Leeds City Council Meeting of The

LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

MEETING OF THE COUNCIL

Held on

Monday, 1 st July 2013

THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC HALL, LEEDS

In the Chair:

THE LORD MAYOR (COUNCILLOR T MURRAY)

------

VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

------

Transcribed from the notes of J L Harpham Ltd., Official Court Reporters and Media Transcribers, Queen’s Buildings, 55, Queen Street, Sheffield, S1 2DX

------

VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF LEEDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MONDAY, 1 st JULY 2013

THE LORD MAYOR: Good afternoon everybody, and welcome to this July Council meeting. I am going to begin by giving the customary polite notice to Members about their mobile phones and other electrical equipment. Can you just check to make sure that they are switched off? Thank you for doing that.

I am going to move on to announcements. The first announcement I would like to make is rather sad because it is with great sadness that I report the recent death, on 21 st May, of Honorary Alderman Peggy White, CBE. I attended the Memorial Service on Friday, 7 th June. Honorary Alderman White was the Chairman of Leeds City Council Social Services Committee between 1975 and 1980 and it was in recognition of her work in Social Services for this city for which she earned a national reputation and was made a CBE. I think all our thoughts are with her and her family. Can I please ask you to stand for a minute’s silence.

(Silent tribute)

THE LORD MAYOR: I will move on to some good news first. I would like to congratulate the following, who were honoured in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List:

Professor Nicola Cullum who got the Dame Commander; Linda Pollard, who got a CBE; Geoffrey Lister, a CBE; Tina Brown, MBE; Peter Latham, MBE; Mrs Quirk, MBE; Rosalind Savage, MBE; Sarah Williams, MBE; Pauline Gavin, OBE.

Pauline is not from Leeds, she was awarded it for services to education as headteacher of St Bartholomew’s Church of England School, Armley. As Lord Mayor I have written to all of them, congratulated them and sent our best wishes.

I would also like just to mention a letter I have had from the Major Rifles Secretary for Yorkshire about the Freedom of Leeds Parade that we had. The Rifles exercise the Freedom of Leeds, it was a truly successful event, he has written, thoroughly enjoyed by all who took part. He is thanking all the staff for the co- operation and professional manner in which they worked with the Rifles to co- ordinate all the detail which goes into such a cracking event to become a lovely event.

I think that is the end of my announcements.

ITEM 1 – MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 th MAY 12013.

THE LORD MAYOR: I would like to move on to the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 th May 2013. Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move the Minutes be received.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: I second that, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: I would like to call for the vote. (A vote was taken) That is CARRIED, thank you for that.

ITEM 2 – DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

THE LORD MAYOR: Item 2, which is Declarations of Interests. I would like to invite Member to disclose any disclosable pecuniary interests that they would like to make for this afternoon’s meeting. (Pause) I do not think there are any, so we will move on.

ITEM 3 – COMMUNICATIONS.

THE LORD MAYOR: I will ask the Chief Executive to report on Communications.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: No communications, Lord Mayor.

ITEM 4 - DEPUTATIONS

THE LORD MAYOR: Can we move on to Deputations then.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Yes, to report that there are four deputations: first, Hands Off Our Homes, regarding spare bedrooms in Council homes; second, Save Primrose Hill Care Home Campaign, regarding Primrose Hill Care Home; third, Morley Against Reckless Construction (MARC), regarding the proposed building of 8,000 plus homes in the Morley area; and fourth, families of residents of Manorfield House Residential Home in Horsforth, regarding possible closure.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move that all the Deputations be received.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: I second that, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Can I call for the vote? (A vote was taken) That is unanimous and that is CARRIED.

DEPUTATION ONE – HANDS OFF OUR HOMES

THE LORD MAYOR: Good afternoon and welcome to today’s Council meeting. Please make your speech to Council, which should not be longer than five minutes, and please begin by introducing the people in your Deputation.

MR I DALTON: My name is Iain Dalton, this is Carole O’Keefe, Jon Owen, Armardeep Singh Burde and Simon Conneff.

The Bedroom Tax, (or under occupation rule) was brought in three months ago today and affects more than 9,000 people across Leeds who are social housing tenants receiving housing benefit. People who are considered to have one or more spare rooms have had their housing benefit cut by between 14% and 25%. This cut is affecting thousands of families with children and is disproportionately affecting people with disabilities.

We are a group of Leeds citizens, some of us employed, some unemployed, some social housing tenants, others home owners or private renters. Some of us are directly affected by these cuts but all of us have family, friends, neighbours who are affected and we have come together as Hands off our Homes to support those who have been hit, to defend homes and to campaign against this unjust tax.

Since we formed just over a year ago we have held meetings and formed local groups across the city in those areas most heavily impacted - from Middleton to Gipton, Woodhouse and Armley. Our meetings have been attended by hundreds of people, we have spoken to hundreds more on estates in Hunslet and Seacroft and in high rise blocks in Cottingley, Little London and Lincoln Green. In April more than a thousand people marched through the centre of Leeds asking that you, our Councillors take a stand against this tax which, on top of Council Tax benefit cuts, rising food and fuel costs is forcing thousands in this city deeper into debt and poverty.

We have talked to parents in Harehills and in Armley who have started to miss meals to feed their children and in winter will sacrifice heat to keep a roof over their family’s head; to a 56-year old man in Hunslet, who is confused and frightened by the cuts to his Council Tax and Housing Benefit and now refuses to leave his house; a young man living alone in a high rise in Lincoln Green who told us he was considering ending his life; a single father in Woodhouse whose children have now left home and has to find £20 out of his weekly allowance of £71 and is now cutting down on food, who is hungry and ashamed and isolated; a grandmother in Beeston whose home of 23 years is the only place that her grandkids can see their dad; a grandmother in Morley who looks after her disabled grandson to give her daughter some respite; a grandmother in Seacroft whose grandchildren stay over so their mum can work nights.

None of these are spare rooms. They are part of a home and all the different functions that a home plays in the life of families. Every case is an injustice.

We are deeply concerned at the repeated stories from tenants of Housing Officers putting pressure on people to cut back on essentials in order to pay the rent, suggesting that one single father, a full time carer, uses his son’s disability benefit to pay the shortfall; refusing to give a woman with learning disabilities in Lincoln Green a Discretionary Housing Payment form; telling a woman with severe mental health problems that she will be out on the street if she does not pay up, that rent comes before food.

These are not isolated cases we have been hearing the same thing across the city. In Armley, in Little London and in Woodhouse these issues have been taken to local Councillors who have said they will investigate. So far we have heard nothing.

Tenants have been told they can downsize or increase their hours but we know that there are simply not enough jobs or houses to go round. In the last three years the Council has let only 1,500 single bed properties - 4,500 of those affected by the bedroom tax are looking for a one bed property. The biggest increase in people claiming housing benefit is from those in low paid work and in the last four years, Leeds has lost more jobs than any other major UK city outside of London.

We are here to ask the Council to commit strongly to opposing this horrendous measure and to take responsibility for the way in which it is being implemented. We know that Leeds City Council did not introduce this tax but your hands are not tied. It is unacceptable that vulnerable, desperate, depressed people should feel harassed in their own homes by the behaviour of Housing Officers. It is unacceptable that this should continue and we are calling for the Council to investigate the training and practices of Housing Officers.

We welcome the fact that the Council has already re-classified around 800 homes but this is just a drop in the ocean and needs to be expanded further. We are asking that you follow the example of other Councils across the UK and pledge not to evict people who are in arrears as a result of the Bedroom Tax. We are asking that you admit the false economy of spending money chasing people for money they do not have and pledge to write off arrears resulting from the Bedroom Tax.

Finally, it is plain to see that social housing tenants are being blamed for chronic housing crisis that they did not cause. The only solution to this will be to build more social housing. Thanks very much. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move that the Deputation be sent to the Executive Board for consideration.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: I second that, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: (A vote was taken) That is CARRIED.

Thank you for attending and for what you have said. You will be kept informed of the consideration which your comments will receive. Good afternoon. Thank you. (Applause)

DEPUTATION TWO – SAVE PRIMROSE HILL CARE HOME CAMPAIGN

MR D MORTON: Good afternoon. I am David Morton representing the Save Primrose Hill Campaign and our Deputation includes Angela Morton, Simon Ambrose and Karlis Obrams

The 2011 Census confirmed that the percentage of population over 65 in the Wetherby area is 23% and in Leeds it is 15% - indeed the UK is only 16%. By 2031 the number of over 75- year olds in Wetherby area will have increased by 26,400 or 49%, and this is without taking into account of all the additional new build housing being approved by the Council over future years.

Because of this, for some four months we have run a very robust campaign. Primrose was purpose built some 30 years ago following lobbying by local Councillor William Hill, who recognised a requirement for a residential care home in Boston Spa, there being no other in the immediate area. Fundamentally, that situation has not changed and closing Primrose is merely removing a level of care which has been, is and will continue to be vital to local elderly people who require 24 hours support and can no longer live in their own home even with carer visits. It can be home for 33 residents and the 27 who live there now are mainly in their 90s and some even 101.

Our Campaign has received good publicity through newspaper, TV, radio and social media. We have gathered support totalling 6,185 people. Letters have been received from the residents, their families including grandchildren, friends, Bishops, many clergy, hospital doctors, Round Table, WiSE, and Town and Parish Councils and Alec Shelbrooke, MP.

By touching all quarters of all local communities to ensure we gathered a representative view of local opinion, we have received 100% support to keep open Primrose and not a single voice in favour of closing.

To date the residents and families have not been given any indication of what and where will be the alternative accommodation. Many families and friends live on the doorstep of Primrose and visit daily. Many of the immediate family, sons and daughters, are ageing themselves, so this is extremely convenient and cost effective. Forcing them to travel greater distances will mean less regular visits, more costly travel and certainly more difficult travelling in the winter months. All this will contribute to increase the carbon footprint by up to 50 tonnes per annum CO 2 therefore breaching Leeds’ Climate Change Strategy. Indeed, some families have moved their mum or dad from further afield to have them locally so they can visit daily and this has in all cases been health and mentally beneficial to the resident.

Some sons and daughters have not yet told their mothers or fathers about the planned closure and being moved to another home because they are so concerned about mum and dad’s reaction, the impact on their health and wellbeing.

Indeed, there is evidence supported by the medical profession to show that moving older people of great ages is not just health threatening but life threatning.

Financially the case for closing Primrose seems not to add up. Baseed on figures provided by Council the analysis does show that closing Primrose will cost Leeds some quarter of a million pounds per annum and if there are no self-funding residents, this could rise to £600,000 and that is before any resident is reassessed as requiring higher cost dementia or nursing care.

On the question of numbers, in Mr Holme’s report dated 15 February to the Executive Board, the table on the last page has an error of over £1.2m and so all other numbers must be questionable. Is Council aware of these errors?

It seems that Leeds is determined to relinquish its responisibilities by passing the care of older, frail and defenceless people over to the private sector. The financial case for this is very questionable. Mr Holmes has confirmed Leeds does outsource to the private sector at £429 per person per week. He claims Primrose costs over £700. However, Council numbers show the actual running cost of Primrose to be £647.

Private care homes east of Leeds charge from £650 through to £800 so, when Age UK state that private care homes are closing at the rate of 12% per year (and increasing because 28 closed in 2008 and 67 in 2012), it seems Leeds is closing its own care homes and putting elderly folks’ futures at risk by relinquishing responsibility to an under-funded private sector.

We hope that you will agree to keep open Primrose Hill and thank you for your attention. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move that the matter be referred to the Executive Board for consideration.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: I second that, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: (A vote was taken) That is CARRIED.

Thank you for attending and for what you have said. You will be kept informed of the consideration which your comments will receive. Good afternoon. Thank you. (Applause)

DEPUTATION THREE – MORLEY AGAINST RECKLESS CONSTRUCTION

THE LORD MAYOR: Good afternoon and welcome to today’s Council meeting. Please now make your speech to Council, which should not be longer than five minutes, and please begin by introducing your colleague.

MR J AVEYARD: Lord Mayor, members of Council, I am Jim Aveyard, my colleague is Peter Barrie. There are other colleagues in the public gallery.

This deputation by members of MARC (Morley Against Reckless Construction) is to raise the issue of imminent over development in the Morley area by the proposed allocation of land for the building of up to 8,000 houses. References to Morley relate to the Borough of Morley that was subsumed by Leeds in 1974. Since then many greenfield sites, in every part of the Borough have been given over to housing developments, some involving many hundreds of properties. There are brownfield sites within Morley that are still not being used to provide affordable housing. Why the clamour for our green fields when areas that need improvement are ignored? Why do we need to build large numbers of houses on our green fields when there are houses already built but not occupied within the city? Why is there no plan to bring these empty homes back into use? Doing that would generate council tax revenue, provide jobs for local tradesmen, generate business for local suppliers and keep money in the Leeds area.

This dash for greenfield development is underpinned by the Local Development Framework (LDF). We believe this to be a flawed document that fails to substantiate the need for all these houses proposed across the city in general and the disproportionate numbers proposed for the Morley area in particular. Figures from the 2011 census show that Leeds did not grow at the rate predicted in the LDF, even though the decade covered by that survey was largely one of boom. The LDF is strangely quiet on where this growth is likely to come from.

Mortgages are difficult to obtain and many buyers struggle to find the deposit needed to make their first purchase. This may well result in half completed estates or half empty estates with all the problems that brings.

Morley struggles to cope with its existing population. Schools are full. If these developments produce just one school age child per household, where does the Council propose to educate a further 8,000 children? Money given by developers cannot create space where no space exists in schools and the money would not cover the cost of a new school. The situation is critical; children are being transported to other parts of the city adding to rush hour congestion. Public transport, particularly from some of the areas proposed for development ranges from poor to non-existent. The railway station is remote and rush hour trains are always full when they arrive at Morley, resulting in passengers having to stand for the journey to Leeds. People with mobility problems are at even greater disadvantage as the station and environs do not cater for their needs.

If each household provides an average of three residents where are the proposed health centres to cope with an additional 24,000 patients? Waiting time for a GP appointment is already up to three weeks. Where are the proposed Dental Surgeries, where is the provision for care for the elderly and infirm?

If these new homes produce an average of 1.5 cars per household, easily attained on the road where I live, then we can expect a further 12,000 cars on roads that cannot cope with the cars already using them. There are three major north/south roads linking Leeds with Kirklees and Calderdale. All are extremely congested at peak times. There is one major east/west road, the A650, that links Bradford and Wakefield and runs through an area of Morley that has been earmarked for much of the proposed development. This road is congested at the best of times but gridlocks when there are incidents on the adjacent M62. These incidents are not unusual. The

Highways Agency is very concerned about the A650 corridor, and with very good reason.

Leeds is not alone in wishing to develop along the A650 corridor. Bradford and Wakefield each have proposals to develop up to the Morley boundary and Kirklees are proposing to develop along the A653, resulting in Leeds and Kirklees becoming a continuous urban area at Woodkirk/Chidswell. Why has there been no consultation between Councils when these plans have been in the development stage? Morley will be the centre of an overdeveloped, under resourced urban sprawl unless this plan is given serious reconsideration.

We also want to know why when a Planning Panel refused permission for two sites were the sites revisited within days by another Planning Panel? It must have been known that a change was imminent. Why the waste of time and public money? We do not believe that the Council has taken any of notice of the objections raised by local people who, unlike developers, pay Council Tax year on year and deserve better treatment from this elected Chamber.

Do Council departments talk to each other or have all the crystal balls fogged up? We suspect the latter as we would otherwise have expected these problems to have been spotted and some attempts made to sort them out. As it is, it would appear to be left to Morley to either sort it or put up with it.

We believe we deserve better from you. Thank you for listening and sorry for the speed of presentation. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move that the matter be referred to the Executive Board for consideration.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: I second that, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: (A vote was taken) That is CARRIED.

Thank you for attending and for what you have said. You will be kept informed of the consideration which your comments will receive. Good afternoon. Thank you. (Applause)

DEPUTATION FOUR – FAMILIES OF RESIDENTS OF MANORFIELD HOUSE RESIDENTIAL HOME, HORSFORTH

MS J CHAPMAN: Good afternoon. I am Julia Chapman and with me are Patricia and Andrew Holt and Ian and Beth Dawson. We are all here because our relatives live at Manorfield House in Horsforth, one of the Leeds City Council’s five Council run homes identified for possible closure.

The consultation process agreed at the Executive Board on 15 February ended on 3 June and the matter will be considered at the Executive Board in September 2013.

There are 21 permanent residents at Manorfield House the youngest, aged 75, having lived there for nearly 20 years and the oldest, aged 102, for nearly six years. The majority of residents are in their late 80s or older.

Manorfield is a general residential care home not a specialist facility. However, all the residents have been assessed as needing 24 hour care and would not be candidates for the Extra Care Housing model presented to the Executive Board in February.

The relatives of the elderly and vulnerable residents at Manorfield are horrified at the prospect of their family members having to move home at this stage in their lives, and this is their home. At least one resident moved to Manorfield as part of the last round of Leeds City Council closures, and they and their family did not expect to be subject to the same disruption again.

Families have praised the care given by the staff at Manorfield, many of whom have worked there for the majority of their careers. As well as that there have been many positive comments about the fabric of the building and significant negative ones about the accommodation provided by the private sector nearby.

However, many of the questions raised by relatives challenging the information provided in support of the proposed closure remain unanswered and need to be addressed before the Council can consider the proposal with the benefit of full disclosure.

LCC’s Budget for 2013/14 reflects anticipated savings from closing the care homes. Regardless of what has been said about this being a standard accountancy treatment, it makes a mockery of the consultation process, suggests that it is nothing other than a box ticking exercise and means that the democratic process is a farce. Can the Council please confirm that they are approaching this matter with open minds and taking into account the numerous representations made?

In terms of the detailed questions that have been raised, we have been told that the fabric of the building at Manorfield is not fit for purpose, yet our offers to accompany Members and Officers to view private sector homes in the near vicinity (which we know to be inferior) have been ignored. Is anyone willing to undertake such visits with us?

We are also told that Manorfield’s room sizes and corridor widths do not meet the 2002 Health and Social Care Act, but that these standards were dropped by the CQC so no minimum is now required. Despite this, LCC consider it best practice to comply with the Act in its own homes when privately run homes have no such obligation or aspirations.

Manorfield’s rooms, most of which have en-suite toilets, are bigger than the majority of the private sector care home stock. Details of private care homes in the area which meet these room size requirements have been requested but not provided.

Extensive renovations were carried out at Manorfield in 2004, yet no-one seems able to confirm what was done. We are asked to rely on a non-disruptive visual survey by the Council’s preferred supplier to confirm a figure of £384,000 for unspecified electrical works which apparently need to be carried out in the next one to five years. Would any Councillor undertake works to their own private property based on information like this, and can we please have a more accurate assessment?

The statistics for demand for residential accommodation in Horsforth (now and in 2020) have been based on a model using assumptions about current levels of demand and then projecting forward. The assumptions bear no resemblance to reality, understating the current levels of demand significantly, actual residents being around 96 compared to modelled demand of only 38. The forecasts for 2020 must be treated with the same scepticism. This data could have been checked easily but was not. Why not?

We are told that the weekly unit cost for a place at Manorfield is £735, yet the Quality Framework Agreement put in place with independent care providers means a payment by LCC to the independent sector of £429 per week, and this amount presumably includes profit. Adult Social Care say there is nothing further they can do to reduce the unit costs of running their homes. Given the figures above, has this statement been tested by anyone outside Adult Social Care and, if not, why not?

On 8 May 2013, ADASS stated that almost 60% of members expected private firms that they rely on to suffer financial difficulties in the next two years. If LCC pay so much less than market rates to private providers, this is hardly surprising.

We have been told that “no-one will be financially disadvantaged as a result of a home being closed”. Confirmation has been given that no-one will have to pay any more than they do now if they have to move, so presumably either LCC will have to meet significant top up costs or they will reject private care homes deemed too expensive. Is that correct? If all five homes closed with around 200 residents looking for alternative private accommodation in Leeds at the same time, where will everyone be accommodated near to their existing homes?

In conclusion, the Council will be judged by how it looks after its elderly residents. Most of us would like to have the option to remain in our own home, but the residents in Manorfield and the other homes cannot do that. Is the Council committed to caring for its residents or is it committed to ticking boxes?

Thank you for listening to us and we look forward to getting answers in the near future to the questions we have raised. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move that the matter be referred to the Executive Board for consideration.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: I second that, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: (A vote was taken) That is CARRIED.

Thank you for attending and for what you have said. You will be kept informed of the consideration which your comments will receive. Good afternoon. Thank you again. (Applause)

ITEM 5 – REPORTS ON APPOINTMENTS

THE LORD MAYOR: I am going to move on to Item number 5, which is the Reports on Appointments. Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move that the Report of the City Solicitor of Appointments be noted.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Nash.

COUNCILLOR NASH: I second, my Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: I would like to call on the vote. (A vote was taken) That seems unanimous. CARRIED.

ITEM 6 – SCRUTINY ANNUAL REPORT

THE LORD MAYOR: Let me go to Scrutiny Annual Report, Item 6. Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Can I move the Scrutiny Annual Report in the terms of the Notice set out and reserve my comments to having listened to Scrutiny Chairs. Thank you, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: I second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Grahame to comment.

COUNCILLOR P GRAHAME: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Many Councillors in this Chamber are Members of Scrutiny Boards and they will go to all of our Scrutiny Boards and spend a great deal of time examining, debating and challenging decisions and policies that affect the Council, the city and wider region, yet there are very few opportunities at Council meetings to highlight the hard work and the considerable achievements of the Boards. That is why I thought it was so important to spend a few minutes today discussing our work and I am delighted to see other colleagues are highlighting valuable work of their individual Boards.

Over the last year my own Scrutiny Board, Resources and Council Services, has developed its role as a critical friend to Executive Board Members. Our results show very clearly that the challenge of Scrutiny strengthens and improves decision making, which ultimately benefits the residents of Leeds.

Most recently my own Board has challenged the current arrangements for the letting of community centres. We have recognised that the system simply is not clear to users at the moment. We have challenged the Executive Board Members and the Directorate to introduce a clearer charging structure. At the moment five Directorates are involved in the letting of community centres. The internal recharging process that

follows is expensive, complicated and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Our work to change this situation is ongoing.

One of the biggest challenges facing this Council in both social and economic terms is welfare change. My Board has spent a considerable amount of time looking at the implications of Government welfare changes to the Local Authority. One of our recommendations to the Executive Board was that the Council should consider redesignation of some bedroom space.

George Osborne’s spending review last week confirmed that the massive challenges facing the Council are not going to get any easier over coming years. For that reason it is essential that we continue to find ways to work more efficiently, more effectively. Scrutiny has a vital role to play in making that a reality. We need to encourage more collaborative working between our own departments but also need to look outwards more regularly to work with public, private and voluntary partners if we are to continue to ensure people in Leeds have access to high quality services while working within increasingly tough budget constraints.

The Leader has spoken very passionately about the need to encourage civic enterprise in Leeds. That ethos is very much reflected in the work of my Board. Personally I believe that civic enterprise will be hugely important if we are to really make meaningful progress in tackling poverty and inequality in our city.

