Health Service today because in all three instances some of your Members have done you no favours whatever.

My Lord Mayor, I am going to wind up on this final point, and it is a point I want to reiterate that Councillor Harris made. We saw the Chief Executive of the NHS Trust last week. He said we would not be left in the dark again. I would have not been saying some of the things I have said today had it not been for the headline in the Evening Post today. We have been left in the dark again and, yes, Bernard, it is not a question of questioning integrity. It is very, very much a question of questioning trust when we are told one thing and patently obviously, for the second time, something else has happened. If you can't accept that, I am very sorry for you, but many of your other Members can. I move the resolution, my Lord Mayor. (Applause)

(The motion was carried)

ITEM 12 - WHITE PAPER MOTION - HEALTH RELATED GOVERNMENT FUNDED PILOT SCHEMES

COUNCILLOR DOWNES: Deputy Lord Mayor, late last year the Health Secretary announced the pilot initiative which included health trainers and enhanced stop- smoking policies, stating that spearhead PCTs will be the first to get the funding. Whilst including over a quarter of the population, it is large urban areas that will benefit, including Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and in our own area Bradford, Wakefield, Barnsley, Hull, Doncaster, Rotherham, Nottingham, even North Lincolnshire are included. Leeds is by far and away the largest city overlooked. Even if Leeds overall is above the cut-off point, there are many areas of Leeds that are below it.

Leeds is disadvantaged by the criteria laid down by the Government, since it has five PCTs and outer and inner areas being lumped together. If this were not the case, the deprived areas of Leeds would have benefited from this scheme.

Poor health has a major impact on life expectancy and, whilst the figures for Leeds for men are 75.5 years, which means we are only the 100th local authority in England and Wales, women always fare better and have a life expectancy in Leeds of 80.7 years, but this places them way down at 153rd place. What is worse, though, is that there is up to a 10 year

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com difference in life expectancy between the poorest wards and the richest wards in Leeds. Now, did anyone know that? In fact, it is fact that 1500 people in Leeds die each year from smoking-related diseases and in this region a staggering 650,000 visits to the hospital each year are caused by alcohol abuse, costing the region about 170 million per annum. My worry is that this figure will rise now with the 24-hour drinking hours that we see.

When you add up all the numbers, there are 1800 more deaths in Yorkshire compared to the national average, and it is a situation that is worsening. In Leeds, there are six wards with more than half of their SOAs in the top 10 most deprived wards in the country, and there are 11 in the 20% of the most in the country.

The Government, by ignoring the people of Leeds, are sending them to an early grave. This is typical of New Labour and another example of the head- in-the-sand attitude that caused the Labour Party to lose control in Leeds. They have failed to close the gap and ignored the very people they were supposed to be representing. Instead of standing up for the people of Leeds, they spent money on grandiose projects in the City centre. The function of this Council is to stand up for the people of Leeds, and we need to let the Government know that we are appalled by this snub. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR SCHOFIELD: Deputy Lord Mayor, I second the motion and reserve the right to speak.

COUNCILLOR McARDLE: Deputy Lord Mayor, I am saddened by this omission. Leeds is supposed to be the favourite city isn't it? It is obviously not. I am rather saddened that these 88 pilot schemes cannot be promoted within the City of Leeds. I think we need to really target seriously the deleterious aspects of these health aspects of everybody's quality of life in Leeds.

I think we need to put more emphasis on education but, more importantly, a cultural shift. Again, like Councillor Downes, we have got enough information from the priorities enabled documents from our Area Committee to say there are serious concerns both in smoking, in drinking, and more importantly now you have got, not just secondary school children at Key Stage 3 and 4, you have got primary school children at Key Stage 1 and 2 who are obese.

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Speaking as a member of Plans Panel and, of course, of Scrutiny (Leisure) we have seen enough sites of late where we have looked at new skills and there are 2 acres of land here or a hectare of land here that could be used for leisure activities to promote wellbeing for everybody, for lots of children, lots of young people, and this really ought to be pushed, promoted, in terms of how we promote our children's health and young people's health.

We really need to grasp the nettle, and I am really saddened that these 88 pilot schemes are not including Leeds. I think it is really, really sad. Thank you. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Before I ask Councillor Wakefield to comment, can I just remind Members that there is an opportunity to speak through the proper channels, and there does seem to be some distraction speeches. Can I ask Councillor Wakefield, please.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. First of all, I would like to congratulate Councillor Downes. I think that is your maiden speech.

COUNCILLOR DOWNES: Not quite. First White Paper.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Not quite. Oh, alright. Well, I will take that back ---

COUNCILLOR TAGGART: Keith, you can now tell him he is rubbish.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Well, I am not going to tell him he is rubbish. I am going to do it politely and try to cheer up Councillor McArdle, because I think you can tell it is getting near General Election time and Councillor Downes I think is the brains behind Mr. Glum next to him, Councillor Mulholland, in the next General Election. I hope you do a lot better than this White Paper, Councillor Downes, because fundamentally it is probably one of the most inaccurate, flawed White Papers we have seen, but that makes very little difference, and I will tell you why. It simply is that firstly the criteria that Councillor Downes has articulated is slightly distorted. What it is is you were chosen if you were in the worst 20% of authorities or PCTs in the country, and that criteria was based on mortality, infant mortality and adult

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com mortality, cardio-vascular disease, cancer under 75 and poverty and deprivation. Now, Leeds doesn't qualify to be in the bottom 20% because I think of a number of things. (1) We are a more affluent city, as people have mentioned already today, and (2) there has already been a lot of work done by this Council and its partners to address some of those issues, and I will try to talk you through some of those, which involve some of your Members at the front and, indeed, somebody who is just sitting down, Councillor Les Carter, so you are shooting your own - well, supposed to be - allies.

Firstly, there has been a lot of work done, as Richard will vouch for, in Healthy Living in schools. There has been a lot of work done with SRB on giving breakfast clubs for children. There has been a lot of work done in terms of kids walking to school and, although Andrew Carter is not here, I think some of us remember him launching the Bike to School. The fact that the last bike he rode was a penny- farthing didn't stop him actually launching this initiative from Kippax.