Finally, in my capacity as Chair I want to thank all of those Members who have worked so hard in my Board. The work that has been undertaken has been hugely valuable and I hope you will deliver further successes in 2013/14. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Illingworth.

COUNCILLOR ILLINGWORTH: Thank you, Lord Mayor. We have had a good outcome so far from the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee but I must remind Council, we have only completed round one; there may be several more rounds still to fight.

The success achieved to date is due in no small part to my predecessor, Councillor Dobson, who had the great good sense to establish the Joint HOSC in the first place, and Councillor Mulherin, who led the Committee through the darkest days of the information blackout when it was extremely difficult for Members to discover what was going on.

None of the elected Members could have succeeded without the excellent work from Mr Steven Courtney in the Scrutiny Support Unit.

Lord Mayor, it is already clear that Health Scrutiny in the future will centre to a large extent around clinical performance data, not just for children’s heart surgery but right across the piece. We have a real opportunity to improve health outcomes for ordinary people but there are some serious dangers here.

Lord Mayor, hospital league tables are open to precisely the same objections as school league tables, in that results do not depend solely on the skills and dedication of the clinicians; they also vary with the size of the unit and with the amount of cash, the detailed mix of cases and with the socioeconomic status of the patients. A surgeon who takes on difficult cases is likely to produce worse results that someone who only treats the easy ones. The same problem will arise with private sector providers, who might like to cherrypick the most profitable cases from the NHS. We should also be aware of the risk that patients will be kept alive

artificially when nature should have been allowed to take its course, simply to meet some 30 day performance target.

Unfortunately, the task of scrutinising this important area is impeded by the inherent secrecy that is prevalent in the NHS. It is not a transparent organisation and, despite the many fine words in Parliament, it still has some way to go. I and my colleagues on the Health Scrutiny Committee have recently been refused access to cardiac outcomes data held by CCAT and NICOR on the basis of an entirely spurious concern for patient confidentiality. We actually know that all the confidential details are securely encrypted within the database. Nevertheless, it appears that a privileged group of academic researchers enjoyed free access to this allegedly confidential data and they are not afraid to use it in a highly partisan and thoroughly unhelpful fashion. Professor Jarman will be on television tonight with the latest attempt to denigrate the Children’s Heart Unit at the LGI using data which we cannot see and questionable research methods which nobody can effectively challenge.

We will make little progress in improving the NHS, Lord Mayor, until we can break down this unjustified secrecy, protecting personal details from unauthorised publication but also providing sufficient information to allow malpractice to be speedily identified and stopped. This cannot lie exclusively on the Care Quality Commission; there is also a role, Lord Mayor, for Healthwatch and Scrutiny here. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Rafique.

COUNCILLOR RAFIQUE: Lord Mayor, it goes without saying that Local Government is facing a change which we have not seen for generations. Ever increasing social challenges, extra demand for key services and reduced funding from Government mean we are facing very difficult decisions. As part of our response we have to change the way we work as a Council and do our business. From a Scrutiny perspective we have the opportunity to help influence the shape of future services and encourage new working practices. I am pleased to have been part of that process over the last year and look forward to tackling further challenges this year.

As Councillor Grahame has already highlighted, partnership working has been at the heart of the many recommendations my Board has made. We have recognised the need to engage with others within the city and the region in order to ensure we fulfil our aspirations for Leeds and its residents. That is why we have involved partners so closely in the work with the Board over the last twelve months.

Bus company representatives, customer representatives have worked alongside Councillors and officers as part of our Board’s bus services enquiry. The Environment Agency and the Local Flood Group were represented when we carried out an enquiry into flood risk management. When we considered the marketing promotion in the city, Leeds and Partners joined our debate along with several major arts organisations.

We have also actively tried to engage joint working internally. I thoroughly enjoyed working with Health and Wellbeing and Children and Families Boards on Public Health. We focused on the Leeds Let’s Get Active Scheme and while the work is still ongoing, I believe our joint approach will deliver better outcomes for the people of Leeds.

In talking about the difference Scrutiny can make to Council policies, I feel I ought to mention that this year the Council adopted new arrangements and planning guidelines that emerged from Scrutiny recommendations. Now, thanks to the Board,

whenever the Council is making significant purchases or considering major developments, officers are considering opportunities for local people to benefit through jobs and skills requirements.

We have another full programme ahead of us this year, Lord Mayor, which will focus heavily on community engagement. That will include involvement in the Tour de France, the work with cultural organisations in our local communities and the role of Leeds Let’s Get Active in promoting public health. We will also be looking at how Council policies can promote jobs and tackle worklessness across the city.

While we have huge challenges ahead of us, I am pleased that Scrutiny Boards will be part of providing some of the solutions. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Anderson.

COUNCILLOR ANDERSON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Can I first of all pay tribute to all the Members of my Scrutiny Board over the last year and those who have left, sorry you have gone; those who have come along or come back again, in the case of Councillor Coupar, welcome back again. I would also like to thank as well the two Exec Members for the way that they have worked with me over the last year. At times we have had some candid and sharp conversations but I have been taken into confidences by both of them in order to try and get the best thing there is for the city, so I thank them for that. I also want to pay tribute to Angela Brogden; I would not be half the Scrutiny Chair I am today if it was not for the help and support that I get from her in terms of delivering the agenda I have been asked.

What have we done in the last year? We looked at the West Yorkshire Fire Authority proposals and we came up with a critical comment about how they could try and improve things. We responded to the policing reforms by responding direct to the Police Commissioner, to the Safer Leeds Partnership and we also worked along with our colleagues in the Police and Crime Panel as well.

We tried to build a relationship with local Councils, we did an enquiry into Parish and Town Councils. We have come up with some suggestions. Some of you may have discussed them at your Area Committees, some may still have to do so, but I think it is an important area.

We looked at the Community First Programme after Councillor Golton brought to our attention a number of anomalies, that basically this was a programme that was going over the heads of everybody in this Council Chamber and it had been implemented direct by the Government. We did not really appear to have much control over it. We have made some critical comment of it, they say they are taking it on board so only time will tell what has happened there.

In terms of the Green agenda, we looked into the ground maintenance contract. We have made a number of suggestions and recommendations – they have been taken up. So far we have not had the monsoons we had last year so let us say the jury is out, but so far, so good and let us hope it continues. We have also carried out a review into recycling as well and we continue to monitor it.

In the final few words, I do also want to pay my personal tribute to the work that John Illingworth has done this year because he has shown what Scrutiny can do, what it is capable of doing when we all work together and we work damn hard to get where we have. Thank you, John. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Resign, John! (laughter)

THE LORD MAYOR: Let us move on! Councillor Chapman.

COUNCILLOR CHAPMAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. The main focus of the Children and Families Scrutiny Board during 2012/13 has been on driving improvement in the way the Council and partners provide services for children and young people. We have maintained a work programme which has enabled the Scrutiny Board to engage with a wide number of stakeholders, resulting in significant influence on policy development at a local and national level. The private care home enquiry is a good example of this.

Last year whilst I was Chair, the Children and Families Board focused on the following significant issues: private care homes, private fostering needs, the best start in life and, finally, the deficit in attainment in maths and English. In three minutes it is impossible for me to go into detail with these but I am happy to discuss the work of the Board with any individual at any time.

However, I would like to thank the Members of the Board and the Scrutiny Office, in particular my Scrutiny Officer Sandra Pentlow, the Director and Officers of Children’s Services and Councillor Blake for all their hard work and support.

Everyone is working together towards Leeds becoming a child friendly city and we have another busy year ahead of us which will continue to challenge us all. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Procter.

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I had not intended to speak today but I was told by our Chief Whip that as every other Scrutiny Board Chairman was going to speak, I should do so as well. Rather than ask our Scrutiny Officer to spend hours of officer time preparing a screed, as I think has happened with all the other Scrutiny Chairs (interruption) – am I wrong? I do not think I am! I thought I would hoof it, Lord Mayor.

Lord Mayor, I would like to thank all those dedicated Members of the Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Board for their loyal service during the course of the last year. It is the happiest Scrutiny Board on the Council, as you well know, Lord Mayor, and those who come along to that Scrutiny Board do not apply for a transfer, they are quite happy to stay and serve out all of their time. It is so fun and exciting that Councillor Paulene Grahame even serves on my Scrutiny Board…

COUNCILLOR P GRAHAME: I enjoy every minute.

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: …and so enjoyable is it. For those of you who do not believe, come along and see.

Lord Mayor, Richard Mills assists us ably in his efforts. All I would like to say, Lord Mayor, really, is a plea to officers of the Council. Despite the warm words, Scrutiny really is the last preserve of almost every Member in this Chamber. Where once was the day when we all sat on a myriad of committees, Scrutiny now, apart from literally two handfuls, those who sit on the Executive Board, Scrutiny now is the way, the only way, where we all can get involved and have our say. I would just like to remind officers of that, that Scrutiny should not be seen as the opposition or the enemy, it should be seen as the friends, the people who are there holding officers to account, quite rightly, but also an opportunity for Members to be engaged in the workings of the varying departments.

With that, Lord Mayor, I am sure our Scrutiny Board will have a happy year ahead. Thank you. (Applause) .

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen to sum up.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Lord Mayor, I think I have written my own speech as well. Can I say when Councillor Grahame introduced this session in terms of Scrutiny Board being a critical friend and being challenging, I can say that I recognise that in all the Scrutiny Boards that I attend and I genuinely welcome that, because I think no decision is any worse because of thorough discussion and examination and analysis. Usually decisions are better when we can do that.

I also recognise across the six the element of benign dictatorship, shall I say visionary leadership, which all six of them, of course, exemplify within their Boards.

I am very glad to have the support from the Resources Scrutiny Board on the Bedroom Tax. I am delighted that you will join with me when the Government flak comes at some stage. I agree entirely about the community centres. It is a mess, you were right to point it out and we will do something about it.

John Illingworth is a seasoned campaigner and you could tell that he used the opportunity very well to talk not about his Scrutiny Board but about the campaign of secrecy and conspiracy by everyone in Government etc against his Board. Of course, he is totally right, isn’t he, so well done, John, and best of luck in the future.

I agree with Barry that some extremely useful work is done. I say that because he has promised me that this year all the Scrutiny enquiries will be on Mark Dobson’s portfolio and not on mine, so carry on, Barry, well done! The work on floods and the work on Parish Councils and relationships I think is very important.

Can I use the opportunity – you pay tribute, as all of you did, to Members and to officers , also I think in Judith’s case particularly to people out side of the Council, the co-opted Members who also do a great deal of work. Barry, you also reminded us that Members can refer issues, like Councillor Golton and Community First, and that is something that John Procter referred to, Members can pick up issues, refer them to Scrutiny, get them investigated.

I worry slightly when John refers to his Board as being loyal, because I wonder who they are loyal to, John.

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: Have a guess.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: I am sure they are loyal totally to the Council and make certain that we benefit as an Executive Board and the proof of the pudding is that most of the recommendations are heard, honoured, valued and implemented. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Scrutiny Annual Report, I would like to call for the vote. (A vote was taken) I think that is unanimous, thank you. CARRIED

ITEM 7 – RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD - NEW GENERATION TRANSPORT

THE LORD MAYOR: Item 7, Recommendations of the Executive Board – New Generation Transport. Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Can I move the minutes in terms of the notice and reserve my right to speak to the end. Thank you, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: I formally second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Bentley.

COUNCILLOR J BENTLEY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I would like to oppose the recommendation made in this report and in opposing the motion I do want to make it clear that I am not opposed to a new generation transport system. I am in favour of a modern, emission free, congestion busting public transport system for Leeds. I understand how we have got where we have got. Over the last 20 to 30 years when it comes to public transport we have justifiably seen ourselves as being overlooked by successive Governments in favour of other major cities and our economy and growth prospects were suffering. When we could not get the Supertram, we were offered the bus and we understandably jumped on it.

Contrary to a lot of the information that has been put out, the Department for Transport did not specify or insist on a trolleybus, merely an appropriate bus-based system. It was the proposers, Metro and Leeds City Council, who have locked themselves into a trolleybus system.

There are many aspects of the scheme that we could agree with. I am not convinced, however, that the spur up to Holt Park is needed or wanted and there are many road closures which I think are unnecessary. However, I accept that some of those issues are still negotiable.

There are two main sticking points. They are the environmental impact and the choice of technology and these are two sides of the same coin. If we choose the right technology we can reduce the environmental impact.

The route of the scheme is going to be cluttered with unsightly overhead wires, with poles and gantries to support them, and in order to achieve this clutter, over 400 mature trees are going to be cut down with all the consequences that entails on Streetscene, Public Health, local amenity, wildlife, etc. If we had a bus technology that did away with the need for overhead wires it would reduce the impact on the environment significantly and, despite what Metro says, that technology is available; hybrid buses, electric buses, hydrogen cell buses, all running on public transport systems across the country as we speak.

Why commit ourselves for years and years to come to an outdated technology the implementation of which is going to seriously damage our environment for generations?

I am a great admirer of the work of Councillor Wakefield and our Chief Executive Tom Riordan on the Commission for the Future of Local Government and in that report they talk about a great Liberal concept of civic enterprise. In this city we have a modern bus manufacturer on our doorstep, we have respected academics in transport studies and engineering in our universities and we have a forward looking, progressive Council. Why do we not harness the power of those resources and commit that we will ensure that Leeds has the leading edge wireless bus technology that is worthy of our great city? That indeed would be civic enterprise. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Richard Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I want to address Councillor Bentley’s points in total but I was a bit surprised when I attended a meeting in this building with mainly representatives of the Headingley community where we had this discussion about NGT, that we had a former transport operator here who used to run wagons in the city and he took your approach of saying we should adopt technology that has not been proven, does not exist yet or exists in a prototype version. I thought well, Stuart, I am sure that when you used to buy wagons for your firm you did not buy technology that does not really exist and nobody has tried out because that is very, very dangerous.

I was talking to one expert on trams – and there are a lot of tram fanatics out there – and one thing he said was that actually over 60 years of running trams in Leeds they had not quite got some of that technology right, so in 60 years of not quite getting some of the bits right, so you think that within a couple of years we will be able to roll out electric buses that will run on one of the heaviest, hardest routes in the city. You still do not address the whole issue of how do you segregate traffic, which is actually a huge part of this scheme. I will let my colleagues come back to that.

The key thing to this actual motion is actually regeneration is what NGT can bring to this city. If you look at where the route runs, it runs through New Dock to the Tetley’s site, out to South Leeds. There is huge potential there for bringing jobs and impetus to the economy. It also runs out on Headingley Lane out to what I have described in some ways as the deprived communities out of the top of the line where they need access to jobs. There is a huge amount of regeneration potential in this scheme that people tend to forget about when they are talking about the down sides.

The other big issue is obviously congestion. Congestion is a huge issue for the city and it is a particularly big issue day in, day out on Headingley Lane. We have traffic moving at six miles per hour on average at peak time on Headingley Lane. We must do something about this. If we take Jonathan’s approach we will do nothing. It is not about doing nothing for six months or two years, it is about doing nothing for a decade, or perhaps two decades.

It is often easy to take that kind of way out, listening to the very vociferous people who say “No, no, no”, to everything. Sometimes in this place you have got to have a big idea and you have got to have a bit of vision and that is what sometimes is lacking in some of our colleagues.

The other thing that it brings is the huge benefit, this is the start of a network. I am sure people will get up later and talk about how Leeds has slipped behind. Even Liz Green this morning was talking about how Leeds has slipped behind other cities in its transport network. We have to make a start and it is not just about Belle Isle, it is not just about Holt Park – it is about the whole city and it is about the whole of West Yorkshire. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Leadley.

COUNCILLOR LEADLEY: My Lord Mayor, this is an important matter on which there must be a free vote across all parties. I recall being in a minority of one in opposition to Supertram, which was the parent of NGT. That grew to two, then to five or six or eight. Eventually Supertram fell but not before it had wasted about £40m of public money, which should have been spent far more wisely either within the public transport field or elsewhere.

In reality before Supertram failed in 2005 opposition amongst Councillors was more widespread than it appeared to be and other unbelievers were prevailed upon to maintain a façade of solidarity, sometimes inaccurately described as all party support.

Morley Borough Independents are by no means against public investment, even if it is of little or no benefit to Morley, so long as it is of real public benefit somewhere. In various statements, including letters and articles in newspapers, I supported Kirkstall Forge and Appleby Bridge Railway Stations and the new southern entrance to Leeds Railway Station, all of which now have funding. We supported the Leeds Arena and the City Centre Flood Defence Project, because they promised a worthwhile return on public investment.

We will object to any investment which appears to be unwise and especially to anything which carries the risk of us being caught in a Barnsley trap in which we would have to pay for someone else’s white elephant.

Judging by the recent lively debate in the YEP, NGT seems to have few real world friends. Opposition varies from manic transport anoraks who want trams, underground railways, overground railways and so on, to more normal folk who simply believe that building it would create a lot of upset and incur a lot of expense for little or no benefit.

Last week’s City Plans Panel all day session showed that many of the questions surrounding the project simply have not been answered. The supporting document provided by the trolleybus’s promoters had many pages marked “To be updated” or simply left completely blank because no worthwhile information lay to hand. It is claimed that NGT will create jobs but there is an unresolved problem on Hunslet Road at Pym Street affecting the Hunslet Fisheries chip shop and the industrial estate behind it. Access would become so restricted because of junction closures made for the benefit of NGT that long established businesses are likely to have to close or to relocate. Straightforward solutions suggested by owners and tenants of various properties seem to have been rejected by NGT’s promoters in a rather intransigent manner. Problems like this should have been resolved before now. Hunslet Road was part of the original South Leeds Supertram route over 20 years ago.

Leeds City Council and Metro have pledged millions which they do not have in agreeing to underwrite the risks of NGT, particularly to cover overspends. How can organisations which fundamentally have no money and whose budgets are to be reduced further agree to this? Housing, Education, Social Care and Public Health must have priority over a project which will have been overtaken by rapidly advancing technology in ordinary buses long before it can be open to passengers. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Finnigan.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: After that eloquent presentation I have barely anything left to say, but that has never stopped me saying it anyway.

We do believe that Supertram was a fundamental waste of money and that we are approaching with NGT a similar money pit where we go in with the best intentions but we end up pushing lots and lots of cash down a large and deep pit and getting very little back. Fundamentally, we need a rethink of how public transport works. We have said this consistently over the years, that what is required is a re- regulation of the buses. Subsequent Governments have failed to actually grasp that particular nettle. If you do want public transport to start playing a bigger role, if you

do want to try and deal with congestion then you need to make sure that the buses run in a regulated way.

The only place where the bus uptake is increasing is down in London; they have got a regulated bus system. We think that is what is required at this particular point. It does not need new technology, new ideas, a money pit which means that ultimately we pay a lot of money which could go on other things, whether that is affordable housing or whatever, wasting all of that money instead of focusing on an easier and better and more appropriate way to deal with these problems. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Blackburn.

COUNCILLOR D BLACKBURN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Fifteen years ago when I first got elected to Council we had a debate like this, and it sounded very much like this. Names change but basically the issues are the same. What we are now dealing with is the son of Supertram, NGT.

Over the years, while my Party has supported the principle of having a tram route, or even the principle of some kind of sustainable trolleybus system, we have always argued that the Council and Metro have got the route wrong. In fact, in my view if we had not continued with this obsession of the A660 and instead had gone on the Leeds West system – and I do know Members on that side who actually agree with me…

COUNCILLOR J McKENNA: It will come to West Leeds, so don’t worry.

COUNCILLOR D BLACKBURN: Not in my lifetime – connected with the south of the city, we would be enjoying the use of a tram system like Manchester today and not talking about the potential of a trolleybus.

The crux of the problem that my Party and I have had all along is that the route at the centre of Headingley is not sustainable, will not deliver and is a poor use of resources, worries that have been borne out by advice I have received from two internationally regarded experts in the field of public transport who happen to be members of my Party. You recall that on 15 July 2009 I moved an amendment to a motion on the NGT calling for a 21 st Century public transport system for the whole of Leeds. That made reference to the principle of a sustainable trolleybus system. That amendment was accepted and received unanimous support.

I am afraid today, almost four years later, I do not think we are going to have that same unanimity. The fact is that what is on offer is not sustainable and does not deal with the problems that the majority of the city has with a third rate public transport system. Some may say “Ah, yes, we are pursuing a Quality Bus contract”, something I entirely support but where are the guarantees that this is going to happen? The fact is when we talk about the A660 section we are talking about proposals that seem to be unloved by the residents on the route and are looked on as being a plain (inaudible) by those of us who live in areas dogged with an unregulated duopoly of public transport.

In saying that, we are very supportive of the southern section of the route and feel that if this was to fall because of the Council’s and Metro’s obsession with running something through Headingley, it would be sad, but we think that the negatives resulting from the northern half of the route outweigh the undoubted positives of the southern route.

I would love to stand here and speak in support of a system that was beneficial, modern but on the current route I cannot do that. As most of you will know in my previous time as Leader of the Green Group…

THE LORD MAYOR: David, your three minutes passed very quickly – can you sum up very quickly?

COUNCILLOR D BLACKBURN: …I went on a number of visits to London on all party delegations and we met with Alistair Darling down at Metro. I personally am willing to do this again but I cannot support the motion. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor James Lewis.

COUNCILLOR J LEWIS: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I think Councillor Blackburn’s timing on that speech resembled some of the buses that operate in Leeds by the number of minutes he came over when he should have done.

I think in supporting the motion and supporting moving forward the New Generation Transport, I find myself, although a number of Members have spoken very much against the scheme, a lot of the contents of their speech they mentioned things that I fully agree with. I fully agree with sorting the buses out, I fully agree with looking at working with all modern manufacturers. I have been to meet Optare myself about how we can get more advanced and cleaner and greener technology in the 1,200 buses that run round West Yorkshire. I think that is absolutely crucial. I think we need to look very, very carefully at how we integrate – not just saying we have got a line of NGT which we are proposing and that is the only transport scheme we are going to do in Leeds and once we have got that in that will be great, we are sorted for the next 20 years. I think it would be a great mistake to do that and I think we need to look at the broader picture about it.

What I do think is really important to remember, though, in supporting NGT, is actually what we are talking about here. We are talking about a scheme that has park and ride – again something that many Members of this Council have brought up in the past. We are talking about a scheme that includes segregating public transport out of the traffic so there are reliable and swifter journey times – again, something I know many Members of Council have supported. It involves modifying junctions to let the traffic flow freely, and that is all traffic – cyclists, cars, public transport, pedestrians; again, something I know Members think. We are talking about using transport investment to provide access to employment and access to education opportunities. We know those are going to change in Leeds over the next 20 years. That is something that NGT does, that is something this Council would do.

All things this Council have supported, and I do raise a wry smile when I hear some of the voices around the Council Chamber. David was honest, as he always is. He supported, when he was part of the administration, this scheme. Now he is in Opposition he has chosen to take the more reckless view of opposing it. This is not a scheme that has floated down from somewhere; it is a scheme that has been to this Council Chamber time and time again and received support from around the Council Chamber. I think the most important thing about this scheme is we have a scheme where 20% of bus passengers in Leeds at the moment will be on modern, clean, reliable and publicly owned public transport, something that even re-regulation of the buses would not achieve. The bus companies would still make a lot of money out of re-regulated buses, even though they do it in a different way.

People talk about a money pit without substantiating that. What we have got is a system that will own as a city and we will put money back into the city once we have invested in it. Of course we have got more to do, of course, we need to look at

more extensions, of course we need to look where we go yet but we have to start somewhere. I think we have shown this political administration is prepared to show leadership, prepared to show we are going to get things done, prepared to show that we are going to end this 20, 30, 40 years of talking about investing in public transport and I move that we support New Generation Transport and support the motion. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Carter.

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. Listening to what has been said so far I cannot help but think there is an element of political expediency in what we have been listening to. The only people who have been consistent in their arguments against some form of rapid transit system over the years are the Morley Boroughs. However, I have yet to hear them offer an alternative to their opposition and it is the easiest thing in the world to say it is a waste of money and we should have something else if you do not actually volunteer what that something else might be. Actually to sit there and to say a Quality Bus contract will solve it all, I am afraid you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Let us be very clear about this, and I made it very clear at the Executive Board, this is not my preferred system of a rapid transit system for this city. My preferred system was the Supertram project that we pursued over 20-odd years with I do not know how many Governments and how many different Ministers - Mick Lyons will probably tell you. That technology was tried, proven and tested and other cities in this country and in Europe are now busily extending that system.

To be frank about it, the A660 was always going to be a problem and it is on record going back now for certainly the 30 years of this debate that on this side we have always said the A660 was a problem. Indeed, we suggested the route going west, but the simple fact of the matter is we are now where we are and I am sorry if we go back to the Government with something else, we are going back for another 20-odd years delay and the decision we have to make here is how we properly recognise the real concerns of the residents on the A660 and do as much as we can to solve those issues. I am sorry here, James and Richard, we have not done anywhere near enough.

At the end of the day this is the system we have got. If we do not want it, we will wait another 30 years for another solution and the city cannot wait that long. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Anderson.

COUNCILLOR ANDERSON: Lord Mayor I have, as everybody I think knows, problems with this. I attended Plans Panel the other day and to say that the Planning Department – because having spoken to some Planning Officers afterwards – were surprised at what they heard that day is an understatement. The Holt Park leg going around the doctor’s surgery and around the Kids Academy just does not make sense. The Weetwood Lane/Otley Road junction was news to Planning Department, they did not even know that that was coming forward and the argument over whose fault, whether it was Highways who were at fault or whether somebody else was at fault was just unseemly.

The junction of Otley Road and Otley Old Road is just an accident waiting to happen unless Highways Officer rethink it. The Lawnswood roundabout again is an accident and a problem waiting to happen. No thought has been given as to what the impact is going to be on new housing that is going to be built up along the A660 corridor. There is going to be potential reductions in bus services and no-one has yet

come forward with any alternative to me as to how we can try and improve that particular point.

There are too many unknowns – the technology, officers cannot tell us at this stage what technology they are actually going to be using, so that is why you do get people like me saying what about hybrid, what about electric, what about hydrogen cell.

The business case. When I ask for clarity on the business case I keep being told, “It is just finalised and we will get it to you whenever it is concluded, Councillor Anderson.” When I ask what passenger number is all of this based on, they cannot tell me exactly what is happening their either. What is the pricing mechanism going to be? They cannot tell me that either.

There are community concerns all the way down the route, so that is why I am concerned. The consultation has been poor – not in terms of the number of meetings that have taken place, can I make that clear. I am not complaining about the number of meetings that have taken place. What I am complaining about is the quality of that consultation and the quality of the literature.

I do think that there will be increased car congestion because someone has got to lose out as a result of this. If you are putting something else down the corridor, something has to give and it is not going to be the cyclists, it is not going to be the buses so it can only be problems with car congestion.

The consultation is still going on, we have got meetings in my ward next week, so how come we are making this decision today? Would it not have been better to complete one before the other?

Probably more important to me, the Environmental Impact Assessment. I have not seen that – I have asked for it but nobody can actually give it to me.

Finally, we do need to sell the other complementary measures that are being introduced in the public transport network as well. They are not being sold alongside it so that people can see what is happening and I think that falls on – if anybody wants to accept responsibility, fine, I am not going to start going in and naming names but I do think we need to start selling the benefits of the wider public sector improvements that are going to be coming along. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield to sum up.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I have to disagree a little bit with Councillor Anderson on consultation because last week I think Planning had an eight hour meeting over the NGT and I want to thank colleagues for the time spent, I think six hours on north-west and two hours on the south in really opening up discussions and taking on concerns.

I would also like to thank people like Richard Lewis and James Lewis who have been key Members of twelve meetings so far out in the community listening to people’s concern. In actual fact I think they have made a difference and improving things. Barry, this thing comes back again, consultation and, if you remember, it actually goes to public inquiry, so the consultation is still not complete.

I have never known any other issue that has taken so much time in terms of people listening to a big scheme like this. Frankly, I think the credibility of this Council is here before us. For over 20 years all major parties have argued

passionately about public investment – all major party Leaders, as Councillor Carter said, have been down to successive Governments, successive Ministers to argue for investment. Sometimes I think people would be happy if we said we do not want it. What that would make us is the laughing stock of Europe and that is why many cities are really ahead of us in public transport.

In fact, I am sorry that Councillor Ryk Downes has been muzzled on this debate, because he has been one of the leaders of this and very good too. I will quote you – I am told you are not talking seriously, Ryk, on this. As you said, “Comprehensive research accepted by the Department of Transport shows the NGT trolleybus network is expected up to 4,000 new jobs and 160m users” and you passionately argued for that.

Richard is absolutely right, this is a regeneration scheme and, yes, there are problems with the technology and other things but we should not forget it will have a major impact. Personally I know many of us would like to see it in East Leeds because that would have made a massive impact; Aire Valley, that would have had a massive impact; West Leeds, all of them would have major impact.

I think, colleagues, it really is about saying this is a start, let’s get on with it, let’s show a bit of vision, let’s show a bit of ambition to tackle congestion, to tackle road safety which is notorious now, Barry, and to tackle something that we are all desperate to do and that is improve our economic performance in this city alone to create jobs and to make sure that we get investment.

Yes, a long way to go but I really think we have to keep hold tight for the credibility of this Council and the credibility of our leadership. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: I would like to call for the NGT vote.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: I call for a recorded vote, please.

COUNCILLOR NASH: I second, my Lord Mayor.

(A recorded vote was held)

THE LORD MAYOR: We have the result. There are 92 Members present, the “Yes” vote is 68, five people abstained and those against 19. The recommendation is CARRIED.

ITEM 8 – RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD – BEST COUNCIL PLAN 2013-2017

THE LORD MAYOR: Can I move on to Item 8, Best Council Plan 2013-17. Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Can I move in terms of the Notice.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Finnigan.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: I will pass, Lord Mayor, on this one. I have got something on the next one, thank you.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield to sum up. (laughter)

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I will take this opportunity because last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer betrayed Local Government in this country and it does not matter what political persuasion you are, what Authority you are, whether you are a County, District, Urban or Metropolitan you were betrayed last week by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I do not say that lightly because we were promised in 2015 the deficit would end and we would all come through it. In actual fact the forecast is in 2015 we will have a bigger deficit than anywhere in the Western world.

We are now hearing calls from Local Authorities, particularly Districts, who say they can no longer sustain themselves. Some are saying that they can only deliver one service. Some are saying that they cannot see any future, so the Council Plan is actually saying something different and I think of course it is reduced, of course the priorities are less but it is actually saying things that I think are pretty important to this city.

It is actually saying that we can tackle fuel poverty. It is actually saying that we want to integrate Social Services with the Health Service. It is actually saying that we want to be a child friendly city. It is actually saying that we want to take the opportunities that the Trinity scheme and the Arena scheme are providing to reduce NEETs. It is actually saying that we want to tackle housing benefit and a lot more. I think that is a really good reflection on this administration’s attitude to the future.

We have got a huge struggle ahead of us. We have heard some of the things today. We have heard it in Deputations, we have heard it from Members from the Chamber that we are taking really difficult and painful decisions, but I will tell you one thing that we have to do. One of the things in the Council Plan is that is actually stills shows that leadership, that we care for our role of protecting the young, protecting the old and providing the opportunities and I think we are doing that in every sense of that word. That is what is important about the Plan.

The only thing I want to see in the Plan is how you end and finish our Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, his job and department because, frankly, he has let all of us down in Local Government. (Applause)

I move the Minutes, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Best Council Plan, I am calling for the vote. (A vote was taken) I think that is CARRIED.

ITEM 9 – RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD – SAFER LEEDS STRATEGY 2013-2014

THE LORD MAYOR: Item 9, Safer Leeds Strategy. Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Lord Mayor, I formally move the Safer Leeds Strategy Plan and I want just to say a couple of words by way of introduction.

Eighteen months or so ago burglary was a massive problem in this city. We were an outlier nationally but we owned up to the fact, we faced into the situation and

we were determined to focus on it and together as a partnership with everyone pulling in the same direction to do something about it, and 18 months later, on average, burglaries are about 40% down in this city.

Yes, month by month there are variations, and yes, we cannot be complacent because burglars are not – they come out of jail and they re-burgle and we have to be absolutely cognisant of that fact. More than that, the partnership then said if we can bring that kind of focus to burglary and to antisocial behaviour through the system that we use, we should do the same for something else. That something else is domestic abuse and domestic violence.

For far too long it is probably the last subject that has been taboo in this city and people always think it happens elsewhere - it does not happen in the North, it does not happen in the middle class areas, it does not happen with the old. Actually, domestic violence knows no boundaries, it happens everywhere in the city. It is something we should no longer tolerate, it is something we should be aware of, articulate and do something about because in the last year the shocking statistic for me was that there were 12,000 reported incidents of domestic violence in this city. Can you imagine if there are 12,000 reported how many there are that go unreported. Therefore, it is a scourge in this city and the partnership is right to put it right at the top alongside children’s sexual exploitation, trafficking and some of the other issues that I have talked about.

This is an important Plan and we intend to bring absolute focus to it. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Formally second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Selby to comment.

COUNCILLOR SELBY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I welcome the Safer Leeds Strategy and in particular the emphasis on tackling domestic burglary. Burglary affects the lives of victims for many years to come. They suffer the shock of their home being broken into, the loss of treasured possessions and a feeling that they have been violated. Victims feel their home no longer belongs to them and in many cases just want to move away.

Lord Mayor, recently a number of Councillors were asked the question, “Describe how your ward has changed because of your work as a Councillor.” Lord Mayor, when I was first elected in 1999 burglary in my ward was at a very high level and Killingbeck and Seacroft Councillors have over the years campaigned to reduce the level of domestic burglary in our ward and this is now starting to show some positive results.

Between April 2012 and March 2013 there was a reduction of nearly 40% in domestic burglary. How has it been done? It is to do with the police and partner agency, the Burglary Group meets every week to review what is going on, what has worked and what has not worked. Leeds Watch cameras make a real difference in the South Seacroft area and contribute to a reduction in antisocial behaviour and crime, and a further Leeds Watch camera is planned for Hawkshead Crescent and Borrowdale Lane. That is not all – more secure locks have been fitted in properties, both Council properties and for private tenants and owner occupiers. Recently the 10,000 th secure lock was fitted. That is not all. (inaudible) were delivered on 20 hotspot streets for burglary involving the Neighbourhood Policing Team, CASAC and the Leeds Antisocial Behaviour Team. Environmental Enforcement workers carried

out, in partnership with the ALMO, with the Locality Team and Neighbourhood Policing Team tackling waste in gardens, high hedges on the top ten burgled streets. On the street, dedicated project was delivered across the ward in hotspot areas for antisocial behaviour and burglary dwelling to engage young people who are at risk of getting involved in criminal activity to divert them into youth provision support.

These initiatives have helped in the reduction of domestic burglary. The continued use of large scale programmes and services aimed at reducing burglary will continue to ensure that residents are assisted in tackling this blight upon ourselves.

However, this all comes at a cost. CCTV has to be maintained and serviced and new equipment needs to be provided. Youth Workers need resources to deliver the diversionary work. Ex-offenders need to be managed. The environmental work also needs to be carried on and my fear is that the swingeing cuts imposed by this Conservative-led Government will put at risk all these positive initiatives taken not just in my ward but in every ward in the city and so put at risk all the hard work that has been done to help create a safer society. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Dawson.

COUNCILLOR DAWSON: Thank you. My Lord Mayor, can I welcome the Safer Leeds Strategy for tackling drugs and crime and particularly domestic violence. I would like to talk about the reduction in domestic burglary in Leeds and in particular in Morley.

In Morley we have probably now got the lowest level of burglary that we have ever seen for generations. In 2011/12 the number of burglaries reduced by 14%; in 2012/13 it reduced by 23%. Where we are now we have a lower burglary rate than areas such as Harewood, Adel and Wharfedale and we are on a par with Wetherby and Otley.

I could claim that this coincides with myself becoming the Community Safety Champion for the area Outer South, but my impact, I must admit, has been minimal. The people I would like to praise really are the police in Morley and the Neighbourhood Policing Team and, in particular, Inspector Sullivan and the work that him, his team, his PCSOs have done and, if you like, the legitimate but relentless stampdown on people who are criminals and who are committing burglaries in our neighbourhood.

I also think it is a good advert for partnership working and all those involved including the Council, the ASBO team, Aire Valley Homes, Town Councillors, residents groups and, indeed, the schools and the education messages that are going there.

In fact, I think this is a success we can all be proud of in the city of Leeds and I welcome the reduction, hope it continues and I hope the Safer Leeds Strategy is successful in 2013/14. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Robinson.

COUNCILLOR ROBINSON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I would like to comment on the Safer Leeds Strategy with specific reference to the role that PCSOs play in making Leeds a safe friendly and open city and that is the city as a whole, not just the city centre, as many residents and Councillors will acknowledge.

Over the last three years I have joined the police and PCSOs in our villages and communities that I represent to see the work that they are doing. Crime has fallen but, as Councillor Dawson has just said, Harewood is not the lowest in the city for burglaries; I would like to see it. Through community based approaches our Inspector and the PCSOs have made great strides. Most local people know and recognise that PCSOs serve their communities and they can know them by name and recognise them in the street. I have spoken with police officers who have said themselves that the PCSOs’ knowledge of their area is invaluable. They know the communities that they serve and they are part of those communities.

In Harewood the ward Members have used Area Committee funding to assist the police and the PCSOs through funding towards Farm Watch and additional seasonal patrols. Crime such as drug growth and distribution has been tackled through the PCSOs’ local knowledge, antisocial behaviour in communities like Barwick and Scholes has reduced through the PCSOs’ presence and their hard work and activity. Burglary has fallen as PCSOs have taken a far more targeted approach to assist the vulnerable and increase awareness of burglary in these areas.

I would like to state on record my support for the role that they play in this city and in the role they play in the ward I represent.

The new Police and Crime Commissioner stated clearly his commitment to neighbourhood policing on 28 th June in the YEP when he said, “I will make sure we protect neighbourhood policing levels” and the people of Leeds, and I hope this Council and the Executive Member for Environment and Neighbourhoods, will hold him to that commitment.

Crime is a blight on communities and it severely damages the lives of its victims, so I support the policing in our city and implore the Executive Board Member and the Crime Commissioner to commit themselves not just to PCSO numbers but their role in working in all wards in this city as they do at the moment, and I would ask the Executive Board Member and the Police and Crime Commissioner to follow the Harewood Ward Members’ lead and start putting their money where their mouth is. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wadsworth.

COUNCILLOR WADSWORTH: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I would also like to support my colleague in the move for PCSOs and plead to Councillor Gruen that PCSOs will stay in the wards that they are currently serving, because I am concerned that our new Police and Crime Commissioner is going to move these PCSOs around and take them out of wards. I relate to an incident yesterday, I was at Guiseley Carnival and we actually saw some proper police walking around the Carnival and we were, as ward Members, quite surprised at this, but we later learned that they were specials and not actually police officers. We did not speak to them because they were not local to the area but we did have a visit from the PCSOs who we did speak to and we discussed local issues with them and we found that they were very knowledgeable on local issues, and it is the locality of the PCSOs, they know the local areas, the know the little ginnels. When you explain that a ginnel is between two houses they know it because they walk the beats regularly, they are very local people, generally they live locally and work locally. I would just hope that we are going to keep those PCSOs and that way we will keep crime down, because it is due to neighbourhood policing that we keep crime down.

I would just hope that Councillor Gruen will support us all in keeping PCSOs where they should be, in the locality. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Finnigan.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. We support the Safer Leeds Strategy but we would offer a hint of caution. In Morley I have chaired the Morley Crime Prevention Panel since the year 2000 and it would be beyond me to claim credit for the reductions in burglary during that particular point but certainly they have dropped substantially since 2002 when I was first elected. Leaving that aside, one of the concerns and problems and difficulties that we have is a move towards centralising crime prevention. The Crime Prevention Panel in Morley held its last meeting last month. Why is that? Because the Crime Prevention Officer did not believe that a move to centralised crime prevention work in Killingbeck was a sensible approach. One of the reasons that Morley has done as well as it has done is the fact that there has been a genuine partnership and a localised approach. There has been a partnership between the Neighbourhood Policing Team, who do an excellent job, the Town Council, the Parish Councils in that particular area, local community groups and other organisations like the Crime Prevention Panel that look in practical terms at how to resolve some of the challenges and solutions to problems that communities face.

If we are seeing a centralised approach, then I think that that is a backward step. Certainly what works in Morley would not necessarily work in Harehills or Wetherby or any other places in and across Leeds, and it is important to realise that the reason we have such a successful Safer Leeds Strategy is the fact that we focus on a localised approach, we look at ways of introducing methods and approaches locally, along with our Neighbourhood Policing Teams, that get results and actually drive down those crime levels.

If a Crime Prevention Officer has significant concerns then I think we ought to take note of that and we ought to look at ways of building structures that build upon the excellent relationships and partnerships that we have already got on a local basis and make sure that localism genuinely occurs in the Safer Leeds Strategy. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Akhtar.

COUNCILLOR AKHTAR: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I would also like to support this report. However, I think in my patch in Hyde Park and Woodhouse burglaries have gone down and that has been a targeted area for many, many years. However, I would like to bring your attention to a couple of points which have already been raised.

One, the Asian households in Leeds, and especially in Burley, have been targeted specifically for the Asian jewellery. The other point is, with regards to domestic violence, it is alarming to hear that 12,000 cases have been reported. I have already mentioned this outside this forum, that many of the Asian women will not complain to the police or other agencies and I think it is about time that we educate those women to stand up and we need to support those women whenever they are victims of domestic violence. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen to sum up.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I welcome all the intelligent comments I have heard in this debate.

If I may start with Councillor Selby about the additional locks. I thank the ALMOs in particular for their contribution in that and say that we have made those available not just to the social housing sector but also to the private sector.

He is absolutely right in terms of costs. I detect that Area Committees are now less forthcoming in terms of the revenue implications of CCTV cameras and he is right about Youth Services. He is, of course, absolutely right to pin the blame where it belongs in the national Coalition.

I thank Councillor Dawson for the recognition that Morley, being part of Leeds, now has the least burglary for many, many years and I am sure that the Morley Boroughs will acknowledge that and praise the administration in Leeds for helping to bring that around. I am grateful to him.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Yours or the previous one?

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: JL for putting those PCSOs in.

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: That they are now going to take away.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: When I see Matthew Robinson I just want to know what pills he is taking to look so youthful these days. Just tell me what they are and I will try as well but I will not succeed like you have, obviously!

I also take your comment about the Crime Commissioner. This is a very important area and I pay tribute to my colleagues, Alison Lowe, Mohammed Iqbal and Les Carter who are here to bring some checks and balances to that relationship with the Police and Crime Commissioner and hopefully our strategy will remain intact and will not be interfered with.

I think Councillor Finnigan is absolutely right in terms of caution and in terms of the localised delivery of this approach. I have to say, in these straitened times all of us are looking for some senior management economies and efficiencies. We have done it and I am sure the police will also do it, so therefore the important thing is that we have the neighbourhood policing intact with that kind of impact they have had over the years.

I also thank Councillor Akhtar for his comments, particularly around domestic violence, which I very much welcome and with those comments I hope you will accept the recommendation from the Safer Leeds Executive. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: I would like to call for the vote on the Safer Leeds Strategy 2013/2014. (A vote was taken) I think that is CARRIED.

ITEM 10 – RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD – WEST YORKSHIRE COMBINED AUTHORITY

THE LORD MAYOR: Item 10 is a recommendation of the Executive Board on the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I move in terms of the Notice, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper,

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Formally second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lyons to comment.

COUNCILLOR LYONS: Thank you very much, Lord Mayor. I have only three minutes so I will have to speak fast.

As far as I am concerned I have been amazed today because if I was moving today that we get a horse and cart to start our transport outside, some of you would object because horses might be dropping their doings outside some of your houses. You have no vision whatsoever.

To go on, I would like to explain why we are going to create a new Combined Authority and what it is about and why it is worth it for jobs and growth.

For far too long, Andrew, we have been going down to London – and I will tell you the number, I have seen personally 27 Secretaries of State or Ministers or Shadows and they have come across – some of them, some of the Tories gave me a cup of tea; some of Labour said “Shut the door on your way out, Mick.” This is what it is all about, if you get used to listening here…

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: You have that effect on people, Mick! (laughter)

COUNCILLOR LYONS: To get investment, if we are talking about investment in West Yorkshire, how much do you think we get per head in West Yorkshire? £160 a head. What do they get in London for schemes? £2,600. We have got to straighten that up to start with.

The creation of a Combined Authority with new deal Government, it is trying to put right some unfairness that we have all been talking about this afternoon. It is about managing our own affairs and it is our fault if they go wrong, not anybody else’s. If we take the journey from devolving powers away from Whitehall to where they should be with local Councillors and local people, we will be where we want to be.

It is an ambitious plan because we are putting a £1b transport fund together so that we might have some of the money to get some of the things you have been talking about earlier. If Government put their hands in their pocket we are willing to start a new local money to support jobs and growth. If they do their job, we will do our job.

I will go on because time is running out. The Combined Authority replaces LTA and what it comprises of is the five Leaders of the five Districts, plus the Opposition, plus one from York and one from LEP, so that is what it will make. In addition, we will have a Joint Scrutiny Committee chaired by one Opposition Member to hold the new Authority to account. All staff from Metro will be TUPE-ed over, there will be no problems whatsoever. All moneys and things that have gone will go across.

The difference it will make in authority influence starts, 20,000 jobs will be there at the end of the day. It is said that the public will not notice the difference. I hope they do because with trains missing and with buses running late and everything else I think they will find a difference. I think all working together we should go on.

It is not fair, Lord Mayor, that I should only get three minutes, I should be allowed more! (laughter) (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor James Lewis.

COUNCILLOR J LEWIS: Like every train that Mick ever drove, I congratulate him on coming in spot on time! I am sure there was never a problem.