And if you look --- Where is Councillor John Procter? Has he gone home? Because did you see him last night sitting on the throne contemplating? There he is. He doesn't always sit on the throne. I have seen him launching bike rides in gyms and, on a serious note, there has been a lot of work done by this Council targeting key areas to make sure that young people in particular are given sporting and recreational chances and indeed nutritional food, and the partners in the PCT have done a whole raft of work in terms of going out to address young people, youth clubs and so on, about teenage pregnancy, sexual disease, smoking and so on, and indeed there are even smoking targets within the PCT. So there is a lot of work around, and I even pay tribute to people like Councillor Parker, who has launched luncheon clubs for all the elderly in our community so they can get good nutritional food, so there is a lot of work done in the Council, there is a lot of work done with the partners and there's millions of pounds being spent by the Health Service and the PCTs in addressing all the issues you have talked about.

Now, what I really want to do - somebody mentioned Richard Harker and smoking; I think it was Councillor Taggart ---

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR TAGGART: I have got his best interests at heart.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: If you really care, if you are really bothered, let's have a look - I know there is a little cabal, a conspiracy group, at the issue of smoking. You don't have to wait for the Government to come down. I know there is a little conspiracy group in the LibDems who want to ban smoking. They are frightened of Les Carter. Don't be frightened of Les Carter. Do what you think your principles are. If you really want to address poverty, poor health, can you just ask in your summing up very simple questions: Why haven't you done something about smoking in the Council, when you have got the opportunity? You bang on for Liverpool, or your colleagues did. Why do you oppose the minimum wage and call it dangerous? Why do you oppose things like extra heating allowance? Why do you oppose New Deal? All things that fundamentally affect people's health is income and poverty, and here we have you bleating on about New Labour when your own record here, and your own policies outside in this mysterious orange book, oppose the very things that lead to positive health. I move, Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR ILLINGWORTH: Deputy Lord Mayor, as had already been pointed out, Leeds is a very average city. It has got a big population, big area, and it is hardly surprising that for many indices it is very close to the national average, but there are in this City pockets of deprivation and a great many disadvantaged people, but when the statistics are averaged out, these victims tend to be hidden. I think the speaker originally referred to this.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Leeds does badly in the competition for targeted funds, either for Objective 2 from European funds or from central Government. What should we do about this?

One aspect that I have been very keen to develop is a much greater use of local area statistics and more use of computer mapping to highlight areas of need. We are involved in a joint exercise between Health, Scrutiny and Leisure to map recreational open spaces and children's opportunities for play. There is much more that we could be doing in areas such as health and educational achievement.

There is a particular reason to do these studies in Leeds because we have in the Council and the

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Primary Care trusts and in both Universities some excellent urban geographers and statisticians who would be of great benefit to this City. I need to declare at this point, my Lord Mayor, that I work for Leeds University; I don't think it is a prejudicial interest in the present context.

It is a source of great sorrow to me that it seems we are about to miss out on yet another Government initiative where we should have been key players. The Medical Research Council a few weeks ago announced 12.5 million for a major project on preventive medicine, direct action to tackle health inequalities. I have got the MRC forms in front of me and I read from them. "The research will address the following key areas individually or in combination within the context of the gap in health equalities: tobacco use, alcohol misuse, physical activity, diet and nutrition, and in particular but not solely in relation to weight gain and obesity." Key health issues for the present day.

They would welcome local authority involvement, also the Primary Care Trusts. This seems tailor-made for Leeds, where we have a strong Health Scrutiny Board and co-operative working on healthy living through the Leeds Initiative, in effective co-operation with the PCTs. There are centres of excellence in both local Universities that are highly relevant to this Medical Research Council scheme. There was a very short timetable and just before Christmas I did some ringing round and e-mailing to see whether Leeds could in fact put together a joint bid, a cross-institutional bid, a very tight timetable. I got a really positive reaction from all the potential players, but when it came to the crunch, Deputy Lord Mayor, we could not get our collective act together in time. The closing date is this Friday of this week and it will not be possible to assemble a joint bid. There will be some individual bids from Leeds but the large, cross-disciplinary study that we could have mounted will slip beyond our grasp.

It is a real shame because Government money for pilot schemes is likely to follow to those cities that took part in the Medical Research Council research initiative, so we may lose out a second time round.

There is a moral to this tale. If Leeds is going to bid effectively for future funds, both European monies and Government monies, it needs to have

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com much more effective links between the major institutional players and actively promote joint working at all levels. At present, we have got some good contacts at senior level through the Leeds Initiative, but my recent experience suggests that these huge bureaucracies are not co-operating well at middle management levels, and we need to pay much more attention to this if we expect to get success in the future, Deputy Lord Mayor. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR TAYLOR: Deputy Lord Mayor, I have to say that in November, when this issue first came to my knowledge, I was very much upset, saddened and disheartened that we had lost out on money to tackle the issues that have been described. Coming as I do from an inner city area with levels and areas of high deprivation, I am aware that, as a result of that, many people fall into the poverty trap, and I think it is fine, Keith, some of the things you have been talking about in the past, but we surely should not stop there. We have to continue to keep looking for new schemes, readdressing the issues, and attacking the areas of social deprivation in the inner city, and I think it is all about sustainability, and it is quite clear that, while there have been some very good schemes that have been put forward within the City, their sustainability has been questioned.

With the withdrawal of SRB funding in the near future, this is going to seriously affect many people living in the inner cities and in the Gipton and Harehills Ward in particular, and when people are denied long term opportunities - long term opportunities - it is little wonder that people become suspicious. They feel deflated, they feel marginalised and they turn to smoking, they turn to comfort eating and drinking and all its consequences that follow, and people who find themselves to be in this situation more often than not also feel stigmatised, and then that stigmatisation is not just within the individual, it affects the whole of the community. It is almost cancerous within the community and the whole community is affected by it.

I think, on a wider issue, we could as a City have benefited enormously from the Government's funding, and we could have equally made a very positive contribution to Government thinking in these pilot schemes. It is a missed opportunity. It affects both young and old alike, and it saddens me that that

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com has not been taken up. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR BRETT: Deputy Lord Mayor, public health has undergone a major change in recent months. For 60 years we have had a good, caring and sometimes excellent national sickness service, which has responded reactively to our needs. I was very encouraged by the Government's recent White Paper because it recognised that we actually need a national health service, a service that would proactively tackle the issues that this motion addresses.