Lord Mayor, it is sometimes quite curious to stand up in Council and speak in support of your own abolition which, in supporting the formation of the Combined Authority, I am and I am hoping, if the National Railway Museum is still open, I am hoping there will be a little space where I can be shoved in alongside some of the other memorabilia of things of the past that are long gone.

I hope I do not speak out of nostalgia for the past, I do not speak out of where we are – I speak because this is absolutely the right thing to do in terms of forming a Combined Authority. I know sometimes maybe some of my new friends (who I am now on first name terms with) on the A660 may not miss me going, I had a nice postcard off them this week; I do not know if I will get a nice leaving card off them. I do think it is the right thing to do. I do think it does follow on from the NGT and I think it follows on from one of the points Barry made well in his contribution – I did not agree with everything he said but he made the point well about we need to talk about everything else we are doing, we need to talk about what we are doing as a Council in terms of public transport, in terms of Highways.

I think part of bringing together a Combined Authority, part of saying actually, you have a Transport Authority separate from the Council, a separate Authority to manage public transport, is something that sits in the olden days from maybe when it was an operator, maybe when it did things in the past, maybe a hangover from the County Council. I do not know, I think I was still running round primary school in short trousers when the County Council was abolished but I do think it is important that we bring it in saying that transport and economic growth and skills are strategic functions of this Authority and the other cities and districts in West Yorkshire, that we are forming a Combined Authority so that the Leaders are going to take responsibility through the Combined Authority for delivering that and bring things together. Here is a strategic directory across a number of agendas, here instead of, again, a PTE that was a hangover from the operational day, here is a Combined Authority structure that will be in place to deliver them.

Let us get things done, let us tie together economic development and public transport so it does not sometimes appear, as it may do, that schemes for one appear with no relation to the other, and I think that works both ways in terms of development and transport. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do and I support the motion on the Green Paper, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Carter.

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I regard the creation of the Combined Authority as a stepping stone. If it not a stepping stone, then it is a step backwards because all we are effectively doing at the moment is recreating something that did not work very well a few years ago, which was West Yorkshire County Council.

Hopefully economic and transportation thinking has moved on a great deal since then and the simple fact is that the local economy worked on a much wider area than the five West Yorkshire Authorities plus York. Similarly, the transport requirements for economic development run across a much wider area than just the five West Yorkshire Authorities plus York.

It is also much more than just about public transport. It is about making sure that the transport network, whether it is train, bus, private car or lorry, works more efficiently so that people, goods and services can get too and from their places of work and get goods to market more efficiently than they do now.

It is all right as far as it goes and it is a step in the right direction but the City Deals, which really were, if you like, what kicked this off, were about a much wider sub-economic area, sub-regional area, which was the City Region.

I welcome this as a first step but, as I say, if it is a full stop it is a step back because all we are going to be doing is recreating the arguments there were in West Yorkshire in the past and that is not what this is all about. If we are really going to, as a City Region, punch our weight at every level in UK Ltd, then it has to be made from the City Region and the Government, all the major political parties have to grasp that nettle and it is not as easy as I might be making out now because you have the issue of North Yorkshire and the issue of the North Yorkshire boundaries and the cross issues of the different functions that North Yorkshire carries out in some of the districts which are entirely linked to the future of our local economy.

If we are going to move forward, it has to be tackled and it has to be tackled by the next Government.

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Councillor Leadley.

COUNCILLOR LEADLEY: I wish to speak on the report about setting up a West Yorkshire Combined Authority to take over the transport duties of Metro and other duties to do with economic development. This begins on page 117 and goes on at almost insufferable length to page 183.

The most significant part begins on page 171, in which the constitutional arrangements are set out. What would happen is that the West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority, commonly known as Metro, would be wound up so that extended powers and enlarged budgets could be claimed by the Combined Authority. Beyond that the proposal presents some problems. The Authority would have eight members rather than the 22 now at Metro. Five of the eight members would be the Leaders of the five Metropolitan Districts and the other three selected by Opposition parties. York City Council might be given membership on similar terms, subject to legislation being amended to allow a geographically detached outlier to join the Authority. No allowances would be payable other than reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs directly attributable to membership of the Authority.

This could be dangerous. Extensive powers, massive budgets would be administered by an Authority whose members would have little or no time to attend to its business in any realistic way. Concentration of power in a few hands is not the worry – it is the giving up of power to bureaucrats who might not be controlled or scrutinised in any realistic way which is the point at issue. No doubt there will be those who will say that we will have to put up with this so that we can get greater devolution of budgets from Whitehall. Would Members of this Chamber accept a directly elected Mayor if there was a financial incentive to do so? I hope not.

These arrangements are potentially dangerous and should be rejected. Something better must be negotiated which will get increased powers and devolved budgets without sacrificing democratic accountability. Thank you, my Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor David Blackburn.

COUNCILLOR D BLACKBURN: Lord Mayor, I am not going to go on too long this time. In general the proposal for the West Yorkshire Combined Authority we are in agreement with. We look forward to the powers being brought down to us from above but we do have concerns, basically, that we integrate with the rest of the City Region and, as Councillor Carter says, just because there is a border that says “This

is West Yorkshire” and “This is North Yorkshire”, we do get people coming across the border and that has been the problem in the past.

We have got concerns regarding the governance that I am yet to be convinced on. The other point I would like to raise is that I hope that there will be continuity between what is now there in Metro, and I am thinking here of the Quality Bus contracts, that that will not be affected by the changeover, but in general we are in support. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield to sum up.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Councillor Leadley, I never complain when you go on insufferably for a long time! (laughter) I think the document was probably justified because we are seeing the biggest devolvement of powers from Whitehall to Local Authority seen in a hundred years. It is not West Yorkshire because they are not Local Authority powers. It is actually powers from Whitehall.

I think that should be welcomed because if we are going to use the devolved powers and investment, which we are, of £400m, if we are going to use the transport which Councillor Lyons put over, if we are going to use the skills, then I think it is far better locally than it is Whitehall, nothing else.

We start from a very strong position. The economy of the City Region, as Councillor Carter said, is £52b with three million, bigger than eight European states, bigger than Wales. Potentially we have a very strong economic argument to do this. We have to look at decisions at long last which are joined up. Councillor James Lewis and Councillor Lyons have already said it. One of the most powerful things you can do is make better connectivity within the northern cities and if you want the honest truth from me, I am more excited about connecting northern cities together than I am about the HS2. It may be my age but I can see a very strong argument for the links between northern cities.

Electrification of Manchester to Leeds? 27,000 jobs and £30m plus a year on your GBA – very strong argument and that is a good example. The democratic arguments I totally get, eight members, but we are looking at that and we are devolving that. The thing about democracy, no-one has mentioned the LEP. At least the Combined Authority will start to hold the LEP to account, which is unknown, unaccountable and frankly not very transparent.

The one thing I would say, in this country if you looked at the cuts in Local Government, all the devolved cuts for the devolved countries were 11%, less than half of what English Authorities have cut. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – I look at the Scottish people here – had about 11% cut in their budget. I will tell you one thing, anything that moves us away from Whitehall to give us a fairer deal must be welcomed. You know, when we went for the City Deal it was ten departments – Northern Ireland, Wales and others go to one department, so this is a step in the right way because it is step about devolvement of powers to Local Authorities in the North and I was very serious about it is time we ended the role of the Department of CLG, because frankly it is anachronistic and it is not defending our interests in the north. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: I would like to call for the vote on the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. (A vote was taken) That is carried with a majority.

ITEM 11 – REPORT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNCIL’S EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS

THE LORD MAYOR: Item number 11 is the report on Executive Arrangements. Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I move in terms of the Notice, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: I second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Can I again move to the vote? (A vote was taken) That is CARRIED.

ITEM 12 – RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL – MEMBERS’ ALLOWANCES

THE LORD MAYOR: Item 12, the Independent Remuneration Panel. Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I move in terms of the Notice, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: I second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Campbell.

COUNCILLOR CAMPBELL: I am sorry, Lord Mayor, I was still so mesmerised by Councillor Wakefield saying earlier that we had got something right.

Lord Mayor, when I noticed this on the Order Paper I thought to myself we are in constrained times here and I looked down and we are proposing an increase for the Chief Whip. I thought to myself, I will just check through as to what the rationale for the rise might be, because obviously there must be one.

It says here, on page 220, “The Chief Whip chairs the Member Management Committee.” I think the Chief Whip always did that – nothing has changed on that. I must have missed it, Councillor Latty will tell me if I have missed something on there. “The Chief Whip chairs the Whips’ Group.” I think the Chief Whip has always done that, nothing has changed there, there is no reason for an increase in allowance. There is a vague reference to “additional responsibilities” which it does not expand on and I would be interested to hear what they were.

The main rationale seems to be that the Labour Group is now larger than it was. I was thinking to myself, has it suddenly got larger than when Councillor Lewis happened to be Chief Whip? I was thinking to myself, I had not noticed any increase in size during that period. I can only assume – and we have got a good example on the back row over there – that the Labour Group have somehow got more unruly…

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: True, yes.

COUNCILLOR CAMPBELL: …and for some reason have created more problems for the poor old Chief Whip, who is struggling even harder to keep them under control. I suppose it is a plea from us and the Council Taxpayers of Leeds to

the Labour Group. Could you go back to the old-fashioned, quiet, responsible Labour Party that you were under Councillor Lewis because it will save us money. (laughter and applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield to sum up.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I always thought that is a silly contribution. I will tell you why. I think it is important that politicians do not actually debate here about the remuneration. People are learning their lesson in Parliament at the moment. I always think it is wiser to have an arm’s length, independent Remuneration Panel.

Let me remind colleagues that all of us as Councillors have had a three year freeze and those with responsibilities over £7,500 have had a 3% cut and that remains for the last three years. The reason why the Whip was referred is there were a number of anomalies in our remuneration. I will address those. One, that actually Licensing increased responsibilities and that included sex establishments and casinos and so on and that was reflected in the recommendations. The second thing, of course, which involved reducing allowances, was the Standards Committee, because that is no longer as onerous or as interventionist as it was.

The two areas where Councillor Campbell, I think, has got it totally wrong, is that he also believes Chairs of Planning should be cut and they are overpaid. Anybody who sees the work they do, the responsibilities they have, the quasi-judicial, the hours they spend, are totally wrong.

Let me get down to the Whip. First of all Councillor James Lewis did not receive remuneration; we do not take two allowances if we have got two jobs. That is why it probably did not raise its head as sharply as it does now. This comes down to a fix when you were in power in Coalition and no-one in this room can honestly say to me that a Chief Whip with eleven Members, like you, deserves the same pay as a Chief Whip with 63 Members and in administration with responsibility. No-one can actually say that that is fair.

I am glad for the support I have had from this side. I did show it to people, they agreed that actually Councillor Harper deserved an increase (a small increase) from the ones that you gave, Colin.

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: You did not tell us it was Councillor Harper though! (laughter)

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: No, we did not. You might have argued!

Can I say that I think the whole purpose of having an Independent Remuneration Panel is to bring that objectivity to this and they agreed with our recommendations. I would suggest that we actually keep out of this debate and allow experts to do it. By the way, our overall allowances are £8,000 less than they were last year, so that is something about us being very strict, understanding the sacrifices of other public sector workers and trying to keep within that envelope. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Let us move to the vote on Members’ Allowances. (A vote was taken) I think that again is CARRIED.

ITEM 13 - QUESTIONS

THE LORD MAYOR: I am going to move on to Item 13, which are the Questions. Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: I move in terms of the Notice, Lord Mayor.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: There you are, responsibility! (laughter)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Nash.

COUNCILLOR NASH: Second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: I am up to the top of page 6 calling for the vote on Questions. (A vote was taken) CARRIED.

We will move to Question number 1 by Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR P LATTY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Does the Executive Member for Children’s Services agree with me that parental choice should be a key principle when deciding which school a child attends?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Blake.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thank you for the question, Councillor Latty. I am expecting another one to come along behind, but by way of answering your immediate question, yes, and just for information, parents can actually preference any school in the city and, indeed, we now have, as a result of recent change, parents in Leeds have been able to put five preferences.

We work very closely with parents in advance of them making the choice to try and make sure they put the most appropriate preferences down. Indeed, it is more a question also of legal requirement as well and we have a legal duty to allocate to the highest preference where there happen to be places available, so, yes, key principle but also a legal requirement.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Pat Latty, would you have a supplementary?

COUNCILLOR P LATTY: Yes. What would the Executive Member say to the parents and children who will not be able to travel to their faith school of choice if this administration’s proposals to cut transport funding go ahead?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Blake.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: I was thinking which way the supplementary would go and it was either into the places or into this, and we are going to discuss this quite a lot. I think the question is premature. We are in the middle of putting together the response to the consultation on the future of transport for all young people in this city. We are looking at the entire transport requirements for all children and young people at the moment. I think we should wait, see where we get to with that, it is going to the next Executive Board, and let us have a proper discussion when we know the outcome of that. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Bentley.

COUNCILLOR J BENTLEY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Would the Exec Member for Development please explain what were the specific reasons that the report on the West Park Centre was withdrawn from the June Executive Board agenda without notice?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: Thank you, Lord Mayor. The decision to withdraw the report from the June’s Executive Board was taken due to challenges being made in relation to the figures used to put together the report. It was, therefore, of paramount importance, given the significance of the decision to be made, that we clarified the figures; to enable us to do this we required more time. Thank you, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: A supplementary, Councillor Bentley?

COUNCILLOR J BENTLEY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I thank Councillor Lewis for his reply but, in view of the fact that the West Park Centre was closed so- called temporarily eight months ago, does he not think that that information should have been available and that the users of the centre are justified in assuming that this is just one more spurious delaying tactic so that the centre deteriorates even further, making the option of its reopening unachievable?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: No, Lord Mayor. I do not think that is right. It is very easy in this place to take decisions on the basis of being rushed into things and all of us have been there with Council officers saying, “You must do this tomorrow, a decision must be made today.” I would far rather we were absolutely certain of all our facts and we knew exactly what we were doing.

This building is not going to deteriorate significantly in four weeks. We will have a decision at the July Executive Board and I hope you will be happy with it, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Groves.

COUNCILLOR GROVES: Would the Executive Member for Children’s Services join me in welcoming the Government’s U-turn on childcare ratios?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Blake.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: Thank you for the question, Councillor Groves, and yes, I echo your comments. I think we all welcome the U-turn. It has been a spectacular climb down but you have to say the outcry across the country from parents, from the different organisations who are responsible for Early Years has been so loud and I think it is a great shame that it got to the point where it actually meant there was a split in the Coalition that meant that the climb down happened. We know the proposal was really flawed in terms of the impact on quality but also the real evidence that in actual fact it would lead to an increase in the cost of childcare.

I am really pleased for your question as well because there is an increasing need to be vigilant. This was part of a wider programme called More Great Childcare. I have to tell you, some of those elements of that programme are still on track and they are still causing enormous concern. I think it is down to us really to get to get together to understand about the crisis in childcare that is facing us and how we must make Government Ministers listen to parents, listen to people on the ground who know exactly the impact that their changes would have and not make policies that will actually make the position much worse. Thank you.

THE LORD MAYOR: Do you have a supplementary, Councillor Groves?

COUNCILLOR GROVES: No supplementary.

THE LORD MAYOR: Let us move on to Councillor Finnigan.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Can the Executive Member for Development confirm if he is aware of the withdrawal of Kirklees Council’s LDF Core Strategy?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: I think this question has been referred to me in terms of Planning rather than Development, Robert, so I hope you are OK with that.

I think there is ongoing dialogue within Kirklees. We understand this is in response to a number of issues raised by the Core Strategy Inspector – that is their Inspector – so Kirklees are considering a range of options including the withdrawal of the Core Strategy. I understand no decisions have yet been made formally and that meetings are taking place over the next few days.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Finnigan, supplementary?

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. By way of a supplementary, would the Executive Member responsible for our LDF comment on the concerns that the Planning Inspector raised about Kirklees’s LDF in that they had failed to show that their duty to co-operate, which is a legal obligation, had been satisfied, that is to say, that he did not believe that there had been genuine co- operation between Kirklees and its neighbours, including Leeds? Taking that into account, how does he feel that the Inspector who is examining Leeds’ duty to co- operate next Monday will be convinced that there has been this duty to co-operate satisfied from the Leeds end?

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: That is a good try but I think the circumstances between Kirklees and ourselves are very different. Colleagues will know that the Kirklees Core Strategy departed from the Regional Spatial Strategy in terms of housing requirements and methodology. The Leeds Core Strategy was prepared within that context of the RSS and following further evidence-based work has a housing requirement which broadly reflects the adopted plan.

I have every confidence that we will be able to persuade our Inspector that our plan is sound and that the duty to co-operate has been fully met.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Eileen Taylor.

COUNCILLOR E TAYLOR: Would the Executive Member for Development and Economy outline what he feels the potential regeneration impact of the development at Kirkstall Forge could be for Leeds?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: Thank you, Lord Mayor. The 23 hectare brown field site, when developed, will bring over a thousand new homes, 300,000 square foot of Grade A office accommodation and complementary 136,000 square feet of leisure and retail facilities. It is estimated that it will lever in £350m of private sector investment supporting 300 full-time equivalent construction jobs during its construction, 1,800 direct jobs once completed and operational and nearly 300 local jobs in the wider community.

It is also estimated that it will increase economic spend by £40m from households in the wider city region and will provide a £40m gross wage bill for office workers and it will provide us with a new rail halt.

That is the dry answer. I have to say, you really need to visit the site to understand what its potential is to Leeds. I have been there with several Members of the Executive Board. It is stunning in both its size, its attractiveness and its closeness to the city. You can really see, once you get on the ground, its potential for its own development and it is actually a very quiet site, even though you have got the A65 running alongside it. It is close to Hawksworth Estate and other areas that really need the boost of new jobs, so it offers a huge amount. I think several people who have been there with me said, “If I were looking for somewhere to buy a new house or a new home, would I choose, with due respect to Peter, the north-east quadrant out on the East Leeds extension? No, I would go for Kirkstall.”

It is a fantastic site. If any Members would like to visit it I will do my best to arrange it because I really think once you get there you will see that it has the potential to do a huge amount for this city. Thank you, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Taylor, a second question?

COUNCILLOR E TAYLOR: No, thank you.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Ann Castle.

COUNCILLOR CASTLE: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Does the Executive Member for Development and Economy believe that health and safety concerns should be paramount when visits to Council buildings are given the go-ahead?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: I do, Lord Mayor. It is clearly important that we manage the health and safety of our buildings with due care and attention. If lapses do occur, such as the incidence of your visit as Lord Mayor to West Park last year, then it is incumbent on the Council to learn the lessons and ensure that such incidences are not repeated.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Castle.

COUNCILLOR CASTLE: Certainly. So can the Executive Member for Development and Economy please assure me that members of the public, the Assistant Sergeant of Mace (father of three young children), the Lord Mayor’s consort and the Lord Mayor were not in danger when they visited the West Park Centre on that occasion?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: Lord Mayor - former Lord Mayor - I think you must have a short memory, because if you recall the meeting after that visit I apologised to you. Danger – yes, I have received advice that that building is dangerous, that the electrical installations are dangerous and that advice to me is very, very clear. I would never sanction people going into that building on a business trip and I stand by what I did to close that building down when I did. Any responsible Member of this Council when receiving technical advice from officers of that nature does one thing – or you could do the silly thing and you could say “Well, no, I will just sit on this report, I will just sit on the officer recommendations that a building might burn down, or that

we might have an electrical fault, or that the sprinklers would not work, or that the fire alarms would not work – I will sit on that for a couple of months because there might be some VIPs going there.”

Let us be sensible. Nobody within their right mind would do that – nobody. Nobody on that side or on that side, Lord Mayor. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Castle, I thought he was going to say we had had a change of Lord Mayor but he actually did not go that far!

Councillor Golton.

COUNCILLOR GOLTON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Is the Leader of Council satisfied with the level of sickness absence across the Council during 2012/13?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: No. Just a little bit more – no, I am not satisfied, none of us are satisfied about the level of sickness being 9.6, but compared to five years ago when it was 12.5, the trajectory is in the right direction and that has been done largely because there are new initiatives on attendance and also with the support of trade unions, but we are continuing to look at new ideas to reduce sickness even more.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Golton.

COUNCILLOR GOLTON: Thank you for that reply. I assume, therefore, that he does agree, though, that absenteeism is something which is very serious in terms of affecting the morale of work colleagues in the workplace and that he will applaud the work, as you have mentioned before, that the HR team are doing to try and tackle that situation, and that therefore he will commit to support that team in their efforts by making sure that action is taken against managers who do not perform their duty and actually do sickness absence appraisals on their colleagues.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: That is the kind of detail that I am not aware of but I can report that where there are high levels there is a new focus, reduce those. All managers know that we have to try and drive sickness levels down but, interestingly enough, across the country the two biggest reasons for sickness at the moment are musculoskeletal injuries in Adult Social Care and Children’s, and stress. A lot of that comes from residential homes.

There are a number of departments that are right down to seven days and I think we should applaud that. We should also applaud that over 40% of our staff have never had a day’s sick this year and I think that is something we ought to really congratulate them on. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Akhtar.

COUNCILLOR AKHTAR: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Can the Executive Board Member for Neighbourhoods, Planning and Support Services update Members on the housing scheme in Little London, Beeston Hill and Holbeck?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Lord Mayor, I am pleased to report that the Council secured Government approval to its final business case and a promise of funding support for the project on 12 th June. We have been working very hard since then with the preferred bidder to finalise contract documentation and funders have initiated a bond marketing issue to secure the prime finance investment required for the project.

The Council currently anticipates a financial close will be achieved in early July and I will provide a more detailed response to the Executive Board on 17 th July to confirm the programme for delivery of this long-awaited contract and the final terms of the agreement secured.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Akhtar.

COUNCILLOR AKHTAR: Can the Executive Board Member confirm what work is expected to take place in the first three months of this scheme?

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Thank you, Councillor Akhtar. I think in my discussions through ward Members and the MP, tenants’ associations, we have agreed that in the first three months of the contract it is important to start on the refurbishments. The refurbishments are expected to start in Meynell Heights in Beeston Hill and Holbeck, Carlton Rise, both high rise and low rise, in Little London, and the demolition of blocks in Beeston Hill and Holbeck. In addition refurbishment of an additional 87 homes in Beeston Hill is also expected to begin around the same time. Work is already under way to refurbish 21 properties in the Garnets, making decent homes for the Council and Housing Association tenants in these properties and separate discussions have taken place about the Little London hub. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Finnigan.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Can the Executive Board Member for Development confirm the present number of housing units granted planning permission but not yet built across the Leeds City Council planning area?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Lord Mayor, I will make these figures available to Councillor Finnigan so you do not need to scribble furiously. The answer is, 21,132 units have planning permission but are not yet built. Of these, 11,505 have detailed planning permission and 9,627 have outline permission. Of those with detailed planning permission, 1,781 units are under construction, which leaves – mathematical genius – 9,724 units with detailed planning permission that have not yet started.

I hope your supplementary is not going to ask me when these will start, because I do not know!

THE LORD MAYOR: Come on, Robert.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: By way of supplementary, Lord Mayor, how many of these did he feel would be built in the next five years?

THE LORD MAYOR: Peter, can you answer the question you asked yourself!

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: I wish all of them had been started by now because, as we have discussed through the SHLAA and the planning process and Development Plans Panel in some detail, we do not agree with the land banking that

has been taking place by developers in this city. It is fair to say that not all 21,000 could have started immediately. Some of those were in the city centre which has had a depressed market, but indications now are that the market is definitely returning to 2008 levels, so we will continue to press that these start as soon as possible and, taking a perhaps lead from the London Mayor, who has also decried this land banking and has said he will threaten developers ultimately – ultimately – with CPO powers.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Dunn.

COUNCILLOR DUNN: Lord Mayor, can the Executive Board Member for the Environment please update Members on the roll out of alternative weekly collections in the city?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Dobson.

COUNCILLOR DOBSON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am happy to do so because it has been a success. We have managed to roll it out from the south-west to south-east corridor on the bottom of the city there to 56,000 households and it has gone remarkably smoothly.

One thing I would like to say, I think it actually does vindicate the very hard work and commitment that my predecessor in this role (now the man in the big chair up there) took in instigating the way that we actually changed the bin services in Leeds. I remember him taking quite a bit of stick for it at the time but getting that programme off the ground has got us where we are today, actually, and I think that needs recognising.

Also I think that the hard work of the staff from the people who have mapped it out this time to the crews on the ground also needs recognising for that amount of dedication that has gone in.

We have got ambitious targets for recycling in Leeds. We have set the barrier much higher than previously, 55% by 2016. The good news is we have hit the 40% milestone last year that was the previous target set in 2006, and this strategy is going to be a core part of developing that further. The really good news, of course, is when we have started looking down into what has happened over the last few weeks and now we have got the residual and fortnightly green recycling on a roll, as it were, it has demonstrated we are 25% up on recycling in those areas that are currently in the first part of the roll out and, of course, for every 25% not put into the ground, that is a lot of money that we save in terms of landfill taxes that are £64 per year, and rising, per tonne.

The next part of the strategy is going to be equally challenging, I think. We are looking at about 109,000 households next and that will be rolled out in November and things are on schedule to do that. We will be having further detailed conversations with Members as we did last time round, and I thank Members so far for getting engaged and involved in helping us make it a success. The idea is 80% of the city will eventually be on alternate weekly collections, saving anywhere estimated between £2m and £2.5m, so you can see what a crucial piece of work it is for the city. Thank you to Members for bearing with us on this one and thank you again to my predecessor and the teams for making it a reality. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Dunn.

COUNCILLOR DUNN: Lord Mayor, I have no supplementary.

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Councillor Fox.

COUNCILLOR FOX: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Can the Leader of Council indicate the total number of postal voters eliminated since the 2012 review of postal votes in force and also provide figures for the reductions specifically in the Gipton and Harehills, Killingbeck and Seacroft, and Roundhay wards, over the same period.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Yes, it is going to be a lengthy but factual answer. As we all know, the legislation has just been implemented so this is the first postal vote refresh exercise that Council has carried out, and in doing so we have contacted 55,385 electors who were registered as postal voters and whose personal identifiers were five years old. Of those 55,385 electors, we had to send reminders to 13,350 and final cancellation letters to 6,877. Electors who do not respond to letters are removed as postal votes.

The following table indicates the detailed answer to your questions.

In the ward of Gipton and Harehills in May 2011 there were 4,750; in March 2012 there were 3,860, leaving a difference of 890. In Killingbeck and Seacroft in May 2011 there were 3,018; in March 2012, 2,755, a difference of 263. In Roundhay in May 2011 there were 3,544; in March 2012, 3,329, a difference of 215.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Fox.

COUNCILLOR FOX: Thank you, Lord Mayor. My question did ask about the number of postal votes eliminated since the 2012 review and I suppose my supplementary is, was there no review in 2013?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: I think it is a bit too early for that. All I can say is that officers were not surprised at the high turnover and, in fact, if you look at similar types of areas like Hyde Park, there was a significant drop there because of the turn and the transition.

I think what I can say to the Council is that officers have seen no behaviour that concerns them about fraudulent behaviour in terms of electoral, and if there was so, then the police would be notified straightaway.

I think the more important criteria is how many were rejected in some of these wards, and in Gipton and Harehills there were 134 rejected, which shows that the vast majority of postal votes were absolutely legitimate, but there is a monitoring role for the officers and we shall keep a careful eye on all votes. I think the Government has made a huge mistake in making it more difficult because it is in our interests to get as many people registered, prepared to vote, because that is what strengthens democracy.

Again, this is the first time that it has ever been done. We still have not done the 2013, Councillor Fox but, as I say, officers are keeping a very careful eye on the situation.

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Councillor Brian Cleasby.

COUNCILLOR CLEASBY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. In view of his administration’s insistence on paying the £460,000 salaries of full-time union stewards, would the Leader of Council:

(a) give details of savings made solely by management initiatives in the last two years? (b) give details of savings made solely by union steward initiatives in the last two years?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Lord Mayor, I have always wondered why Councillor Cleasby’s questions were to the back because his Party has always put them to the back, and I think I have found evidence today with this question.

Let me help you. There are no full-time stewards, they are called Convenors. The second thing, which is more important, is that unions do not go off and look at money and save it, and managers do not go off and look at money and save it; they actually do it together.

To help the question, which I think was serious, so far, and certainly since 2010, the unions and the managers together, which is what negotiations and working together means, have actually reduced staff, avoiding compulsory redundancy, by 1,600, which saves £50m.

In terms of another important element, which was referred to earlier in your Leader’s question, the unions and management have actually saved £3.2m over two years on reducing sickness. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Cleasby.

COUNCILLOR CLEASBY: I should explain, Lord Mayor, first, before I give my supplementary, that I am poacher turned gamekeeper. I do have experience of being in union office and I understand from my days at Yorkshire Television, Leader, that with better management the unions actually become unnecessary. Would you agree that with better management we could have a better organisation?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Wakefield.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Can I say, the question has got dafter. We all know why you ask that question and everybody knows that actually the CBI and other big organisations prefer management working with unions and they save £900m and they do so on things like avoiding industrial tribunals, avoiding discrimination, targeting sickness down and all the things you need to do in a large organisation to reduce costs.

This was tried earlier and he has not once mentioned people like bankers, tax avoiders, millionaires and so on and yet again we see silly political opportunism on a very serious subject, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Towler.

COUNCILLOR TOWLER: Can the Executive Member for Adult Social Care please update Members as to what the Council did to mark Learning Disability Week?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Ogilvie.

COUNCILLOR OGILVIE: Can I thank Councillor Towler for her question. Learning Disability Week in Leeds took place a couple of weeks ago. The aim of the week is to raise the profile of learning disability issues across Leeds. There is no doubt, despite a lot of really good work in the city, barriers still exist for people who have learning disabilities.

The Council worked with a number of partners particularly in the voluntary sector but also with health partners to organise a range of activities and I had the pleasure of attending the Tenfold Learning Disabilities Awards, which was really an inspiring event. We held here, and I thank those Members who came to the Members Learning Disabilities Awareness session that we held here, which was an interactive session with people with learning disabilities.

If I could just take the opportunity to mention one initiative that Councillor Yeadon championed and I am keen to continue to champion, and that is the Leeds Safe Places Scheme. A number of you will be aware of it. It is a scheme where shops, businesses, libraries and other venues can display this yellow logo and people with learning disabilities can go there if they are in any kind of difficulty. We need to try and get as many more venues to display these logos, not just in the city centre but also in our wards, so I would be grateful for any help you can give with that. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Towler, is there a supplementary? No. Councillor Hamilton.

COUNCILLOR S HAMILTON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Would the Executive Member for Health and Wellbeing reiterate the vital role that carers play in our city and inform Council what measures are in place to support them?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Mulherin.

COUNCILLOR MULHERIN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Council, I think all of us here and those in the public gallery will be well aware of the vital role that unpaid carers play in the life of the city by immensely improving the quality of life that the person that they care for, and also saving the Health and Social Care economy of Leeds over £1b per year.

The census of 2011 told us that the total number of carers in Leeds has increased since 2001 by over a thousand, to 71,568, and they are just the carers that we know about who are registered in the city. Within this the largest increase has been seen amongst carers who are providing over 50 hours of unpaid care per week, which has gone up by 13%.

The Council has a wide range of services which are provided directly to the carer or through services to the person they care for, such as respite care. The value of the Council’s investment in carer support is roughly £5.5m per annum. The Council’s first duty to provide carers’ assessments and Adult Social Care has carried out 3,399 of those assessments in this last financial year alone. These assessments give access to directly provided Local Authority services, such as respite care for the cared-for person in their own home, out or about in the community so that the carers have time to rest, work or carry out their other responsibilities; overnight respite care away from homes so that carers can have a complete break or a holiday; and home care to assist the unpaid carer with personal caring breaks.

In addition, the Council funds several independent carers’ support agencies, such as the fabulous Carers Leeds, which provided advice, information and support

to carers’ groups, regular newsletters to over 7,000 carers in the city, information and training sessions, financial advice and an award winning yellow card scheme to register carers with their GPs.

There are also a number of specialist support services for mental health carers, older carers of adults with learning disabilities and young carers in the city. The Council provides a Carers Emergency Plan Service, which gives 1,400 carers the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they have made advance arrangements if they themselves are unable to care due to an emergency.

Two weeks ago during Carers Week I hosted an inspiring event for NHS colleagues in the city. We had carers speaking from the heart about their own personal experiences. One was supporting her adult daughter in very traumatic circumstances and the other lady cared for her husband, who was suffering from epilepsy and dementia. We listened carefully to their personal experience and our conclusion was that there is more that we need to do to support carers, particularly to meet their own health needs but also to recognise their role in supporting the health and wellbeing of those that they care for.

I intend to ensure, with my colleagues on the Health and Wellbeing Board, that their needs and the contribution they make to health and care in the city are recognised in every strand of the city’s Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Hamilton, do you have a supplementary? If not we will finish the questions there, the red light has come on. As you know, written answers are provided for those questions that have remained unanswered.

SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES

THE LORD MAYOR: I am now on page 9, Suspension of Council Procedure Rules. Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Lord Mayor, I move in terms of the Notice.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Nash.

COUNCILLOR NASH: I second, my Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Those in favour? (A vote was taken) That looks unanimous. CARRIED.

ITEM 14 - MINUTES

THE LORD MAYOR: We will carry on to the Minutes, so I am going to invite comment on the Minutes, consideration of Executive Board Minutes, and it is Children’s Services first. First of all, Item 14, Councillor Wakefield, that the Minutes be received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.2(i)

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Can I move in terms of the Notice?

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harper.

COUNCILLOR G HARPER: Can I second, Lord Mayor?

(a ) Executive Board (i) Children’s Services

THE LORD MAYOR: It is now Children’s Services, and Councillor Golton.

COUNCILLOR GOLTON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am referring to a report which was at Executive Board and gave a positive story of improvement in our fostering and adoption services. Of particular note was the area of employment and retention of in-house foster carers. The Council will note that for a couple of years now the Liberal Democrat Group has introduced an amendment in our budget proposals which called for a review of allowances so that our carers who are in- house were offered the rates which were recommended by the Fostering Network, which is a national organisation, something which our own local network has been asking for for quite a considerable time. I know because they lobbied me when I was in charge.

It has been a debate that has been had for a very long time and a deal which has been resisted, I have to say, from Children’s Services for a considerable amount of time as well.

The fact that we have actually managed to get some foster carers in place now I think is a reflection that Children’s Services has taken on board the fact that they should not just let the market rule and that they can do things within the organisation which can make a big difference, and the fact that we have been able to take more control of our fostering and the placements that we make within it, because there has been a more concerted effort, is commendable.

What I would suggest is that if that same focus had actually been implemented at the time when we were offering our amendments, then we might have actually got to this position a lot sooner and we would not have been giving all those millions of pounds to private fostering agencies at the time that we were actually offering our own in-house foster carers some of the lowest rates in the country.

I hope that the paper which does come in July, which was meant to come last September – and that was after it had been delayed previously as well – will actually come forward with recommendations which mean that we give a fair deal to our own in-house foster carers and we continue the improvement that has already been made over the past few months.

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you. Councillor Caroline Gruen.

COUNCILLOR C GRUEN: I also wish, Lord Mayor, to speak to Minute 6, page 3, in the additional pack, the Fostering and Adoption Annual Report.

Every Member sitting in this Chamber today is a corporate parent for all our Leeds children who are in care. Collectively we hold a massive responsibility towards our children to provide the very best quality of care that we can, a challenging and engaging education that leads to a job and the security of a loving home environment.

I wonder how many of the 99 of us either has or would be willing to open our homes and our hearts to one of the 1,365 children currently in our Leeds care system? Fostering is a very, very difficult job and one which we value enormously and, notwithstanding the concerns and the views that Councillor Golton has just stated, I would like to draw attention to the huge improvements achieved by the

Fostering and Adoption Service in the last year. The newly dedicated Fostering Recruitment Team has increased our capacity for providing support and supervision to carers and this, alongside a particular focus on foster carers and care leaders, changes to our HR policy to make it more foster family friendly, better approaches to valuing and thanking carers, free access to leisure activities and support with transport, has brought about substantial and measurable improvements. The last OFSTED inspection judged the service as “Good”.

We have seen the numbers of looked after children stabilise and then reduce steadily by 68 over the year, after a period of escalating numbers nationally and in Leeds. This is a huge achievement and much better than other core cities. We in Leeds are bucking the trend, and in a good way.

Our recruitment levels for carers have improved and continue to improve as a result of a sustained and successful recruitment campaign; 44 new mainstream carers last year and 58 more this year. We are working with partners, including the signing of our first official partnership with Leeds Rugby, as more and more people are realising just what we have to offer our foster carers in Leeds. We are attracting greater numbers of independent fostering agency carers - nine families approved and 14 more in the process of approving. This is fantastic news. It shows that our offer is bringing people in, it shows that we are on the right track and, in the current financial climate, it is helping to bring our costs down.

Whilst there is a great deal still to be done, Lord Mayor, I commend the significant achievements made by this Council to improve both the recruitment and retention of foster carers so that our looked after children can experience greater consistency and better support in the quality of care that they receive. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Coulson.

COUNCILLOR COULSON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am speaking on page 3 of the extra pack, Minute 6, Adoption and Fostering Annual Report.

In Leeds we have an adoption service that is rated as “Good”. It is nice to say that because about five years ago, it was not. I will comment on that later. It is something we should be proud about. A tremendous lot of work has gone into it by the Executive Member and the officers in both fostering and adoption. If you were involved in either one, you would know what I was talking about.

The rising number of young children needing adoption has meant that it is proving more difficult nationally to find families who are willing to adopt children. I think it is a national thing. I have seen the effect of that when we have had people coming from all over the country to adopt children in Leeds because we just do not have the families to adopt children. That is gradually changing again. I think it is all because of the hard work that has been put in. In addition to this, we have very young children who have issues surrounding their mothers’ drug or alcohol use during pregnancy. If I can tell you the amount of times that we have had papers in front of us, children who have been taken away at birth and then have been in intensive care for a week being detoxed. That is before they get into the world. There are some terrible cases and we have families who come forward and take these children on board.

A lot of the people who take these on board are people who have brought up their own families and find a void in their life and they call and take on these children. They are not all bad children, they do not all finish up bad children. As you sometimes will hear them say – and I hate it when I hear it said – children in care. All children in care are not problem children and a lot prove very successful. A family

comes to mind – and I am going back some years now – two people came forward, two professional people, two ladies, they had brought up a sibling family of three and every one went to university and got degrees. Those two ladies came back after the others had reached maturity and took a family of four on. That is some commitment and we have families who do that sort of thing.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Coulson, can I remind you to wind up?

COUNCILLOR COULSON: Last thing. Adopting a child is a very important thing. What I would ask you to do is, if you can spread the word within your wards for adopters and fosterers it would be a big help to the department. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Harington.

COUNCILLOR HARINGTON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. This is Minute 229 on page 224. You might, for example, be in a supermarket, see a woman with three kinds, one in a pram, two others running wild up and down the aisles, taking stuff off the shelf that mum does not want. Mum shouts at them, mum swears at them, eventually manages to get hold of one of them and hits him. Disapproving looks from other shoppers – “Why can’t that woman get a grip?” Maybe she can get a grip if she tried harder, maybe she can’t. She may begin to wonder whether she, whether her kids need some kind of assistance and, if they do, will they get it?

We are trying to be a child friendly city. We want to make sure that every child in the city gets the best possible start. Mostly that can happen by the child staying at home and, even when there are problems, the Council does all that it possibly can to make sure that the child can stay at home. Sometimes, of course, that is not possible. There are too many problems – the child is not safe, the child needs to move. Will the move be an improvement? As we know only too well, looked after children are likely to have poor education, have poor if any qualifications, have poor employment, poor health and so on. If we want to be a child friendly city we obviously have to do all we possibly can to make sure that this is not the case, to narrow the gap.

We call ourselves corporate parents, using the word “parent” to try and denote that we are not just an institution but doing the very best we can to provide a stable, supportive, loving environment.

The key way we do that, of course, is through foster carers. They do a fantastic job and it is obviously incumbent upon us to do all we possibly can to support them. This Minute refers to a way to try and improve the corporate offer and Councillor Gruen mentioned a few of the things to try and make sure that they are able to enjoy what the city has to offer, whether it be by free swimming classes, free access to Body Line, tickets for Council run events, a more Council friendly foster care city following Government recommendations so that if people need time off for the foster caring process they can take it, shopping discounts, tickets we hope (if the discussions go well) free tickets from Metro and a paper, I believe, on fees due at Executive Board soon.

This trying to do our best for foster carers, of course, is worthwhile in itself but it is also by way of trying to recruit more to show them that it is a worthwhile thing to do and the Council gives you the support you need. Sadly, we need more foster carers. There are still far too many children that are not getting the support they need, that are not safe. The task remains to try and get the best care for the children and families that need it at the right time and in this, of course, foster carers are a

vital part, in order to narrow the gap so that we can truly become a child friendly city. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Jarosz.

COUNCILLOR JAROSZ: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I would also like to comment on page 229, Minute 224, concerning the corporate offer to foster carers and care leavers. As Councillor Harington has already commented on foster carers, I would like to focus on care leavers.

Leaving care can be a difficult time for young people, and what this offer does provide is additional support to make this transition easier. This includes advice that many young people would automatically turn to their parents (don’t we all know it). As corporate parents we take on that responsibility so we need to ensure that the support we offer does not stop when young people leave the care system.

Research has shown that many carers struggle to cope with independence, as I have observed in my professional career with the Probation Service. They are much more likely to be unemployed, be in prison, be homeless and even die at an earlier age. It is these outcomes that our corporate offer must address.

Finding housing and employment are often the biggest challenges so have we have committed to additional support from housing services in terms of a higher priority awarded to care leavers and backdating to their 16 th birthday, as well as quicker alerts if they fall into rent arrears. We have agreed to offer care leavers through the 250 Opportunities Programme which provides work experience, apprenticeships and jobs for local young people. Work is also taking place to ensure that employment opportunities for care leavers is embodied in an ongoing procurement contract.

It is not just the big things, though. We are able to offer advice in terms of cooking, house maintenance and shopping. Our catering service will help kitting out first kitchens in new homes – all the other things that young people would normally call on their family to help them with. We will support them.

This administration is doing a lot but we are ambitious, we want to do much more. One of the biggest things we want to achieve is, quite simply, a place for care leavers where they can access help, support, services and advice. The ambition is for a city centre based facility with inputs from all departments and partner agencies. It will be available for all young people but with a specific area for care leavers, including various other facilities. Care leavers have told us this is what they want and this is what we want to achieve. We are all corporate parents and that responsibility continues until a looked after child had made that transition into adulthood – some of us never quite make it! – and independent living.

This offer goes a long way to meeting that obligation and I for one welcome it. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Dowson.

COUNCILLOR DOWSON: Lord Mayor, I am commenting on page 231, Minute 227, the Primary Basic Need Programme and Provision for 2014.

It seems at every Council meeting we are bringing through another Basic Needs paper and we have a statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of school places for the children and young people of Leeds. What is not fine is that we do not have the support from the Government to do this. What we need is for the Local Authority

to be given back its right to build new schools and the money to do so. We are in a position where we have a duty to provide places but we are limited to looking at expanding existing schools as we are not allowed to build new ones without having to put it out to tender for an Academy Sponsor.

The entire process seems set up to make providing school places as difficult as possible. Last week’s spending review saw the announcement of funding for – and get this – 180 new Free Schools. We cannot rely on unplanned school provision helping to tackle the basic need issue as we have absolutely no influence over where these free schools will be.

If there was a requirement for those wishing to set them up to involve us – the Council, that is all of us – we could work together to ensure schools were opening where they are absolutely needed. We need Government properly to fund school provision. We have one of the highest capital allocations but it is still nowhere near enough. Local Authorities up and down the country are dismayed by the position they are being put in and the lack of recognition or assistance from the Government.

On top of this was the announcement that there will be a £200m cut to Council funding for school improvement. You know, I am not cynical at all but I would argue that this is part of a larger plan to restrict the amount of support a Local Authority can put into schools to help raise standards, and we all know what it means to a school if they cannot raise standards. This in turn could look to more schools failing to hit the floor target and being forced to become an academy.

We need to stand together with other Local Authorities and lobby for the power to build new schools and the funding we desperately need to be able to do so. I have heard this expression before and it is true in this case – we need George Osborne to actually put his money where his mouth is. Last week he said that spending on education was the single best investment. Let’s see him prove that now. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Chapman.

COUNCILLOR CHAPMAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am speaking to Minute 228 on page 232.

The South Leeds Youth Hub is located on Middleton Road, Belle Isle, and is run by the Council as a venue for 11-19 year olds, offering a wide range of activities including both daytime education provision and out of school activities. Activities span a very wide range of areas and include sport, beauty, music, film, mechanics and open air performances.

On 24 April the Executive Board gave approval for the Council to seek Community Asset Transfer of the facility. The intention is to transfer the facility over to a voluntary sector organisation who will be able to run it far more effectively and at a lower cost to Council. The Council originally planned to have five hubs clubs across the city. The only one to have been built is the South Leeds hub, which was paid for by the My Place Lottery Grant and built in 2008. Plans were to create Youth Hubs at the Lazer Centre in Armley, the Prince Phillip Centre in Chapeltown and the Denis Healey Centre in Seacroft but none of these came to fruition, although some youth activities are currently hosted at these centres.

There was also an intention, strongly supported by the Weetwood Ward Councillors, to build a Youth Hub in the north-west of the city with the West Park Centre as a possible location. This was also confirmed by Youth Services in August 2011. The West Park Centre would be an ideal location for a Youth Hub in the north-

west. It is close to many main roads, a lot of young people already use the centre and there are many vulnerable young people who would value a safe place to go but do not have a suitable venue in this part of Leeds.