I support, at a personal level, most of the Government's ideas, but I am saddened that it has taken them so long to reach the conclusion that they have, and even more saddened that the Government's White Paper does not propose a complete ban on smoking in public places.

Italy is the most recent country, not at the moment a bastion of socialism, to have politicians with more courageous ideas on this than our national leaders at the moment.

Anyone who knows the condition of people in our inner city will understand the need for more pilot schemes tackling smoking, obesity, excessive alcohol consumption, mental and sexual health. All of these things are happening, but we need more. We must recognise that Leeds City Council has an important role to play in public health. While clearly the health professionals have the major role, we do not have any more the luxury of leaving the wellbeing of the people of Leeds entirely to them.

Partnership working is now essential to make sure the services to the people of Leeds are coherent. In the area of children's services, as I know my colleague Councillor Jennings has in hand, it will be vital to make sure health professionals are fully involved with Education, Social Services, Leisure Services and, importantly, the voluntary sector to create a children's trust which serves the needs of children, and particularly vulnerable children.

Several voluntary sector organisations working in the health field are struggling at the moment for funding and, as my colleague Alan Taylor already has alluded to, when SRB funds finish many are going to struggle, and that includes the excellent East Leeds

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Health for All in my ward, so I urge you all to support this motion. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, I will literally be a few seconds. Can I just say, my Lord Mayor, I am frightened of nobody in this Council and I can assure Members opposite there, no-one is frightened of me either. The Members across there work very closely with us at the present time and it is a very, very good ---

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: It's not what they say to us.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Well, it is what they say to you is what I know they say to you. (Laughter)

All that you said about various things which have been done in the City, I wish I could help on the obesity but I am not doing very well on that personally, but there is a lot of work going on throughout the City, and that will continue. But don't attack this Member and say --- He has been in a party that has been in office for 6 months. You have been in 24 years, and he has got to have a smoking policy in now, go on, get on with it, don't wait for the Government, get on with it. This fellow has been 24 years he could have done it. He could have done it for the last 24 years and he hasn't, so you can just ignore that.

Let me just make two points, my Lord Mayor. (1) Smoking is currently in a Scrutiny Board, and we shall see what comes back from the Scrutiny Board. I understand --- God, it can't be, can it? Anyway, there is something else but I can't find it. I don't think it is eyes testing either.

All I can say, my Lord Mayor, is this City is doing a lot for health, but the one thing I am a bit surprised here, and I really am surprised. When I took this job on I said I would talk to any Minister, I would either play hell with him or I would lay on the floor and he could walk all over me provided he gave money to this City, and all this guy is saying over here is, "Why can't we have some more money?" and he is asking for money, and that is all we are asking for in this White Paper resolution, is asking for money for the seven wards in this City which are probably some of the most deprived in the country and, whatever we do, we should all stick together and say, "Come on, we want money" and I want you to support. You keep saying

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com there is a bit. Let's see it come, but in the meantime support this. There is nothing lost by supporting it. No, you can't speak again. Bye- bye. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR DOWNES: Deputy Lord Mayor, first of all, Councillor Wakefield said that I was sitting next to Mr. Glum. Well, that probably puts us in the same boat then! (Applause) Mrs., sorry. Sorry, Mrs. Mrs. Glum.

Now, if Keith is privy to our yellow document, our yellow book, he will know --- Orange, yellow, orange. Yes.

COUNCILLOR TAGGART: It is on the Internet. You can get it.

COUNCILLOR DOWNES: It is in my office, you can borrow it. But if he has read it he will know that we don't oppose the New Deal, and we don't oppose the Minimum Wage. In fact, we say that it should extend to all workers, including 16 and 17 year olds, something which the Government oppose.

On to smoking. I believe it is John Reid, the Labour Health Secretary, that patronisingly said, "Let the poor smoke. It is the only pleasure that they have."

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: He has stopped.

COUNCILLOR DOWNES: Anyway, what does that say about life under New Labour?

COUNCILLOR ATHA: I wish he would carry on. I want to be able to get my pipe out.

COUNCILLOR DOWNES: He also mentioned that there must be an election coming up. Well, if there was, I probably would have put something for my ward or my constituency down, but when we look at the six worst wards here we have got Burmantofts and Richmond Hills, Chapel Allerton, City & Hunslet, Gipton & Harehills, Killingbeck and Seacroft, and Middleton Park, and none of those are the core wards in the election that I am taking part in.

Anyway, to sum up, the Government continue to ignore Leeds. Think of Supertram. Think of the hospital cut already mentioned today. This is just

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com another in a long line of let-downs for the people of Leeds, so the challenge for my colleagues on that side of the house today is to do what they know is right and back this motion and thereby send a message to their colleagues in Westminster that they have their priorities wrong or to vote against the proposal and send a clear message instead to the people of Leeds that they do not care about their health. So, Deputy Lord Mayor, I urge the Council to support this motion. (Applause)

(The motion was carried)

COUNCILLOR HAMILTON: Deputy Lord Mayor, could I move under the provisions of Council Procedure Rules 22.1 that Procedure Rule 3.2 be suspended to allow the White Paper motions to be heard?

COUNCILLOR GRUEN: I second, Lord Mayor.

(The motion was carried)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Before we go on to the next paper, can I just remind Members, and this applies to everybody, I think we do really want to listen to the speakers and we should give them that right, and I do think there is a lot of distraction.

ITEM 13 - WHITE PAPER MOTION - PROPOSAL TO BUILD A NEW PRISON IN GARFORTH

COUNCILLOR MURRAY: Deputy Lord Mayor, I think I would like to start by thanking Council for giving the time and the patience late at night. This is the third time we have actually approached and had this subject during the day, so I would like to thank Council Members for that from the people of Garforth. I suppose what that really means is I am going to repeat a little bit of what was said earlier on, because a lot of what was said earlier on does send out the message about what is happening in Garforth.

I am going to start off by saying, though, the Government must be doing a lot to reduce crime. They must be: the prisons are full and they want a new prison. Yes? And like Leslie said earlier on in the afternoon, the fear of crime is a big issue for the people in Garforth, but what I would like to say is that over the last couple of years, certainly over the last year, I will just run off a number of things that have happened to be able to address those concerns:

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com We have had Garforth main police station reopened. We have had a big expansion in the number of police officers that we have got working in the community. We have got our PCSOs. We have got CCTV cameras. We have got Neighbourhood Wardens, all working now in Garforth, and I think that is pretty impressive, very impressive.

In fact, what I would like to do is, I would like to actually refer you to the Question section of the order paper. Turn to page 5, the theme of Frank Robinson, and I would like to just quote what he said but just alter it a little bit, "Further proof obviously that the previous administration is working hard to improve the quality of life and the residents in Garforth." I think we are all agreed on that, yes?

COUNCILLOR CLEASBY: Tell Paul Truswell, he is trying to get a police station.

COUCILLOR MURRAY: I will, I will tell Paul. The other point that they made was that, if more criminals are being caught and we need more prisons and so be it, what that means of course is a huge prison costing millions, a lot of capital, a lot of revenue, and the point was made we don't need that level of regeneration in Garforth, and we do not. It was made by Speakers 1, it was made by Speakers 2 because, of course, people are in jobs. Unemployment has virtually been eliminated in Garforth; it is at 1%, but what the first lot of speakers should have said, and perhaps added to it was this: They forgot to mention that that 1% unemployment figure is not a blip. It is not what you get when you have the economics of the Tories, which is a bit of economics of the madhouse where you get boom and bust. What you get is something which is stable and again, just to quote Frank because he has got the right words, he chose the right words earlier on, "Yet again evidence I would think of the Government this time delivering promises to the people of Garforth in a way that they are pleased, keeps them happy and things go well."

We don't need the jobs. We don't need the regeneration. There is no doubt about that, especially when other parts of the country and in Yorkshire probably do. If you have a look, and you can do this on the Internet, at where the Prison Service is in Yorkshire, you will see that the prisons are in Doncaster, East Riding, Hull, Leeds, North Yorkshire, Wakefield and York. In other words, they

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com are in the north or the east of the county. I suppose what the people in Garforth are effectively saying is, there are other parts of this City where there needs to be regeneration, look to the south, and that is the message which has gone to the Minister. The Minister has got that message. (Interruptions) It is true.

For the record --- Just let me tell you for the record about that bit of land, that bit of land, and again it was mentioned earlier on, when the land agents are looking for it, they are looking for urban environment, they are looking for something that is in a brown field site, but if you look at that part of Garforth you will find that it isn't urban, that it is largely rural, it is currently green belt or, sorry, it is actually fields, it looks like green belt. It is badly drained, it is waterlogged, and if you want people to get there, you can't get there. Public access is poor. There is no way people can get to it.

So it seems to me you can build up. When we get the technical spec, we can build up a strong case against locating it at that place, but we have a long way to go. Again, though, in that process things have changed, and again it has changed because of a Labour Government. The Prison Service no longer has Crown Immunity. They cannot simply acquire land and do what they like. They can't do that. Now they have got to go through the normal planning process, and the normal planning process is, of course, we determine it; it has got to come to Leeds. Again, I suppose what we could say, another example of the Labour Government supporting local people, giving them some power to be informed and involved in ---

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: Building a prison - is that supporting local people?

COUNCILLOR MURRAY: No, wait a minute. Yes. Anyway, we were told by Officers when we had our briefing finally, we were told by Officers that the Prison Service, civil servants, were going to come back with questions to answers that had been put to them. They were going to come back within a week. That has not happened, and I think that is fairly significant, and I think that is a message that I think we can also take back to Garforth. The message is, this is a political hot potato that probably will not and won't happen, and it is based on that vigorous campaign that did happen. We have all read about it, seen it, some of us have been involved in it, and we are behind

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Garforth residents who have held public meetings and who have collected the petition, thousands have signed it, and the Minister has got the message. So the part of the motion, Andrew, about let's take a message to the Secretary, let's take a message to the Minister, that bit in truth has already been done and it has gone down loud and clear. Not necessary to do that.

So where are we now? I think where we are now is the Prison Service started off looking for 300 prisons. West Yorkshire were supposed to have 34 possible sites. That has now been reduced to 6, I understand, but we are years off a decision, but when we get to that decision, if it affects Leeds, all I will say is it will be fought 100% by the people in Garforth and the residents of Garforth with us supporting them and behind them. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HARRISON: Deputy Lord Mayor, as local Ward Councillor and local resident, I certainly cannot support any move to build a prison in Garforth. I, like many residents of Garforth and Swillington, am extremely proud of the community spirit shown over the last few years. Firstly, we had the closure of the police station, which has now reopened due to the hard work of the Labour MP, Labour Councillors and, most importantly, the residents. Secondly, the proposed downgrading of the fire station, which has once again brought out the community spirit, and now the prison.

Garforth, Swillington and Great Preston, where I represent, has one of the best unemployment records in the City, excellent primary schools in all the villages, and I am proud to say one of the best high schools in Leeds, Garforth Community College, where I attended myself, as did many members of my family. This is why I must raise my concern and ask why, as Ward Member, I first hear about the proposal in the YEP, where the story was broken to the press by the Conservative colleague from Wetherby, who has no real interest in Garforth other than political gain.

I am once again saddened that an issue of such importance should again be used as pathetic point- scoring. I would like to thank Garforth Residents Association for arranging a very successful public meeting where both political parties were invited to attend. At this very well-attended meeting, a vote was taken by the residents who supported the Residents

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Association in their campaign to lobby the Prisons Minister and Members of Council today.