It is great that the south of the city has a Youth Hub offering such a wide range of activities for young people and that the Council is looking at imaginative ways of keeping it open in a time of greatly reduced budgets, but why should it only be the children from the south who have these activities available to them? Why can’t the Council show the same ambition to children in the north of the city who would also value such a facility? Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Bruce.

COUNCILLOR BRUCE: Lord Mayor and my fellow Councillors, I would like to speak on Minute 228, page 232, as well, about the South Leeds Youth Hub.

I think this is an exciting new opportunity for the Youth Hub and, as Chair of the Outer South Area Committee, I am keen to see that both the Inner and Outer South work closely together to ensure that we make the most of this fabulous opportunity. I know as Chair of Outer South and as Rothwell Councillor that some of our young people use it and what a fantastic facility it is, including the state of the art recording studio. It has got really high quality facilities. The recent approval of changes in governance arrangements will allow for numerous future improvements.

The new Civic Enterprise which will be established will offer additional opportunities at less cost to the Council, showing yet another example of how this administration is finding innovative ways to improve our services during these unprecedented times of cuts from the Coalition Government.

The Hub will be able to be utilised over longer opening hours, which is great, with a wider range of user groups and increased financial stability, which is essential. It is also essential that we involve young people and groups from across the whole of the south of Leeds to get new partners on board and really maximise the opportunities that are available. This means all of the Councillors from Inner and Outer South working closely together to ensure the best possible outcome for our areas, and I am hopeful and sure that we can achieve this by working together. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lamb.

COUNCILLOR LAMB: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I wish to speak on Minute 238 on page 238 about faith transport. I will have an opportunity to say more about it later on and, given that we do not have much time for Minutes today, I just have a very simple question that I hope Councillor Blake can address.

In her response to Councillor Latty earlier she said it was premature – that was the word she used, “premature” – to talk about the result of the consultation to withdraw funding for faith transport. Can she then tell us why her department has been writing out to inform parents of what their new charges will be in September before the consultation and the decision has been made? Thank you, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Cohen.

COUNCILLOR COHEN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I wish to speak on Minute 238, which conveniently enough is actually on page 238 as well. It deals with the proposals which will see the removal of funding for faith transport that this city currently provides for some parents and children accessing faith schools in our city.

I must confess, given the amount of time we seem to spend in the city about ensuring we do not discriminate against anybody, I would love to see the Equality Impact Assessment for this proposal because it strikes me that this proposal singularly affects Catholics and Anglicans who are seeking to send their children to Church schools. Whether that is apparently within Leeds City Council an allowed form of discrimination I do not know but that is certainly how it appears on the face of it and I would certainly like to see that Impact Assessment.

There are some wider issues, though, that do not seem to have been thought through with these proposals, although we know from Councillor Lamb a moment ago that it appears they are not proposals any more, they are decisions, albeit decisions made behind closed doors.

If the children currently accessing faith education move to their nearest available school, this is going to increase the basic need pressure our schools currently face and, at the same time, it certainly will not save any travel costs; it could well indeed increase travel costs.

If we phase out this subsidy then we are going to find bus routes may no longer be viable for those who would still receive transport subsidy because of reduced passenger numbers. It is also going to affect our school attendance figures, something that as a city we are working so hard to try and improve upon.

The impact on child poverty for the invisible poor who live in the more affluent areas of our city ignored once again. These proposals do seem to labour – no pun intended – under the misapprehension that those who attend faith schools are relatively affluent. This is, frankly, the worst type of stereotyping.

It is really concerning that there seems to have been no real modelling of the impact of these proposals, what the consequences of them would be in terms of traffic, in terms of pollution, in terms of that old famous phrase “basic need”, potential cost, implications for parents, the effect on pupils should they decide to change school or change transport method.

Lord Mayor, in short these proposals will increase costs to hard-pressed parents, they will reduce parental choice – something that Councillor Blake told us she was in favour of – and it will increase the pressure on schools already buckling under increasing numbers.

Lord Mayor, this administration should be commended because they have actually managed to bring forward a proposal that is the worst of all worlds. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Pat Latty.

COUNCILLOR P LATTY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am passionate about the welfare of the children in our city, and even more so about the problems a restriction of free transport will being to many parents. In a time of economic restraints I do not feel that our children should be affected by cuts to transport to travel to school. These young people are our future and these cuts by the controlling Labour administration in Leeds, are going to mean hardship for some families having to find the money for the fares or to face the expense of twice daily school runs. Remember, many of these children travel across the city. In some cases it will be extremely difficult as they may have more than one child at more than one school. The vulnerable are being hit where it hurts most and it may well mean that in some cases children will not be able to travel to a faith school.

This is a real attack on parental choice and a looming headache for our Education Department. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Finnigan.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Speaking at pages 243, Minute 245, that is about the expansion of several primary schools. We are particularly welcoming the expansion at Asquith Primary School, Morley St Francis, we also welcome an expansion at East Ardsley.

The reason for that particular expansion is that the infrastructure is creaking in Morley and we have to react quite vigorously to the number of children that we already have within the system. We therefore think it is foolish to propose another 7,000 plus new homes across the Morley area where, by 2016 according to Children’s Services, all of our primary and secondary schools will be full. This is full with children who are already presently in the system. It makes no sense whatsoever to us to add additional burdens to an infrastructure that is already creaking and we will be coming back to that later on.

All the primaries that can be expanded in Morley have been expanded. The secondaries are as expanded as they possibly can be. We are in a situation where, as somebody said at a public meeting that we recently had, you need to put the infrastructure in first before you allow any of this housing development because it does not make sense to allow developers an opportunity to abdicate their responsibility by making a contribution that does not cover the full cost or impact of what they are actually doing.

This is good news in as far as it actually goes but we have infrastructure that is creaking at this particular stage. Overwhelming it with new housing development without thoughts about the infrastructure is going to create problems and difficulties for a lot of our children. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Blake to sum up on these Minutes.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Could I start by adding my very sincere thanks to all of the foster carers and adoptive parents in Leeds for the tremendous role that they fulfil, and I think we have heard some very good examples. We are really dependent on these people for providing loving homes for some of our most vulnerable children and, as you have heard, the children coming forward into our care, the profile is changing. We are getting a lot of very young babies coming in but also a lot of young people with very profound health needs and the people that come forward to look after them are very, very special indeed.

So special indeed, Councillor Golton, that I have to say to you – and repeatedly you have gone back to the fees issue – we work with our foster carers very closely indeed and they have told us their main priorities in how we can help support them. Fees is one element of it but I have to tell you it is not the main element for foster carers. It is the things that Councillor Gruen and Councillor Harington highlighted in terms of support, information, access to real care and dealing with the problems that come along.

I am delighted to tell Council that we are bringing a paper on the fees structure to the Executive Board in July and I think that we could have a really good discussion about how we can continue to give support and really I am delighted that so many carers who have gone out into the private sector who left the Local Authority

are now actually getting in touch and they want to come back and be carers for Leeds City Council. I think that is a real testament to the work that we are doing.

Tremendous work as well with our care leavers and the corporate offer. This is just such an important piece of work in terms of making sure that all of our care leavers have the best opportunities going forward into the world of work, into independent living.

So many comments and I have got such little time to respond but, Councillor Chapman, I just want to pick up on your comments about the Youth Hub that Councillor Bruce picked up. Everybody in this Council knows that that project, the My Place Project, the Youth Hub in South Leeds, was funded by the former Government. One of the first things that the Government that came in did was actually to stop the capital funding of projects like this. We are grateful in South for Councillor Golton because it was under his administration that he actually chose the location of where the funding was going to go into the My Place Project. So much time has changed and the actual revenue funding for these projects is no longer as it was, as we know. Times are very hard and I really do welcome the opportunity that we are going to have.

We would love to provide more youth services for people in this city but the Government has made it very clear that they do not think that the Local Authority has a role in delivering youth services. I beg to disagree and that is why we are making a firm commitment to continuing to work with young people in the city.

I am very keen to welcome Garforth Academy, upstairs, I am really glad that they have come to take part to listen to our conversation today, but can I move on.

Basic need, yes, I think, Councillor Finnigan, you made some very good points and let us continue discussion. Morley is just one of many areas in the city where we are facing enormous pressure so let us continue to discuss this.

Really the comments on transport I find really, really disheartening, I have to be honest. The transport consultation that we have undertaken is looking at transport needs for all of our children and young people and they have only picked up on the issue of faith transport – an important issue for sure but we are looking at everything in the round. We have inherited a transport service for children and young people in this city that is now costing over £16m a year. That clearly is not sustainable. They did not address it then and now they are criticising us for our attempts to bring this under control. If we do nothing we know that that cost would go up to £25m, but the other aspect of it is that it is not providing the best needs for some of our most vulnerable children. Within the whole of the consultation we are looking at the faith sector, the discretion elements, obviously looking at that but looking at special educational needs transport, transport for our looked after children, all of these things, and you are doing an enormous disservice, I have to say, by assuming that we are just making decisions without consulting our partners. All of the partners involved in children and young people in this city are talking to us, discussing it with us and recognise that things have to be done differently so that we can put the needs of children and young people at the front of everything we do. Interestingly, it is young people themselves who have told us that the way we do it at the moment is discriminatory and I think we should all take notice of what the young people are saying.

All of this is against the backdrop of the difficulties that families in our city are facing as a result of all the changes that are happening in the welfare changes but also in five years rents have gone up 26%, energy by 30% and transport by 30%. We have got to come together and try and hold families together. The fragmentation

of the education system is really making this difficult for us and I put the Minutes to the meeting. Thank you very much, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

(ii) Leisure and Skills

THE LORD MAYOR: We move on to Leisure and Skills and I think it is Councillor Morgan who is going to comment.

COUNCILLOR MORGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am speaking today on Minute 229, page 233. It is regarding the Leeds Let’s Get Active Scheme.

I have already seen the men now standing up pulling in their tummies and I am sure I heard Brian Selby say “I am having some of this!”

Seriously, living an active lifestyle is vital to health and wellbeing – we all know this, so it is very important that everyone takes part in regular exercise leading to better health. This is especially a priority in wards like mine, Killingbeck and Seacroft. People in most deprived inner city areas have lower participation rates than the more well-off suburbs. This is also an issue that needs to be addressed if we are going to tackle the inequalities that exist.

The scheme aims to sort this by targeting leisure services at those who need it most and also those who struggle to afford it, thus resulting in a lifestyle change where those previously inactive people have access to Council leisure centres that at certain times of the day will be free, making a massive difference.

Costs of a gym session, swimming, travel costs are unaffordable due to unprecedented cuts to personal budgets. Who is doing that to us? We all know regular exercise has multiple benefits, especially in our Healthcare Bill and Leeds has an ambition to be the best city for activity and Health and Wellbeing, but in order to achieve this we must address health inequalities across the city.

I think the Let’s Get Active Scheme is a fantastic step in this direction. Well done to this Council. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: It is Councillor Mulherin.

COUNCILLOR MULHERIN: Thank you. Can I thank Councillor Morgan for her comments. Councillor Yeadon is not here to respond so I am doing that. The Leeds Let’s Get Active Scheme is a fantastic scheme for this city. It is a really exciting opportunity for us all. It is jointly funded by Sport England and our Public Health Team and it will be delivered by Leisure and Public Health working together. It is one of the first signs of the difference that bringing public health into Local Authorities is going to make in terms of changing the way that we work and tackling some of the health inequalities in the city of Leeds.

It will be seeking to explore the way that we can remove barriers to participation in sport and physical activity and, as we know from what Councillor Morgan has already told us, we know that those who are in the most deprived communities are less likely to take up those opportunities. That is also mirrored by the way in which health outcomes are much worse in our more deprived communities.

We hope to change the culture whereby inactive people become active through the introduction of free access to our leisure centre activities and community sports with a supportive and welcoming environment, removing the barriers through the charges for access to those centres and also by changing the way in which

people view the leisure centres so that they do not feel they have got to have the latest expensive trainers and the fancy tracksuits and the Lycra to wear to go in. They can go in and feel comfortable to take part in whatever they have to wear and actually know that they are there to benefit their health and wellbeing.

We have one hour free in all leisure centres but three hours free in the leisure centres in our most deprived communities, thereby recognising the disparities in the city in terms of health outcomes and participation in sport and exercise. It will be a city-wide offer so there will be that offer in every area but activity levels are lowest in those areas of highest health inequality and deprivation, so we have recognised that in the way we are shaping the scheme up.

It hopes also to embed a referral process from health professionals, so from GPs, health visitors and so on, to direct patients who could benefit the most from doing more exercise. The main focus of the research that we will be carrying out with partners from the Leeds Metropolitan University will be to determine whether a free and/or discounted offer combined with a supportive environment can get people who are currently inactive, active for one half an hour slot each week. Leeds currently ranks 39 th out of 326 Local Authorities across the country in terms of the number of people taking part in moderate exercise once a week (and that is the definition of moderate exercise) but this still puts Leeds at the top ranking core cities in this respect.

Hopefully with the Leeds Let’s Get Active Scheme up and running from the autumn we will be able to build on the successes we have already achieved but actually build on it most in those areas that need it most and start off from the position that we are currently in, 39 th out of 326, and make significant further strides in sport participation. We have seen already some progress since the Olympics in London last year which appear to have really inspired people to take up exercise and this is one of the next steps in ensuring an Olympic legacy for the city of Leeds. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you. I am going to move on to page 14 now and ask Councillor Wakefield to exercise his right of reply. It is now five o’clock.

COUNCILLOR WAKEFIELD: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Firstly, given the last contribution, I ought to remind people that this Sunday is the Sky Ride, where you can take your family, take your bike and ride round the city centre in a traffic free environment and I am sure it will be a fantastic success and, indeed, a reminder about the Tour for next year. I do look forward to Councillor Lamb getting on his bike with Councillor Cleasby and one or two colleagues here. I know that Councillor Harington will be alongside me trying to race round the city centre.

The point that has been made many times about this is actually it is a real coup for this city to get half a million pounds in Lottery from what was a very small national figure. I think it is a huge achievement for the city. For me it is not just about the inequalities which we have spoken many times about in here. It is about changing the look on our approach to health in this country. Too often our hospitals are too reactive, they are sick places to go to and what we have to do – and we are beginning to understand that challenge – is actually change our whole approach to health to be more preventative. Very simply, I know this scheme of Be Active is not going to produce Olympic athletes, sadly; it is going to actually remind people that if you do half an hour three times a week there is a 50% chance of reducing strokes and heart attacks and so on. Very simple stuff but will make a massive difference. I do hope we get to hear the progress in terms of participation and the progress on health.

I want just to briefly go back to some of the points that were made earlier on, because we very rarely debate the issues of fostering and adoption, yet there is so much work done behind the scenes not only by Members here but by officers and particularly those who take up the challenge of fostering. For me, I am always interested why people do this because it is about the human spirit to me. Nobody does that for money. I remember (and many of you will) a former Councillor called Bill Kilgallon and he fostered, somebody was saying nearly 100 different families and children because he thought it was his civic responsibility. No money, Stuart, could have motivated him and in Kippax we know a family that actually fosters two children with learning disabilities because they believe it is their civic duty.

I do get the point that it is not money, I do get the point that actually it is the support that the Council gives, not just in retail and sport but the therapeutic and the recognition that they really are helping the most vulnerable children. I also think that in terms of adoption as well, that you have to look further into the human spirit than money. I think in those areas we have made huge progress. Sadly, there are still more children coming in and sadly they are nought to two years old, which is really bringing a challenge to foster parents here. I think anybody who takes that challenge needs that recognition and celebration and so on.

I would also say to Councillor Jarosz’s point, because I think Councillor Coulson gave some very, very good stories about people who take this on, but it is absolutely true, the average person leaving your home is 24. When you leave care it is 18 and the stories actually I remember Councillor Golton when he was doing Children’s talked about in terms of people who fail education, they come out – some time ago, it has improved – 11% of children who get five A-C for looked after children. Those who then go out after cannot find a job, cannot find apprenticeship, cannot find a home, cannot find welfare, cannot find guidance and it is no surprise that our prisons and some of our troubled institutions are full of young children who have gone through vulnerable experiences through that.

I hope we can all take the support of the Hub in the city centre where young people can go for a bit of advice. Maybe we can help. I remember, I think we did launch an initiative on apprenticeships for people who had been in care and I think that is something that we need to do more of. We need to look more actively for jobs because the alternative is dying very early or actually having a life of alcohol and drugs. I really do applaud that work and I know that we all do, that takes place in fostering and adoption.

Like Councillor Blake I just could not understand why during the process of consultation on the bigger picture for children’s transport we focused on one issue, Councillor Cohen. Some people might be cynical and think there is more political opportunism in that. I would not but I do believe all the decisions that we make, all the difficult ones that we will have to make should always be contextualised. Why do you think we are making these changes? We like making these changes? We like making life – absolutely not. Let us not forget that last week we heard some very important figures from SIGOMA, who looked after the finances of Local Authority and Councillor Atha is our representative. Very important figures and I think that is important in contextualising.

From 2010 to 2012 every person in Yorkshire and Humberside had £140 cut in public expenditure. In the rest of England it was £80. In London, during that same period, they had a £45 increase for individuals. That is a huge unfair cut for the north and for all Local Authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside and sadly, if you project to 2017 every individual, Yorkshire and Humberside, with the current trajectory it would take something like £525 per person. These are very accurate figures. In the south- east of this country it is £256. I think, again, as I said earlier, the Local Authorities,

particular in Yorkshire and Humberside, are being really, really let down and betrayed by this Chancellor and this Coalition Government.

What I would like to see, I really would like to see today because the evidence is overwhelming that, yes, we stand up for the vulnerable, yes, we do not want discrimination but can we have some of the people who are making the points now stand up and actually say something that we are being unfairly treated and that we should actually try to stand up for the young people of this area, the Local Authorities of this area and the services of this area from this Government. I think then we can actually try and make a difference to the current crisis we have in Local Government funding in the north. Thank you, Lord Mayor, I move. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor Wakefield. Good news, it is now time for tea for us all.

I always miss the votes out! Let us go back to the formal part of the meeting. Let us call for the motion to receive the Minutes. (A vote was taken) I think those Minutes are CARRIED.

Now let us carry forward to tea. We will invite the people in the galleries to join us in the Banqueting Suite. Thank you.

(Short break)

ITEM 15 – BACK BENCH COMMUNITY CONCERNS

THE LORD MAYOR: OK, everybody suitably refreshed, we will invite Councillor Finnigan to talk about his Back Bench Community Concern, Item 15. Thank you, Robert.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. There are recurrent themes about the overdevelopment of Morley we saw this afternoon, which started off with a Delegation who raised their particular concerns and, of course, people will say, as they often do, “This is just typical of Morley Councillors who are constantly whingeing about this particular matter again.” We would argue that we reflect the concerns of the local community and, as you saw this afternoon, an organisation, MARC (Morley Against Reckless Construction) has formed itself out of local residents who again share our concerns.

Perhaps for us, quite interestingly, is our concerns are shared by good old Ed, in his most recent newsletter, where he asked a questionnaire specifically on this issue. Do we need more houses built in our area? Yes, says Ed – built on green field. Do we need more houses built in our area? Yes, says Ed – on brown field. Do we need more houses? Yes, yes, yes. To be fair on that, he is asking a question that a lot of Morley folk do ask about the necessity for new development and if that new development is necessary, where it should actually go.

The general view across the wider Morley area is that it is has contributed to developments over the last 25 years and certainly if you go through Morley and look at the Birdyland estate, the Ibbetson estate, where Councillor Dawson lives, if you look at Blackgates and you look at other areas across the Morley area, you will see that there are substantial estates that are new build, that have been built up over the last 25 years.

Morley folk believe that they have already contributed and that to ask them to take on more of the burden of new development is unreasonable and unfair. I also question the numbers behind it.

MARC was formed and MARC will tell you that it has significant concerns in three different areas. One is about traffic and that is quite well documented. People will know that the M62 runs through Morley, we have the A653, we have the 650, the A62, the A58, all of which are significantly busy. There is significant congestion along those particular corridors and we know the Highways Agency in their representations on the LDF have talked about the fact that junctions that serve Morley are already up to capacity and, indeed, imposed new financial obligations on developers trying to develop in that particular area because they believe that the motorway network is already busy enough.

MARC will raise similar concerns about health centres and the fact that trying to get an appointment with doctors in health centres is particularly difficult across the Morley area and they would argue that a lot of that is to do with the amount of development that has been seen over the years.

The main issue that they raise time and time again is education and, as you all know, all of Morley’s primary schools and all of Morley’s secondary schools will be full by 2016 with kids that are already in the system. There is no space left to accommodate all of this new development. They consistently raise those concerns, we have expanded all the primaries as far as we can go. The secondaries are as big as they can go. There is no further room for the children that will be generated by this new development.

Of course, when you talk about the figures and the proposal for 74,000 new houses across the wider Leeds area between now and 2028 and Morley’s burden, seven or eight thousand, depending on whose figures you actually believe.

Morley residents are puzzled. They are puzzled about why you need to rip up Morley greenfield sites because, as Peter has already told us, we have planning permissions for over 21,000 houses at this particular point. Out of those, according to figures that we were given on the Joint Plans Panel, somewhere in the region of 18,500 of those are on brownfield sites.

Taking it that completions in the last recorded year we have got information on is 1,931, even with my poor maths O-level even I can figure out that you have probably got the best part of ten years’ land supply on the basic consumption of land at this particular point. They question why Morley greenfield sites should be ripped up primarily when there are so many planned permissions already in existence that have not actually been used. They see that as unrealistic and unsustainable. Their argument is that you are in a situation where the infrastructure is already creaking, you cannot possibly cope with what you have already got in the system, you have a pile of planning permissions across the city, a lot of them on brownfield sites, a lot of them that we want to be seen to be regenerated, and yet here you are suggesting and proposing that Morley takes its additional share of over-development. They think that that is unreasonable and unfair.

The big issue that they talk about time and time again is the infrastructure problem. There is not the infrastructure to support this level of development, but another argument that has done the rounds is the fact that we cannot afford this level of development. If you look at 74,000 houses you would have to find £12.2b between now and 2028 – unrealistic, unachievable. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen to respond.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: Lord Mayor, this is a really important debate and I cannot do justice in four minutes to the arguments put forward by Robert and his group, but I am very willing outside of this meeting to arrange another meeting to spend more time about this.

Robert has put forward some of the issues but he also knows some of the answers. The first one, of course, is that Morley is not being singled out. In East Leeds we have 17% of the total; in the city centre 15.5%; in the Inner area 15%; and in the Morley Housing Management Area it is 11%. It is not 7,200 and, again, he knows that. For Morley itself, Morley North and Morley South, it is probably around 2,200 houses, so we have to have a degree of openness and transparency about the arguments we use.

The trouble is, all of this comes down to what the Government-imposed Inspectorate tells us we have to do. The builders say we have a three year land supply. The Government will not let us use land banking. We can make a very small allowance, about 500 houses per year when we know the 21,000 by itself will be a five year land supply, but if we put that into the equation the Inspector would simply wipe it out and ignore it and say you cannot use it.