We hope you will support this carefully worded motion and let commonsense prevail regardless of political party and support this White Paper and the residents of Garforth and Swillington. Thank you. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR MILLARD: Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor, for allowing me to move this amendment. Before I do, I have come in for some stick this evening, I'm not quite sure why. Let me pre-empt what I am sure, if I look down the list of speakers, may well come up a little bit later, and that is how this story actually came out to the press. It was myself who actually broke it exclusively to the YEP on Friday, 12th November. It therefore was printed on the front page of their paper, they deemed it to be so important so they put it on the front page on 13th November. I can assure everybody in this chamber here today that that leak to me did not come from any Member of this Council, nor from any Officer of this authority. My source was elsewhere so, before anybody stands up a little bit later and tries to make any accusations, the source came from elsewhere. I didn't believe it, but it rang true after checking it time and time again, hence I went public with it.

Let me first comment, if I may, on Councillor Murray's White Paper and why it does actually need amending. Yes, Tom, we are all against a prison being built in Garforth. In fact, on this side of the chamber, we are against any additional prisons being built anywhere else in Leeds.

Some Members may not know that Councillor Murray originally submitted what I consider to be a woefully inadequate White Paper last November. Now, according to the MP for Elmet, this was under the direction of Councillor Wakefield. When I politely pointed out to Councillor Murray the shortfalls of this motion, he got somewhat agitated. I think that is the best and the most polite way to describe how you were, Tom. He dismissed my views outright. So, Members, what Councillor Murray has presented to you today is a revised motion submitted at the 11th hour last Monday in a panic because he thought he might be trumped. It has been admitted today twice in this chamber that Garforth has been short-listed as one of the last six sites in West Yorkshire, and because tests

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com and soundings have already been made, the site has still not been ruled out, the chances are getting greater by the day. The clock is ticking.

Now, I have made it clear that as the Conservative Parliamentary spokesman for Elmet, I am against any further prisons being built in the constituency. I am also against any further prisons being built in Leeds. But contrast my position with the muddled line of the current MP for Elmet. Firstly, he advises that the chair of the GRA, who is supposedly independent and apolitical, although I am not quite so sure from what we heard earlier today, that he first knew about this on Friday, 12th November, when he was contacted by the YEP. Then he advised the so-called independent public meeting, as reported by the YEP, that he knew about this on Tuesday, the 9th. Then he writes to constituents claiming he first heard a, "vague rumour" about this on Wednesday, 10th November. The goalposts keep moving, I expect to try and mitigate his inability to deal with matters. He is also trying to scare residents into saying that if the Conservatives won at the net election, Garforth would be more likely to get a prison. It will not. The Conservative Shadow Minister, Cheryl Gillen, has confirmed that she would scrap Labour's prison plans, and she has no plan for one of Labour's super-prisons, which is what is being proposed for Garforth.

Part of this amendment refers to a campaign that has been instigated against the prison. This was started by Councillor Phillips and myself. This was a successful campaign. It was the first campaign that was launched, and it has more than 2,000 signatures on its petition. In fact, it has considerably more than that.

Deputy Lord Mayor, time is running out and there is still a lot to say, so I will try and be as concise as possible, but let's now dwell on this final part of the amendment and why should this be voted through, as the current Labour MP for Elmet thinks it is right for Leeds to have another prison. This is backdropped by the fact that we here in Leeds are the prison capital of the UK - three prisons in total within the City, 2,200 inmates, or in excess. Compare this to Cumbria - no prisons at all. Not one in Cornwall. Not one in Powys, Carmarthen or Denbighshire. In East Sussex only one. In West Sussex only one. Even in Northumberland, Essex and Norfolk, they only have two. Norfolk, that is

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com interesting. That is where Norwich South is, the constituency of the Home Secretary. Not one prison in his backyard at all. And how about Wythenshawe and Sale, the constituency of the Prisons Minister -- sorry, he likes to be called the Minister for Correctional Services in this day and age. Again, not one prison. But here in Leeds we already have three, and Labour wants to dollop another one onto us, and it is one of their super-prisons.

What solution does the MP for Elmet have? Well, he is a NIMBY, but then I do sympathise with him on this as we do already have two penal establishments within Elmet. He suggests relocating it elsewhere in the City. And where is he suggesting that? Actually a site that the Prison Service has already confirmed that it is looking at as well, Rothwell. I wonder what the Members sitting here representing Rothwell think about that, or indeed Colin Challon MP thinks about that. Or another site - where else has he suggested? Halton Moor.

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: You're joking.

COUNCILLOR MILLARD: Bill, I don't know what you think, or David, what you think about that, or even Mick Lyons. Sorry, where is Councillor Lyons? Is he here or not? No, he has gone home, he doesn't care. (Interruptions)

Deputy Lord Mayor, we don't want and we don't need a prison in Garforth. We don't want and we don't need any more new prisons in Leeds. Members should support this amendment so we send a clear message to the Labour Government at the highest level, and Labour Ministers, that we will not accept yet another prison here in Leeds. Thank you, Deputy Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR PHILLIPS: When I first learned of this proposal, my heart sank. People in Garforth were still walking around talking about the fight we had over the fire station and how pleased they were that that battle had apparently been won, and then along comes the Government and says, "Well, we are going to put a prison in your back garden, right on your doorstep, and it is not a modest prison. It will be one that will hold up to 2,000 inmates."

Now, Councillor Millard and I checked the validity of this story, as he has already said, and immediately set about making as many people in Garforth

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com aware of the proposal as possible. We were accused of scare-mongering, and I admit initially people were alarmed at the news, but I have to say since the launch of our campaign in November not one person has expressed any support for the prison. Quite the opposite. People have stopped us in the street to say, "Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Why haven't we heard about this before?" Why indeed.

Now, I agree that nationally our prison stock is badly in need of reform but, as we have said in our campaign, there are right and there are wrong places to build prisons. Garforth is definitely the latter. It is not just the people of Garforth who agree with us in that view. We started a petition, which Andrew has already alluded to, and that carries signatures of people from Kippax, Micklefield, Allerton Bywater, and as far as Castleford.

The proposed site sits right opposite residential housing. Now, we all know that prisons are not noted for their architectural beauty. Imagine looking every day out of your kitchen or front room window at what will probably have to be a huge building, surrounded by a brick wall and barbed wire. It is not quite the same as looking out over a stately home, is it? Areas quickly become associated with local landmarks. The good examples in the Leeds area are perhaps Kirkstall Abbey or Templenewsam. Just up the road from this proposed site Garforth has Lotherton Hall. It certainly doesn't need a prison to add to its attractions.