Is it realistic or not? If you look on what the current building figures are, and he said the same about the RSS, is it realistic? They are the figures the Planning Inspector will use so they are the only figures we can use. If we do not get our Core Strategy approved, then what will happen is, you know house builders will not build on brownfield sites. The Council, I think two or three Executive Boards ago, came forward with 140 brownfield sites which we own across the whole of the city. We have said it is open house, it is open door, any house builder who wants to come and join with us, have a consortium, let us see if we can build on some of those brownfield sites.

It has always been the same. Everybody in this Chamber knows the house builders will gravitate towards the greenfield sites. If we have no Core Strategy you are opening Pandora’s Box. They can simply take any one wherever they want, whenever they want, and they know they can go to Planning Inspectorate Appeal and the fact is, you know that – you and Tom know that, steeped in planning all of your lives. You know what it is like. You need to have the integrity of saying to your public, “Actually, we are between a rock and a hard place.” It does not matter what we believe, it is Pickles who set up the playing field. He is telling you what we can and cannot do and if we do not pursue what we are pursuing, it is not the best, it is the only option we have. If we do not pursue that option you are opening every greenfield in the whole of the city to speculators and developers and house builders and the will pick you off one by one, and then they will pick you off and pick you off one by one.

We are not going to have that. We have to have some kind of system but we are more than willing to talk with you to see how we can best arrange that and that is why there was a Site Allocation Process. Every Member has had two or three opportunities to have their input and that is the consensual way we want to go forward. We cannot draw up the shutters, we cannot bury our head in the sand and say “Pickles, please go away” because for two more years he will not go away. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Hardy.

COUNCILLOR HARDY: Lord Mayor and fellow Councillors. Antisocial behaviour is a term we hear very often and I am all too aware that it covers a range of different activities undertaken by individuals and groups. To many people antisocial behaviour conjures images of threats, violence and intimidation, many of which are rightly identified as crimes. Antisocial behaviour can also mean the small drips of abuse that amounts to a serious challenge to people’s daily lives in these small but important acts I want to discuss today

Low level antisocial behaviour is very hard to properly define. To my mind this is an activity that causes upset to other people but not necessarily criminal. On that basis, we have to admit, all of us, we have probably at some point been guilty of antisocial behaviour. Have we lost our temper with anybody? Have we shouted at them? However, to me this becomes a serious problem when there is an established pattern of this behaviour. The same person shouting at you on a daily basis, the same neighbour playing loud music night after night, the same shopping centre covered in graffiti – these impact upon people’s lives to a significant degree mentally and physically.

In Farnley and Wortley I see people in my surgery who suffer low level antisocial behaviour day after day. They come to me for help due to the football being kicked repeatedly against the fence, loud music, low level abuse or name calling. When I speak to people in my surgery about reporting it to the Antisocial Behaviour Team they take a step back. They do not want to accuse their neighbours or worry about the consequences for them or being considered a grass themselves.

This activity that has had them in tears seconds ago is quickly swept under the carpet but we know it does not stay there so my first concern is that however comforting the figures are on high level antisocial behaviour (and they have gone down a lot) I worry there is a significant incidence where people do not want to report low level actions until they become a major problem.

A ward like Farnley and Wortley has many incidents which go unnoticed by anyone apart from the victim. We need to ensure a mechanism exists to allow people to report behaviour effectively before it becomes a significant issue.

My second concern is that low level antisocial behaviour can create further marginalisation of people in their own areas. People avoid properties, streets and even whole shopping centres because of fear of what could be seen as small incidents – the unflattering remark, the shouting young people or the threatening graffiti. People feel less and less able to go out of their homes and into areas in which they could socialise and be around people they would get on with.

This is not a problem limited to Farnley and Wortley. I think if we want to have attractive spaces for residents to meet and work together, then we need to ensure meeting places, social and retail centres should be open for all people to congregate and get to know one another.

For Leeds to be the best city – and it can be, and it will be – people need to feel safe. This safety is not just from physical harm but also from psychological damage. They not only need to feel safe in their own homes but also when they are out in the local community across the city.

What more can be done in Farnley and Wortley? I think the most important lesson to be learned is that prevention is better than cure. I support the work being done by the Antisocial Behaviour Team to respond to the challenge across the city in my ward. We need to ensure that there is an understanding across the Council that

low level antisocial behaviour is both damaging in itself and a problem which, if let unchecked, will only escalate.

I therefore feel we need to concentrate on early notification and response in order to stop matters from getting worse. This does not have to be a punitive approach. The right intervention from an Antisocial Behaviour Team worker, PCSO or police officer at the right time can remove the need for formal action. I am sure that the commitment to continuing investing time and energy into nipping low level antisocial behaviour in the bud will pay dividends both in Farnley and Wortley and across the city.

Let me finish by saying, as I look round the Council Chamber, how many of us sitting here have been guilty of antisocial behaviour in one way or another? I do hope we have not been guilty – and me particularly with my loud voice. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: I think that last indication was quite dangerous because I think if we refer to name calling as antisocial behaviour then I do not think many people in here will get away Scot free, Andrew, around the Council Chamber.

Do you know, my hearing aids have two settings. One is normal and then one is high. I wish somebody would invent one for the Hardy factor and then I could turn it down a bit! (laughter) A very welcome speech.

There is truth in what John tells us because there has been an increase in antisocial behaviour in his ward. I think there were 21 cases in May 2012 and a year later there are now 36, but a lot of the increase is due to the integration of the Noise Nuisance Team within Antisocial Behaviour and noise nuisance is something we have not yet totally cracked. It is very resource intensive, it is very difficult and it leads to huge neighbour to neighbour disputes, but we are doing what we can.

I am told in this briefing that I should express sympathy with you and, of course, I do, and that is what Executive Board Members are meant to do. I think there are three areas in your ward where action is particularly going on. Greenthorpes and Heights about youths congregating outside shops, 14 acceptable behaviour contracts, five ASBO warnings, 19 referrals to support services. Gamble Hill, again young males congregating outside shops, throwing objects and kicking footballs at windows. Again, some arrests from the police and harassment charges, follow up visits and further work have to be done and the problems, it says, have since stopped. You may tell me differently. Then there is Cow Close and Cobdens, again around youths congregating around the shops, residents feeling intimidated, some criminal damage but nobody has identified the culprits yet, but there has been intensive investigation, there are high visibility patrols going on including the Council CCTV van.

You can see things are being done within your ward and I think you are absolutely right to draw it to our attention. There are also of course, now, what are called these new community triggers which are about to happen, so if the department does not take cognisance of what the public are saying, I think if there are three incidents then the public themselves can enforce the department to take action, and that will keep us on our toes and that will be a useful additional tool in the kit for residents.

Thank you very much, John, for drawing this issue to our attention. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Walker.

COUNCILLOR WALKER: Thank you, Lord Mayor. In bringing forward this Community Concern I hope to highlight an issue that has the potential to cause great unrest, antisocial behaviour, lawlessness and have a detrimental impact on health and wellbeing.

Whilst bringing this forward as a Community Concern, this is an issue with potential for repercussion for the entire city. I am referring to the inappropriate misuse of Temporary Event Notices, that are commonly known as TENs. A Temporary Event Notice allows an individual to apply for a licence to hold an event with the sale of alcohol on a fixed day between set times and in a fixed location without recourse for either a personal or premises licence.

As you are now aware of TENS in your wards following Councillor Walshaw’s and my insistence upon it, you will know that most are completely non-contentious. They cover such events as galas, fundraisers, usually involving community groups in appropriate and well managed settings.

However, some weeks ago a Temporary Event Notice was granted in the ward of Headingley for an event but, let’s call it what it was, it was a rave. The event took place midweek in the garden of a house in a highly built up residential area with a large pay bar, several DJs and this ran through the night into the early hours. It was advertised on social media sites and it attracted several hundred party goers.

It was, in my opinion, a total abuse of the TENS system and not at all what was intended in the Licensing Act of 2003. Whilst the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill of 2011 did tighten up on the powers around TENs, there was one fundamental omission. Environmental officers and the police cannot currently object if there had been no previous problems at an event. This means that in this particular case that, whilst the outcomes were absolutely obvious to all, we were powerless to act.

I am pleased to tell Council that when a further application came in for a neighbouring location it was rejected but, as I see it, we have a problem. Currently for £21 an event can take place, as was the case with this event I have highlighted, at potential huge cost to the Council and our partner agencies and, of course, the public in terms of the aftermath. In my admittedly relatively short time on this Council I have never come across a local issue that has so upset the public, with most complaints focusing on noise and the disruption of sleep, especially for the many young people in the area for whom it was a school night.

Anyone could apply anywhere in the city to have a large scale event for up to 500 people using a TEN, assuming there have been no previous issues. Therefore, the views of ward Members, who I believe are the essential conduit between the public and the Council, would be overlooked, as would be any concerns of Environmental Officers and the police.

Leeds City Council and the police appear to me to be ready and willing to refuse the granting of inappropriate TENs but, due to how the law is framed, we are currently not able to do so.

My good friend and colleague Councillor Peter Gruen has been of great assistance in getting us this far, but further progress can only be made with further amendment to this restricted legislation that allows that most vital piece of evidence missing which is, namely, local knowledge. I am wondering if this is something that

could be examined through the Scrutiny process with perhaps the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Board taking a lead whilst liaising with colleagues on the Health Scrutiny Board.

However, I would like this Council to agree to write to the relevant department in Government via the Leadership team of the Council and the Chief Executive to highlight this issue, highlight our concerns and press for a change in the law to allow the Council to use the best resource to our best disposal, that being local knowledge of public and ward Members to influence good and sensible decision making for the protection of Leeds. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Community Concerns, Peter, three in a row. Councillor Gruen, have another go!

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: It’s a hat trick! My good friend and colleague Janette, thank you very much. Sometimes people say to me what do Councillors do, or what can Councillors do, and the illustration of what Councillors Walshaw and Walker have done assiduously in pressing the case regarding these TENs has been exemplary. There was no process within the Council at all for elected Members (a) to be notified or, (b), to have the opportunity of objecting. Even though the law is an ass and gives you around 24 hours to turn this around, and if you miss it the applicants almost scuff their application through, at least this has given an opportunity, and I know it has been utilised in Headingley.

Can I say, colleagues, having seen some of the emails around some of those issues, no wonder the two Headingley Councillors are so insistent that we take further action because if you received some of those emails, they would make your hair stand on end. These are very antisocial in different parts of day and night, sometimes going on for several days, which nobody who wants to go about their normal business, go to work etc etc, needs their sleep, can actually put up with for too long, nor should they have to. It puts to shame some of this light touch regulation because actually the more the Government tells us it should be light touch, be it in Planning, be it in Licensing, the more actually communities will rebel against that when it affects them. They actually want the Council to be interventionist to protect them to go about their normal business.

Some of you may not have these problems in some of your wards but certainly I want to alert more and more people here now that you have the opportunity. These applications come round regularly, your wards are highlighted so that you can see that there is an application in your ward, you can look at it and you can comment.

The step further which I accept we should do and I will take on, is that we look more closely at the legislation and that we write in to the appropriate Government Department to express our concern and say that in practice this simply is not working, it is not giving the protection to people concerned and I am sure we can use evidence from your examples and if others have those to actually say to the Government, you need to rethink and just give a little bit more time so that some of these applications can be considered on merit. Nobody is saying we should turn them all down but they should be able to be considered on merit and you as local ward Councillors should have the opportunity of consulting with neighbours and local people in that area, so I agree to do that. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Hamilton.

COUNCILLOR M HAMILTON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Lord Mayor, I wanted to address the issue of the paper that went to Executive Board about charging for residents’ parking and how this proposal might affect my own ward of Headingley.

Lord Mayor ,when I was first elected to Council there were no residents’ parking areas in Headingley ward, even though there was a lot of demand for that sort of facility. Shortly after getting on the Council Headingley Stadium, particularly the cricket side, started to develop and through 106 agreements we were able to start to roll out some residents only parking, initially in the Cardigan Triangle area but then subsequently we have been able to extend this to include the area around the front of the cricket ground, in particular the Turnways and the Greyshiels.

The reason why residents were so keen to have these residents’ parking zones put in place was because on match days they were faced with an absolutely horrendous position where they could not park within half a mile of their properties very often. Indeed, as part of the residents’ parking zone we also got some other traffic measures introduced because we also found, for example, that emergency services were able to access some of the streets and there was one particularly sad occasion when an ambulance could not get through to someone who had had a heart attack. There was a real groundswell of opinion that something needed to be done and residents’ parking was central to that groundswell. The other thing was that this is around the time that these day/night matches started to happen so actually there were also issues in the evenings as well.

Since then these zones have been expanded somewhat and other parts of the ward are now covered. The Carnegie Pavilion, of course, is also a teaching space for Leeds Met and that scheme also enabled us to slightly extend the residents’ parking area to address the fact that some of the students would be driving to the teaching space.

The zone has been a real godsend to residents in my ward and I suppose the question I would have for Councillor Lewis and this review, which I accept is going out for consultation and I think the initial view may well change, and I hope it will change, there is an issue about why residents should be penalised for a problem which they have not actually created themselves, so something that is completely external to them. It is the Stadium, it is the fact that in recent years the patterns of matches and things have been such that parking became a real issue and that is why it was brought in.

I think there is an issue about how in particular circumstances we look at levying charges. I should say that I am not against the principle of charging for residents’ parking zones and I accept that we are, after all, limited somewhat in terms of what we do in Leeds, although I thought the paper to Executive Board slightly misled in terms of the levels of charges levied, because if you look at the core cities, generally it is well below £50. There are a couple of outliers but generally speaking it is well below the £50 mark. I think the figure of £50 that has been bandied about and is suggested in the report is somewhat higher than most of the core cities.

I am not against the principle of charging and certainly we have looked at this in the past within Headingley ward as a way maybe of restricting the large number of cars that arrive in Headingley at certain times of the year and are not actually used, so there are creative ways of actually maybe providing the first permit free and then charging more for the second permit and then charging a lot more for the third permit. I think there are ways of charging people and collecting revenues and paying for the schemes to be run that do not actually penalise people unduly. I think that is certainly an option.

I think there is also clearly a case where residents’ parking is more about convenience than a real impact on the streets concerned, and there I think it is reasonable to think about a modest charge that covers costs.

I do think that when you are looking at residents who live near the Stadium, and I am sure there are other examples across the city where it is really nothing to do with them that there is a problem, then I think to penalise them is actually wrong.

I think there is a principle often used which is the polluter should pay and, in the case of that particular instance, the polluter is actually the stadium, that is the cause of the problems. I think going forward we need to be a little bit more creative about how we frame this policy, so rather than just having a blanket fifty quid charge no matter where the residents’ parking zone is and no matter who is involved - I know there were some proposals to reduce it or not charge it for low emission vehicles but apart from that it seems to me like it is a pretty much flat rate charge. I think other options need to be looked at.

One thing we should do is look at legal agreements when new developments are happening and actually pay for the running costs of residents’ parking, not just the set-up costs. That would be one way of doing it. I do think that we should not be penalising residents in areas such as Headingley, around the stadium and there will be other examples across the city who need to have reasonable access to their properties and ten years ago could not get anywhere near those properties.

I do hope that you look at the policy when the feedback comes back and come up with something that maybe is a little bit more nuanced than simply saying “Here is a flat rate charge, everyone has to pay it.” Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Thanks, Councillor Hamilton, for your comments about the financial context but I think we all know where we are and we all know why we are in this position of talking about charges for residents’ parking. It is not something that any of us would say we are really happy about but we are where we are with the Council’s financial position.

I think as I looked at it I realised there are so many nuances in this as an issue. I was thinking about an area of Headingley which I know, which is the Granbys. I had an email from one of your residents down there which was actually about NGT but touched on the whole thing and I thought as an area it has improved immeasurably since there was residents’ parking there. It just feels so much better.

What are we actually trying to do, because in some ways this is not just about parking. It is about something broader. It is about a quality of life issue. I remember years ago having a preliminary discussion with you about whether you could use the policy in some way to finesse it in such a way that you did discourage people from having two or three or four cars in an area.

I am very keen to say that this is about consultation, we do want to talk to people. We are setting up focus groups in advance of the consultation to try and get those initial consultations going with people and maybe we need to frame your consultations in a better way and not having that much luck, but I can understand why people are not coming back to that. It is genuine consultation.

I have big concerns across the city that there are some areas where we have done it because there was a huge problem for the residents. As you say, it was

because people felt it was somebody else’s problem that was imposed on them. I suppose that parking round the hospital would be a good example of that as well as round the grounds. Down at Elland Road, I suppose, a similar situation. Other places where I think we would probably put in parking schemes as a kind of easy option when we should have thought a bit harder and thought of something else that we should do.

If you can encourage your residents to take part in the focus groups as well as the consultation, it is about really trying to dig into this as an issue to see what is the best way forward that actually delivers something more than just a sum of money coming into the Council. Can we really learn from this and improve our neighbourhoods in the process? Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Ann Blackburn.

COUNCILLOR A BLACKBURN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I wish to speak on the Community Concern to do with the future maintenance of bowling greens. I know the consultation is still ongoing regarding the Council withdrawing from horticultural maintenance of bowling greens and instead providing a grant to viable bowling clubs to enable them to manage their own facilities.

However, I know that the consultation document suggests 50 members and over are needed for a bowling club to be viable, and 27 clubs are listed as fulfilling this criteria. However, the membership figures given are based on data from 2010, so some of this information could be incorrect. I know this is the case of Western Flatts in my ward, who are quoted as having 59 members but now have 70-plus members, and New Wortley have gone from 34 members to just short of 50, so clearly the Council needs to update its records.

The Council suggests paying a grant of £1,900 to each club to manage each facility themselves, which would include cutting the greens and carrying out other maintenance duties. They reckon that this would pay for the maintenance of a single green per club per year.

Some clubs may be willing to contract work to be done on their bowling green but there will be others, like those in my ward, who do not have the expertise in contracting and would prefer the Council to do this for them. I am told the Council has allegedly received a quote from outside contractors which is less than the amount being offered to clubs, so if this is the case maybe the Council could take this up on behalf of the clubs that are interested.

Also, I would like to know why Sheffield Council are offering around £3,000 to bowling clubs in their area to manage their own facilities and Leeds is only offering £1,900.

I have been told by bowlers in my ward that they are willing to pay an increase in membership fees, but as they pay £15 year and an officer dealing with the consultation told me they would need to pay about £60 per year, I do not see this solving the problem. However, £60 multiplied by 50 members comes to £3,000, so if we know £3,000 is needed per green, why are we offering £1,900?

We have touched on the health agenda earlier this afternoon and we must remember that these clubs, besides providing a valuable facility for people in the local community, also help people to keep healthy through the mental and physical effort that is needed to play the game. Really, I do not think the matter has been thought through before the consultation paper was put together and I hope that the

paper presented at the end of the consultation will offer a practical and affordable way forward for bowling clubs to continue operating. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Dobson to reply.

COUNCILLOR DOBSON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Actually, I think a lot of the comments that have been raised during that Community Concern do actually carry a large degree of validity.

I think when we started this process and the idea was to offer a grant, £1,900, to maintain a green, it was done with the best of intentions to try and obviously look at our budgetary position at the moment in terms of revenue costs – it is working out at £225,000 per annum and on top of that we have a further £30,000 in utility charges, and I think that may explain where the £1,900 for the green maintenance and the £3,000 – there is a discrepancy because obviously over 50 areas there is 50 sets of utility charges as well to be added to that and it does not account, obviously, for the plant we have to invest in in terms of actually maintaining the greens.

That said, I do think there is still a great deal of validity in this and part of the reason is, when we have done this exercise and we have looked at the 71 greens that we currently have and we have looked at it in terms of the 50 clubs, what I have said to officers is, look, there is no one size fits all solution, I suspect to this problem. It may well be, I have consulted my local club and they are saying we have probably got the membership who are physically able enough to do this sort of work and the like. Other clubs, we are now finding out through this more detailed consultation, are saying, “Actually, we are an ageing membership, we really have not got the physical ability to do that.”

I think the message that is coming out of it for me already, even before the consultation is closed, I do not thin it is going to be a one size fits all policy across the piece. We have become aware of that and, indeed, it has been something of a learning process even to get us to this point.

When Richard on his last Community Concern, I do think it has to be framed in having to look at these because of our budgetary position and I do not think any of us go into this lightly, but I think Richard was right when he said we are looking to consult but we do it in such a way that it is not set in stone and the outcomes are not going to be dictated before the consultation is even in.

One thing I did want to touch, however, I am more than happy to meet with you and take forward the new figures in terms of your membership but I am looking at the New Wortley one in particular – I had it at 34 for two greens. Even if it is at 50 members for two greens, I do think we have to make some difficult decisions around are two green sustainable for even 50 members? If there is an argument where there are other people coming in to use them that we are finding, I would still like to see the specifics around the actual usage. I am not getting massively hung up on members but for me, even at 50 that would seem low for two greens.

In my background when I use to chair the Health Board I think nobody could deny my passion and commitment for the Health and Wellbeing agenda. This is why we are doing this job of work. As a Council we have not gone into any element of what we do and said, “Cut that, cut that, get rid of that, we have made the savings.” We are actually doing a more difficult job of work in every single area of cuts and potential closures, we are looking for options that are different, we are looking to deliver things differently. There is a clear commitment to doing that and, again, whilst I cannot answer all the specific points you have raised today, let us have done with all the 50 clubs involved, I know there have been two conversations in your ward, we

will have a third if needs be but I think we can get where we need to be and we will do so through a bespoke series of measures for each club but at the end of it I am very hopeful and optimistic we will still have a thriving bowling community in Leeds. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lamb.

COUNCILLOR LAMB: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Lord Mayor, I would like to raise concerns about the proposal to cease funding for home-school transport for pupils attending faith schools, and particularly the impact it will have on families in my ward in Wetherby.

We touched on this earlier on in the Minutes debate. I have to say, I thought the response of Councillor Blake and Councillor Wakefield was appalling, to trivialise this issue and I can tell you, I have never had so much correspondence on a single issue in my time as a Councillor as I have about this issue.

The weasel words of Councillor Wakefield trying to deflect attention from this very important issue, he said we should put the issue into context and I agree with him, we should put the issue into context. The one thing we never, ever hear from this administration or any Labour politician is for taking responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in as a country and the fact that we are having to make cuts to services. They never take responsibility for the massive debts that they have left for our children and their children to pay off, and we also now know from Mr Balls and Mr Miliband they have no plans to reverse any of these cuts, so we are going to be living in this kind of spending envelope for a long time whoever is in Government, and it is about time they started taking responsibility for it.

Lord Mayor, there are five faith-based primary schools in my ward in Wetherby. There are no faith-based secondary schools. What that means is there is no school anywhere in my ward, there is no family that if they wanted to choose a faith-based secondary education for their school, the closest one, even if they live on the furthest extremity of our ward, is seven miles away – the closest one. It is a long way to travel.

There are those people in this Chamber, Lord Mayor, I know who are on principle opposed to the idea of funding faith transport. They are entitled to their opinion; they should have the guts to say that that is the case. This administration claims they are in favour of parental choice. They actually betray them. There are many people – many people - who suspect that this so-called consultation is a sham and that decisions have already been taken.