People come to live in Garforth because of its access into the city centre, its rural surroundings, and its good schools. One of the schools, as we have already heard, sits again opposite the proposed site. What are we going to say to the head, when he comes to us in a few years time complaining that he can't get any students to go to his school?

We are told that the criteria for choosing the site were related to urban regeneration. Garforth doesn't meet those criteria. We don't have raging unemployment and we don't have large areas of deprivation. So it is clear from the two deputations we heard earlier that there is genuine opposition to this prison, and I intend to continue campaigning against it by presenting people with the facts as they emerge, keeping them informed and working with them to stop it. Together we must send a clear signal that

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com this prison is not needed and it most certainly is not wanted. I second the amendment. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR McARDLE: Deputy Lord Mayor, I hear with alarm Councillor Murray mentioning the south of Leeds for a prison.

COUNCILLOR MURRAY: No, I said south of Yorkshire, actually.

COUNCILLOR McARDLE: South of Yorkshire? I do apologise.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: France. He means France.

COUNCILLOR MURRAY: I meant France, yes.

COUNCILLOR McARDLE: When the south is mentioned it means not only Rothwell, it also means Morley, and I can't believe that residents of Morley would welcome a prison on their doorstep either.

The simple fact of the matter is, why does Leeds need another prison? There are three already, and if you include Wakefield, which is just over the border, that is four. I think the idea of a prison per county or administrative area is an excellent one, and I think that is something that we ought to take back to central Government and have one per county, and that's all I have to really say on that. Thank you. I will be supporting the amendment. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Lord Mayor, I am sorry that Councillor McArdle has already committed himself without listening to the whole debate, because I think it is important that we get the full details of this. I have had a recent leaflet with Andrew's photo on again. You know, it is not the one where he was 35 years younger but it is more recent. It is a bit blurred, Andrew, but I think I recognise you, and I will read out a typical --- You know we have been accused of spin or people have been accused of spin today, we have been accused of keeping people in the dark, let me just read out something from Councillor Millard.

Councillor Millard says, "The Conservatives announce that, if elected at the next General Election, they would scrap Labour's plans for a prison in Garforth." (Applause) I look forward to you applauding the next statement, because you have heard

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com him today, you have heard him tonight deliberately spin, deliberately say that the Conservatives are going to scrap. That is not what Cheryl Gillen said, "Conservative Prison Ministers ---" Are you ready for your applause again? She said that when in office she will review, she will review totally Labour's prison plans. Come on, then, where is another round of applause. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: It is civil service talk for, "I am going to ban it.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: "Review" and "scrap" - is there not a difference? Is that not spin? Is that not an attempt to mislead local people? Of course it is. Reviewing everything - I have heard a lot of reviews. I have heard a lot of reviews by Councillor Andrew Carter. He does a lot of reviews, and he does a lot of investigations. He is like Cluseau, you know, all these investigations going around. I remember, I think - I am looking for Councillor Parker, but do you remember this investigation into the Millennium Village? A working group, a task group. Can you ever remember report backs? Still waiting, 5 years ago.

So here is another investigation, but I do want you to carry out a serious investigation, because I think there has been two serious breaches around this. The first thing is how this information came about. This is the third version I have heard about how Councillor Millard got hold of this information. The first version was it was in the pubs and clubs of Garforth, everybody was talking about it. (Interruption) We go in the pubs and clubs of Garforth. Now he has only got the Gaping Goose as the reporting. Pub and clubs, that's where we heard it. Next thing, a public meeting. No, he had heard it through the civil service. Now we have had a third version. I think there is a serious breach here.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL: A civil service pub.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I think there is a serious breach, and I will tell you why. Shall I tell you why? (Interruptions) Can I carry on?

COUNCILLOR MILLARD: Deputy Lord Mayor --- (Interruptions)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: I will come back to you. Would you mind sitting down. We will come back to you.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: You are getting nowhere near the General Election and your blood pressure is going up, and you are still going to lose. You will have a long time for rest after May. (Interruptions)

Let me just say about this investigation, it is a serious one, because if we are not careful, and this is why I want Councillor Andrew Carter to take this seriously, when you are the Leader, and when you are in charge of portfolios, you have hundreds of inquiries about development which you do not share with colleagues. Is that true? And if you start to sensationalise it, you turn away developers and turning away inquiries and you ruin this City. Suddenly, within days, if it is true what he said, you have blown it already, and the other serious breach, I think, is how come a Wetherby Councillor gets to know before the Garforth Councillors, Kippax Councillors, Harewood Councillors and so on. (Interruptions) How has that come about? That is wrong.

I felt very sorry for Councillor Mark Phillips, because he has been kicked up and down dale by Andrew Millard because he has been criticised, he has been told to say things and, quite frankly, he has not been included in the information.

I think that we should continue to back the community association, along with the Councillors and along with the MP. They actually won on the fire, they won on the police station, and I think they will continue to win on this, providing - and the one point that I would agree - that we stay all united and back the MP and make sure that it doesn't come to Garforth. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Millard, is this a point of clarification?

COUNCILLOR MILLARD: Yes, it is, Deputy Lord Mayor.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Can you point out what Councillor Wakefield said?

COUNCILLOR MILLARD: Certainly. Councillor Wakefield has attributed earlier to what I said where I have heard this from. I did not say where I had heard this

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com from at all. In fact, I did not disclose the source at all, so that is a point of clarification. A second point of clarification as to why I have actually taken an interest is this, which I thought I made clear when I spoke but clearly Councillor Wakefield did not hear me, is that I am the official Conservative Parliamentary spokesman for Elmet, whereas Councillor Murray doesn't even live within the constituency, let alone within the ward.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Lord Mayor, I am able, perhaps, to take a bit more of a detached view ---

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Show some leadership, Mark. That's what we need.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: -- of what is going on here, and there is no point beating about the bush. Let's all admit it, for heaven's sake. If there was a proposal to build a prison in any of our wards all of us - a new prison - all of us would be under intense pressure from our constituents, and we would be trying to respond to their arguments why it isn't appropriate so, you know, that is the reality.

I have to say some of the arguments people put, and it does apply across the chamber, just are ridiculous, because the arguments to protect Garforth must necessarily therefore be at somebody else's expense, but for both sides to say Garforth has got good schools implies you have got to build a prison in an area where you have got bad schools. Is that any good for those schools? For Tom to say, "Garforth has got low unemployment so we don't need a prison" implies, "Let's put a prison, frankly, in a terribly deprived part of the City" so we have got a receptacle in a bad part of the city, we have got a receptacle for all the dross of society. Does that make that ward any better? Of course it doesn't.

So, you know, let's all be honest about it, that we would all attempt to defend our patch, so you have got to try and step back and take a broader picture here, and I think the point that we can all accept, and ought to accept, is that Leeds has already got three prisons. You know, we have got our fair share. You know, I don't envy Jim in Armley, for heaven's sake, you know, you didn't say what areas are known for. It is a dreadful thing Armley is known for Armley because of the nick. That is what Armley is known for and it does, it takes an area down, you know,

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com so we don't need any more prisons, and that is why we are supporting this, that we don't need them in Leeds. Really, the truth is the only way to deal with this, if we even need any more prisons at all and, of course, we have a somewhat different view.

Again, I take issue to some extent with what Tom says. Why on earth are we applauding the fact that we bang more and more people up each year? Okay, serious, violent, vicious criminals, get them locked up, but half the people we lock up aren't in for any more than 6 months. The figures for reoffending are atrocious. 80% of villains go straight back inside within a year. What are we achieving? Absolutely nothing and, of course, we just end up in this perpetual argument: We need more prisons, and where are we going to put them?

The truth is the only thing that could satisfy any of us is to build a prison in the middle of nowhere, away from residential areas, business areas. That is the only thing that could ever satisfy any of us. So it seems to me that Garforth is inappropriate, as it seems to me any other place in Leeds now would be inappropriate for a new prison.

It seems to me that we ought to (inaudible) building more and more prisons just is not getting us anywhere at all, because we just increase the prison population and nothing else. We should be saying to Government, if we are going to build new prisons there is no escaping the fact that as soon as a prison is put somewhere it destroys the image and the name of that area and so, to avoid political controversy, you must seek places away from population centres. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, I have been unusually silent on the issue of the prison at Garforth, and I have read with growing interest the letters in the newspaper. Actually, Councillor Wakefield has an advantage over me because he seems to have a vast array of Conservative newsletters from Garforth there, none of which I have ever seen.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Haven't you?

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: No, no. However, I have to say that I applaud the actions of the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Elmet and of Councillor Mark Phillips. I find it absolutely incredible that

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com any elected representative should suggest that the residents should be kept in the dark once an issue is in the public domain, and I take --- Well, I am afraid it was, Councillor Wakefield, and you know that it was, and you know I know you know that it was. (Laughter)

COUNCILLOR TAGGART: Oh no he doesn't.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: It is one of the benefits, I have discovered, of being in control, so we will have no more of that nonsense from Councillor Wakefield.

I also have to say that I take singular exception to the inference that I would divulge details of an approach to this authority by prospective developers. I do say, however, that I think when the Home Office come along and they say to Officers of this authority, which they did, "By the way, you must keep this secret and don't tell anybody" and the Officers of this authority say, "Well, you do know that people already know, don't you? And we can't see that our Members are going to be very happy, and I don't know what the reaction is going to be of the Council", and they quite rightly brief me and him on the issue, I think that is entirely right and proper.

You know, we had your friend over there, Councillor Illingworth, casting aspersions willy-nilly on Monday of this week about the integrity of Officers of this authority, so near to the point that I recommended to those Officers they considered taking him to the Standards Board, and that is something I shall continue to do. So, you know, when officers do make sure that Members know, and actually I was the right Member to inform because I am the Executive Member for Development. What I am going to do, and nobody in this chamber - nobody in this chamber - is aware of what I am going to read to you now, so you are all going to hear it together, and this is the chronology of events from the Development Department's perspective.

"The only meeting with the Prison Service to date was on 9th November. It was attended by Jean Dent and Steve Speake. The further information promised at that meeting from the Home Office was eventually provided with a letter dated 17th December which was received by the Department on 21st December. The notes that Jean and I took at the meeting indicate

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com we were told that there were originally 34 sites identified in West Yorkshire - 34 - of which 11 were inspected. The letter of the 17th of the 12th confirms the figure of 34 but indicates that 26 were inspected. The letter goes on to say that a number were discounted and that 6, including the one at Garforth, were finally scored and prioritised. We have no information on the alternative sites or on the scoring and prioritisation that HM Prison Service has undertaken. An acknowledgement letter was sent on 23rd December, indicating that we hoped to provide a full response by the end of January." That full response has not been sent, at my instruction, until the outcome of this debate, and prior to Christmas I was furnished with a copy of the letter from the Prison Service to Jean Dent, and it is here and there is nothing in there that I am particularly --- So that is the position. (Interruption) Now, do be quiet, Peter, and listen. I am aware of your antics in the East Leeds Outer Committee. We will address that at a later date.

The proposal that has now been prioritised is for North Newhold in Garforth. I have to say I think it is highly unsuitable. I have made it quite clear to people, but it is incredible, isn't it, that the Member of Parliament for Elmet should suggest alternative sites and suggest, as we have been told, Halton Moor - a regeneration area. A regeneration area.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: You weren't there.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Well, I said, "as we have been told", if you had listened.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Who told you - the fairies or someone you believe?

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: No, you didn't mention it. You didn't mention it once.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: I didn't hear you say anything, Bernard, thank you. (Interruptions) Do I get extra time for this?

The final point I will make is, I endorse what has been said. We have enough prisons in this City. (Applause)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com COUNCILLOR MURRAY: I think, Deputy Lord Mayor, it is reasonable the point that is being made about us as Ward Councillors, when an issue as big as this hit our ward, I think it is reasonable to expect that we don't find out about it on the front pages of the Yorkshire Evening Post, which is exactly what happened.

Now, I know you gave me the chronology but all I am saying is, from where we are sitting, from what happened over those months, that is what happened. This is a big thing. We have spent a lot of time talking about it now, Andrew. We should have and we ought to be fully involved in the loop on the information that you have just given to us now. We need to actually be in --- Any Member in this room dealing with this on their patch would be saying that wouldn't they? "Please let us know what's happening. Let us tell you what the people in my ward are telling us, and let us contribute and get that information back to where it ought to go", and unfortunately that is not the position. Someone from outside the ward, another Councillor from Wetherby, finds out before we did, and that is what happened, Andrew, and it should not have happened, and I think most Members would nod and agree with that because if it happened to them they would fully support what I am saying. COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Why didn't your MP tell them? Didn't he know? That's the question I want answered. When did your MP know?

COUNCILLOR MURRAY: No, no. I work for Leeds City Council. I work for Leeds City Council, Andrew. I expect Leeds City Council and the Officers that we pay to tell us on issues as big as this that are going to affect my constituents as they have, I should have been told by yourself, or by somebody in here, not a month later, because that is exactly what happened.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Why didn't your MP tell you? When did he know and why didn't he tell you?

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Carter, can you allow Councillor Murray to sum up. (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR MURRAY: My next point is --- The next point that was made is about the motion itself, and Andrew is quite right, actually. He might actually say that the original motion was woeful. I don't know if you remember what the original motion was, but let me tell you what it is, "That this Council opposes any plans to build a prison in the Garforth area". Well,

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com if he thinks that is woeful, I will tell the people in Garforth that, because that is what the people in Garforth want to hear. That's what the people in Garforth --- They don't understand why, in a legalistic sort of way, this Council couldn't deal at this particular time with that particular motion. They don't understand rules of planning.

They don't understand that the process would exclude any Member who might have voted on that today from what is going to happen in the future, possibly in the future, unlikely in the future, but if it is to happen our position is this: We want members in this chamber to be actually acting, listening, we want them taking part in that process. We don't want them excluded from it, so that's the reason why. That is the reason why that woeful motion that you have called was changed. It wasn't woeful. It was to the point, simple, and they understood what we were trying to do and trying to achieve. Obviously you didn't.

On the other hand, Councillor Wakefield pinches the line that I was going to use because I have also got the Garforth Voice, "Conservatives would stop Labour's prison" and he read it out, you know, "Stop Labour's prison." Conservatives would stop that. Where is the evidence? What is going to tell us? Cheryl Gillan, the MP, says she would review totally Labour's prison plans but, Keith, you didn't finish the sentence. He didn't finish the sentence. He should have done because in it it gets stronger. There is strong commitment from this MP, "It seems - it seems - wholly inappropriate for a number of reasons." That is very strong, isn't it? That's how you can get a headline like that. It hardly stacks up.

But finally let me tell you why you should vote for our motion and not theirs. (Interruptions) Shush. Let me tell you why you should vote for our motion and not theirs. Just look at it. It has got three "R"s in it. We want to, we regret, we request and we want to work with residents, and that's what our motion is about. "We note with regret a plan to build a new prison in Garforth. Yes? We want to make sure that the right people, the important people at Government level, get that message, and they get that message strongly from the people in Garforth.

Why? The City. That's the other element of the debate. Why? I will tell you this: Garforth is being targeted. The Prison Services are targeting

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com Garforth, aren't they? That is where they want to put it. That's where they are going to put it if they can. That is why I want your support and if you don't support the word "Garforth" in it, I suspect you are in trouble in Garforth. You have changed it. I will take this to the people in Garforth and say "Garforth" not mentioned in your motion. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR PROCTER: Can I request a recorded vote, please.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS: Lord Mayor, on a very important point of clarification, please, because I would like somebody, it would help us considerably if somebody could read out exactly what the amendment says, please. Could you do that for us, Deputy Lord Mayor, please?

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Yes. The amendment reads, "This Council regrets the Government's decision to shortlist Garforth ---" (Interruptions) Can you sit down, Councillor Carter. I don't think I need to go on.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: My Lord Mayor, on a point of information, is that how Councillor Murray forgot the 10 million deficit in the Social Services' budget? (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Procter, you asked for a recorded vote. Have I got a seconder for that?

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: I second, my Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Had he forgotten that he had been informed about the budgets last year? (Interruptions)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Can I have a vote on the recorded vote.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Would all Members ensure, please, that they are in their allocated seats, refer to their desk units and press the button marked "P" in order to activate the unit. Those Members in favour of the amendment in the name of Councillor Millard please press the "+" button. Those Members against that motion please press the "-" button, and any Member

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com wishing to abstain and have the abstention recorded please press the "0" button.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Atha, have you -- it has not registered your vote.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: Are you drawing attention to my inattention? Thank you.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Yes.

COUNCILLOR ATHA: I had pressed the "P" and I pressed the "-" and I have voted possibly twice now. (Interruptions)

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Right, the vote is now complete.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: We have 52 "Yes" votes and 39 "No" and no abstentions, so the amendment is carried. So that becomes the substantive motion and we have a vote on that. (Interruptions)

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Will the real Chief Whip please stand up.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Those against?

COUNCILLOR PROCTER: Lord Mayor, can we also have a recorded vote on this?

COUNCILLOR J. L. CARTER: I second, my Lord Mayor. (Interruptions)

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Would all Members ensure, please, that they have not moved their seats in the last two minutes. Please refer to their desk unit, press the button marked "P" to activate the unit, and those Members in favour of the substantive motion should please press the "+" button. Those against ---

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: Councillor Kirkland's is not working.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: We will sort it afterwards. Those Members against the motion, including Councillor Atha, should please press the "-" button, and any Member wishing to abstain and have the abstention recorded should please press the "0" button. (Interruptions)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Councillor Schofield, how do you wish to register your vote? Coming up. Thank you. Has everyone voted how they wish? Yes, we know about Councillor Kirkland.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Okay, the electronic part of the vote is now completed.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: We have 52 on the "Yes" vote and we have 25 abstentions and one "No" vote.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: And a number of people clearly not there.

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: So the substantive motion is carried.

COUNCILLOR A. CARTER: We should record our thanks to the Deputy Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Obviously we have finished now, and I wish you all a safe journey home. Thank you.

(Council rose at 9 p.m.)

PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version http://www.fineprint.com