Lord Mayor, I asked a direct, simple question to Councillor Blake earlier which she refused to answer, Councillor Wakefield refused to answer. Can they tell us, and will she now answer the question, why have parents this weekend been getting letters telling them what they will have to pay to go to school in September? Why is that the case if this decision has not already been made? It is not a valid consultation when in your budget in January you removed the funding from the budget before you start the consultation. They said we should not focus on single elements bug that is now they have framed the consultation. The consultation is to remove funding for discretionary elements of transport.

We are perfectly open and I believe there are savings to be made in the Children’s Services transport budget. The Director of Children’s Services I am sure will confirm that when I very first met him when he joined the Authority three years ago, I offered my group’s support to look at the whole Children’s Services transport

budget because I believed savings could be made. I have made that offer repeatedly in briefings. It has never been taken up, never.

There are savings to be made but salami slicing and attacking parental choice cannot be the right way and I actually think it will be counter productive and I do not think it will make the savings they believe it will make.

Lord Mayor, the response from Metro to the consultation shows that far from the £300 per family that it would cost to send each child to school, they believe it would be £643. I have heard from one family in my ward that has four children that they want to go to a faith school. It will cost them £2,500 a year more because of Labour’s school bus tax.

Lord Mayor, it is simply not right that you can make these decisions in the way that they are being taken. If you believe that this is the right thing to do and on principle you are opposed to it, at least have the guts to stand up and say it but the way the consultation has taken place is just not fair on parents. The decision is going to be taken on 17 th July, one day before schools close down for the summer. Parents will break up for the summer not knowing whether they are going to have to pay for their children to get to the school they have chosen in September or not. They will not know. It is not fair that when parents make their choices before Christmas about where they want to send their children to school, they were not told that there were plans to remove the funding for transport for either faith schools or for any of the other discretionary elements. It is simply not a fair way to go about things. That is why so many people think this consultation is a sham.

Lord Mayor, there are savings to be made in this budget and we will work with the administration, if they will accept the offer, to make those savings. I really, really, really do not believe that the impact that these changes will have – how many of those families are going to be able to afford the £2,500 to send their children to school? What is going to happen in the west of the city when families simply cannot afford to go to the faith school and try and clog up an already full up system? Who is going to pay for the funding to allocate them the school that is their next preference? It simply is not going to work.

I am pleased that there is now going to be a Scrutiny inquiry into this issue but that should have come first and, again, Labour has got its consultation process the wrong way round. It seems to have made its decision and then ask people what they think of it and that cannot be right, Lord Mayor.

In this Group we passionately believe in and defend the rights of parents to choose the best school that they think is right for their children. There are 10,000 children at secondary schools in this city that are deemed not to be good enough. It cannot, therefore, be wrong for parents to have the right to try and choose a school that they think is right for their children.

Lord Mayor, what I call on the administration to do is to pause this process, to work with all Members of Council, to use Scrutiny to look at the whole of the Children’s Services transport budget and give parents the assurances of what position they are going to be in in September. It is simply wrong that in the middle of July when schools are about to break up for the summer parents do not know how much they will be expected to pay for their children to get to school in the autumn. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Blake to respond.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: Thank you, Lord Mayor. It is starting to feel like Groundhog Day, isn’t it? Every time you come round again. I do not think we need to take any lectures at all from Councillor Lamb and his Group on fairness and funding. (Applause) When you think of the pressures that our families have been put under by the Bedroom Tax, why don’t you raise the issue about the families that are having to move, having to move their kids to different schools maybe outside of the Authority? Let’s have that debate, shall we? (Applause)

COUNCILLOR LAMB: Let’s have this one now.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: What really, really upsets me is yes, surely this is a thing that affects all our communities. He has tried desperately just to relate it to Wetherby but, hey, I think this is about all our children. I think it is a great shame that as well as faith schools, which is a really important issue and do not say that we do not care about kids going to faith schools, that is outrageous.

COUNCILLOR LAMB: That’s what it seems like.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: What about the kids who have got funding at the moment, discretionary funding to go to college? What about our adult young learners who have real disabilities? What about those – don’t you have any in your ward, Alan?

COUNCILLOR LAMB: Did you even listen to what I said?

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: You are supposed to be answering this question.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: You have not raised them. I think it is just so partial and do you know what, the emails we have been getting have been so consistent there is only one person, I think, who has been feeding them disinformation about the process that we are taking and I think it comes right back to your door. I think that is outrageous. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: Rubbish. Utter rubbish. Answer the question. You have decided.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: Putting false hopes. We have been through a consultation. It said very clearly in the front of the consultation that this is to be new ways of working, new ways of doing things. You go out and talk to the faith schools and to other schools; they will say, “Yes, we recognise we have to talk to you”, the colleges, the special schools. Get up to date. Let’s have a real conversation about how we can increase the life chances for all of our young people. If you speak to young people, access is the one thing that they say they need. We need more access, not less. Come on, you are really taking it off. Yes, letters are going out.

COUNCILLOR LAMB: Answer the question.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: They are standard letters. They are our standard letters that are going out. If you let me I will answer it. They say there is a review. If you go on the Metro website it says this is the situation but the transport provision is under review, please keep in contact.

We will contact every single family affected by this after the Executive Board, that is the way that we work, but do not pre-empt what we are going to do as a result of the consultation.

COUNCILLOR LAMB: You have already starting writing to people.

COUNCILLOR BLAKE: Do not pre-empt, just wait and see what has come out, what people are saying to us who really care deeply about access to provision across the range - very constructive comments about how they can actually come to the table and work with us to come up with ways to address the needs of all of the young people in our city.

I think your attempt to politicise this debate is simply outrageous. It will not do you any good at all. We will stick to what we are doing, trying to provide the best opportunities we can for all of the young people in our city. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR LAMB: Lord Mayor, we have not had an answer to any of the questions I asked.

THE LORD MAYOR: I am sure she made a brave attempt to answer some but Procedure Rules do not necessarily need…

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: Not very well, Lord Mayor.

ITEM 16 – WHITE PAPER MOTION – SUPERMARKET LEVY

THE LORD MAYOR: Let us move on to Item 16, which is the White Paper on Supermarket Levy by Councillor Carter.

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: Thank you, my Lord Mayor. I put this White Paper resolution down for discussion because we have heard a lot today about the Council being short of money and all sorts of things around that, not least just now, but it seems to me there is an opportunity here for us to discuss a way of raising some money which may be beneficial. I underline absolutely that this whole debate has got two sides to it and I am not pretending for one minute that if we were to go ahead with a supermarket levy (and that would be for supermarkets with above half a million pounds rateable value by the way), if we did, on the basis of what has been already implemented in Northern Ireland, it would raise this city £7.2m a year.

I am not pretending that there is not a downside and there is not certainly a law of unintended consequences that could follow on but I do think it would be completely wrong if the Council is indeed in the financial situation that is being painted, and undoubtedly we have some difficulties facing us, it would be wrong for us not to explore what has already been implemented in Northern Ireland.

It all came about because your Government in 2007 saw the passing of the Sustainable Communities Act, although it was actually championed by a Conservative Member of Parliament. The current Government has issued guidance under the Act which resulted in the Northern Ireland Levy coming into force on 1 st April 2012 with a three year timescale; it expires in 2015.

Over that period of time it will raise for Local Government and Government in Northern Ireland a considerable amount of money which they can invest in their local economies in all sorts of different ways.

In fairness, a similar proposal, although a hybrid of what the Northern Irish had put forward, was rejected by the Scottish Parliament in 2011 and one of the fears, of course, is that the large supermarkets would challenge through the European courts, as ever, the fact that it was anti-competitive. I would suggest to

you that the fact that over 80% of independent shops on our high street had closed by 2008, and that 97% of the grocery market was controlled by the major supermarkets by 2011, underlines for itself that anti-competitive practices are in fact already at play and they are being used by the major half a dozen supermarkets.

What we have to avoid is that this would not affect our city centre, because that would be completely counter-productive. It is aimed at large supermarkets out of centre.

If I can just put one other point to you. Interestingly, when it was suggested in some Government circles that there was a minimum price for alcohol in supermarkets, supermarkets immediately said they would go to the European courts to fight that and yet drinking at home is known to cause far more violence – violence against women, but not just violence against women – than is drinking in public houses, and yet the supermarkets did nothing about it and said they would oppose any such legislation.

All that has huge costs for the police, for the Local Authority in our Safer Leeds Strategy, so what I am proposing is that we look at what is available to us and see at some level if it is worth taking further. I hope that Members of the controlling group will agree, because if something could be put forward to Government that was acceptable, it could generate a number of millions of pounds which we could reinvest into the economy of this city. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: I formally second that, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Richard Lewis.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I think this is not the first time I have agreed with Andrew but I think it is the first time we have had the same crib sheet, so I think I have got the same facts in front of me as you have got in front of you.

We all hate supermarkets, don’t we, but we all go there on a Friday night or a Thursday night and do our shopping – our dirty little secret, I suppose you might call it. We all have that love/hate relationship with supermarkets and one discussion that I will often have with residents who will say how our local shopping is being destroyed, “Where do you go to do your weekly shop?” it is always Morrisons, it is always Asda. I think we do have to work out what are we anti, what are we trying to do. At a time when clearly the whole supermarket industry has ground to a bit of a halt, where they are not talking about their big hundred thousand square feet stores, they are talking about much smaller stores because they are looking and saying a lot of people are going to shop on the internet, we clearly cannot expect people to spend the kind of money on food that they have been spending up until now, and actually people’s weekly supermarket shop is a damn sight less than it was probably 18 months ago. They are going through an interesting change.

There are some supermarkets you do look at and think, particularly those ones in the town centres, that sometimes they work for the town centres. I do not want to quote anybody but my feeling is that people in Otley would say that Sainsbury’s and Waitrose actually work fairly well in terms of providing parking and getting people circulating round the town. I am not going to commit anybody to that. The Armley colleagues had the big debate about whether there should be a supermarket just in the town centre as opposed to some out of town site.

We do want to not say we are anti every supermarket, every supermarket development is a bad thing because, again, we have got areas where our residents would do well to have access to a supermarket of some kind.

COUNCILLOR: Burmantofts.

COUNCILLOR R LEWIS: Exactly. The Crossgreen area is very short. If you have not got a car, if you have not got your own means of transport, you are stuck with a very poor retail offer.

I think we are very much actually in agreement with you, Andrew. Let us look at this, let us look at how far we can take this. What are the downsides? I think it is about can we do it in such a way that we just hit out of town as opposed to in town centre? It will bring in a large amount of money but it does require primary legislation and that is going to be a big thing and we will need to act in concert with other Local Authorities, so it is not just about Leeds, it is also about looking at other things like the impact of CIL, like the impact of bids on certain areas because I think we all have to be honest that some of our shopping areas are in a state of crisis and we do need to do a huge amount for them.

I am not sure whether this will come forward as a paper just about this proposition or whether it will be a bigger paper with other ideas in, but certainly it will come back and it really requires consideration. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Hyde.

COUNCILLOR HYDE: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am also going to actually support Councillor Carter’s White Paper. I think the Council has got major problems with its finances and trying to raise £7.2m would be interesting and would alleviate some of the debates we are having in this Chamber.

There are some downsides, Andrew, of which you are obviously aware. The communities in Leeds have to agree to this; secondly, there has to be a formal proposal to Ministers; and there has to be primary legislation by Her Majesty’s Government, and that is where the rub comes for me. I am not sure they will support it. It is an interesting proposition. It is one that we genuinely should look at as an administration and as a Council. If we can raise £7.2m to alleviate some of the budget pressures that were announced by Mr Osborne last week on this Council, and definitely the divide between north and south, and the Leader quite clearly outlined those quite passionately earlier in the Council today, that is clearly statistically a fact, it is there in black and white and northern cities are getting hurt pretty badly, which is sad because going back to Victorian times northern cities were the generators of wealth in this country and manufacturing.

It is sad in a way that that is happening but we have to deal with what we have got. We are in a position where this Authority is getting hurt in terms of its budget and we need to find revenue, so I wholeheartedly support what you are saying, Andrew, that the proposal comes back to the Executive but I also think it should be part of a wider measure that Councillor Lewis has alluded to as it is not just one single item. The budget pressures on this Authority over the coming next three years are substantial and I think this Authority has to be innovative and has to look at other options as well as the usual things that we have been discussing today. Lord Mayor, thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Finnigan.

COUNCILLOR FINNIGAN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. We support this proposal, we think it is a good idea and we need to investigate, as Andrew suggests, what the unseen consequences may be of such an approach. There is no doubt that in many town centres the supermarkets dominate and over-dominate. It would be, in our view, useful if we can use some of that dominance, take some finance from these big supermarkets and recycle it to other small businesses in and around that particular locality.

We do know that we are going out to consultation on a proposal that will look at business rates and what can be done to reduce those for smaller businesses. That is a positive thing, in terms of job generation that is where we need to look to see what we can do to provide that help and support. Certainly talking to our own Chamber of Trade and Commerce, what they will tell you is that the concerns that they have are rent, which we can do little about, the rates, that we might be able to do something about, and charity shops, but that is for a debate on another occasion.

What we would suggest in this particular case is that we do look quite firmly about how we provide that help and support to small and medium businesses which is where a lot of the job generation is likely actually to come, and try and see this as an opportunity to redistribute the wealth of the supermarkets, which is considerable, to help and support the creation of newer and smaller businesses where we need those particular jobs. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor David Blackburn.

COUNCILLOR D BLACKBURN: I think everything has been said, really, that can be said about this. It is quite a sensible thing to do to have a look at this, I feel. Other cities are doing the same. In Northern Ireland they have already introduced it, and to me it looks a really, really good idea and my Group supports it. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: It is now yourself, Councillor Carter.

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I am shaken if not stirred! (laughter) It is heartening to hear that we are at least in part on the same sheet with this. I tabled it because it seemed to me to present an opportunity, and Graham is right, it is not just an opportunity for Leeds and we need to talk to our partners and with closer working now with our partner Local Authorities every opportunity exists to do that.

You cannot ignore any form of revenue generation now and you will not be able to and none of us will be able to in the future. Isn’t it far better if we can get some amount of money out of this than be busily talking about parking charges, residents’ parking, kids’ faith transport. We cannot turn away from opportunities like this, however difficult it may be to actually bring them about. As David Blackburn said, Northern Ireland has introduced it with some success, I have to say – only just started.

It is not an attack on supermarkets. Whether we like it or not, supermarkets are here to stay but they are only part of the retail offer. When I hear (and Richard mentioned this) the fact that they are moving their business model to smaller shops, quite frankly that does not encourage me at all because that just tells me having cleared up on the large part of the market they are going in for what is left in the independent sector.

At the end of the day it is the consumer that loses out. To me that is not private enterprise, that is not competition; that is allowing a monopoly to create itself that ultimately will result in less jobs, nor more.

If we have an opportunity here to make the large supermarkets out of town - absolutely out of town, we are not talking about some of the ones on high streets that are not big enough actually anyway to fall into this, we are talking about the ones that are all take and no give, if you like.

I accept that in many cases – and I attended an event only last week that Asda had sponsored, a sports thing for kids which was brilliant, so they do participate in the community, I am not saying they don’t, but we have an opportunity here to begin to address the balance and use some of that income to encourage small businesses. Loads of people are looking for assistance, that first step up the ladder to go into the high street, to go into a disused piece of a warehouse, go into a market, absolutely, so we should explore every avenue available to us.

I hope Members of Council will support. Thank you. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Let us move quickly to the vote, then. (A vote was taken) That is CARRIED overwhelmingly.

ITEM 17 – WHITE PAPER MOTION - NHS

THE LORD MAYOR: Let us move on to White Paper 17 on the NHS and it is Councillor Truswell.

COUNCILLOR TRUSWELL: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Over the last few years this Council has rightly focused on the threat to children’s heart services. There has been all-party consensus and the people of Leeds would expect nothing less. I just wonder, though, how much movement there would have been without the judicial review, funded and fought by the campaign, or without the brilliant disembowelling of the Safe and Sustainable process by John Illingworth. There can be no all-party consensus regarding the damage this Government is inflicting on our local NHS.

The top line is that the Government is forcing our Acute Trust to slash £140m. It is cutting 700 jobs, including doctors and nurses, and closing 180 beds, almost 10% of the total, which leads me to a statistic that I believe captures the crisis in our local NHS. My Lord Mayor, only 47% of staff (less than half) would recommend our Acute Trust as a provider of care to their family and friends. Less than half – that is 8% down on the previous year and 15% less than the national average.

It is hardly surprising that last year the Trust lost almost 600 full-time staff hours through sickness. After musculoskeletal conditions, the most common causes are predictably stress, anxiety and depression. It is hardly surprising that the 18 week target for inpatient care is being missed, or that the four hour target for A&E is being breached, or that its winter plan failed to cope with seasonal pressures, or that St James’s maternity unit closed for just over 60 hours on one occasion, or that spinal operations were cancelled for lack of staff, or that there are problems with the increasing scale of pressure ulcers, or that the number of patients falling in hospital is increasing. These are all symptoms of staff being under crushing pressure and reeling from inadequate funding.

Jeremy Hunt, the man who Alan Sugar once described as coming from a long line of Hunts, (laughter) keeps on blaming staff. It is a pathetic attempt to divert attention from Government failures.

You know, colleagues, it gets worse. The Trust ended the last financial year with a £1.5m surplus. This fell far short of the target figure of – wait for it - £10m

needed to comply with the Government’s diktat to become a foundation Trust. We need to ask Scrutiny function to keep a very, very close eye on how far this diktat further undermines patient care.

We are rapidly being pushed down the path to privatisation and we have to accept on this side of the Chamber that Labour in power, Labour in Government, continued far too far down that particular process. John Healey, when he was Shadow Secretary of State, actually admitted as much.

It is welcome that Andy Burnham has pledged to repeal the Coalition’s new privatisation legislation but that would only take us back to a status quo that in my mind, and I hope you share this view, colleagues, was still totally unacceptable.

Under this Government all services must now be put out to tender. Trusts can offer up to nearly half their capacity to private patients. The Nuffield Trust says 10% of NHS spend in our region is already going into the private sector. The taxpayer is effectively subsidising private hospitals whose income from private patients is actually falling.

Here we have this Government’s prescription for our NHS – cut what you can then privatise as much as you can that is left and then blame everybody else for the crisis that ensues.

My Lord Mayor, the founder of the NHS Nye Bevan once said, “The NHS will last as long as there are folk with the faith to fight for it.” Have we got that faith? Have we? (“Yes”) Then let’s do something about it. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR HARLAND: Formally seconded, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Latty to move an amendment.

COUNCILLOR G LATTY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Lord Mayor, I cannot match the passion and spleen of Councillor Truswell but I must say I find it extraordinary that a man who sat as an MP on the last Labour Government’s benches has got the effrontery to criticise the Coalition for trying to restore some sensible and caring practices to an NHS that his Government brought almost to its knees.

He sat in a Government that spent its years in power ruining the NHS, strangling it with tier upon tier of management and throwing money at it – money that was by and large spent on building a management structure that dwarfed the operative side. It is all very well saying that doctors should be able to concentrate on treating the sick and leave management to managers. It is all right as long as it works to the benefit of the patients and the patients are you and me, all of us.

In practice, the patient got lost in the paperwork and his or her welfare became in many cases irrelevant. We only have to look at Mid-Staffordshire, the nightmare there. When you read the reports of how patients were treated, it is surprising – to me, anyway – that any of them survived. Having to drink from flower vases, having to relieve themselves in their beds – it beggars belief.

As it was, over a three or four year period from 2005 to 2008 between four and twelve hundred patients are thought to have died. That is a huge range, Lord Mayor. I suppose that perhaps if we take the average of that, that is still a heck of a lot of people, and one would have been too many.

Over the last decade, according to the Public Accounts Committee, spending on the NHS increased by 70% whilst productivity actually declined. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge, who was a Labour Minister, actually said, “Over the last decade the productivity of NHS hospitals has been in almost continuous decline.” Under Labour the number of managers doubled, rising six times as fast as the number of nurses. Managers’ pay also rose faster than that of nurses. It must be galling that the £12.7m cost of the National Programme for IT that the Coalition Government axed would have paid for 60,000 nurses for a decade.

In Wales they have got a Labour administration and they run their own NHS, and they have not hit a target since 2009.

Let us turn from the down side to more positive and look at some of the things that have happened under the Coalition Government. According to the Prime Minister speaking in PMQs on 5 th June, inpatient waiting times actually are lower than at the last election, hospital acquired infections are at a record low and 400,000 more operations are being carried out each year. There are now 5,700 more doctors and 18,000 fewer administration staff and that, to me, is the right way things are going.

Just popping back to Councillor Truswell for a minute, he refers to fragmentation of the NHS. I am not sure what he means by that. Is he talking about the fact that we have now got three CCGs instead of a single PCT? To me that is rather a good idea. Then he talks of escalating financial pressures. This needs to be seen in the context of the general financial climate and – I am going to have to jump ahead a bit here – one thing the NHS budget has been protected by this Government, something that Labour have refused to sign up to, and under their spending plans there would be 43,000 less nurses and 11,000 fewer doctors.

Labour has said that they would not reinstate the Strategic Health Authorities and PCTs but would – and this is shades of ‘Yes Minister’ – restore the legal framework of a universal collaborative health service.

Finally, Lord Mayor, I would like to liken the NHS to one of its patients. When you are really poorly you need surgery. You know that you are going to have it, you know that you are going to get better but you also should know that you are going to feel a darn sight worse in the meantime. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Lay.

COUNCILLOR LAY: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I have only got three minutes. I would like to formally second the amendment and just reflect on the record of the previous Government and then reflect on what this Government and this Party is doing to overcome some of those concerns.

Privatisation, as Councillor Truswell says – and I have looked at your voting record, Paul, you have always consistently opposed all privatisation. I tip my hat to you, if the truth be known. I do not necessarily agree with it; however you have consistently for 15, 20 years, so respect there.

As he says, privatisation and fragmentation certainly did take place pre-2010 when Independent Treatment Centres and private hospitals creamed off and cherrypicked patients and services got outsourced like our minor injuries unit at Middleton and at Wharfedale, or the orthotics and prosthetics at Seacroft, or even the use of private ambulances by YAS.

Really, what I want to talk about is the impact of PFI and how that is crippling the NHS. We know that the Bexley Wing – because the Guardian got the figures from the Treasury – is costing Leeds Teaching Hospitals £30m per annum and will, over the course of the 30 years, cost £977m – nearly three and a half times its initial cost. We know that my hospital in Otley cost £17m and yet will cost eventually £80m. Overall the PFI bill underlay in this city is costing the NHS a staggering £50m plus per year and the NHS a staggering £313b over the course of the PFI project.

Sadly, Labour mortgaged the NHS and it is now in negative equity. Dozens of hospitals and Trusts are on the brink of bankruptcy due to your failings and your collective amnesia and absolution to the current problems facing the NHS beggars belief. It is up to us on this side and our Government and my Party that is saving the NHS. (interruption) Saving it from Labour mismanagement (applause) Labour profligacy and Labour’s complete abandonment of Scrutiny and Oversight.

THE LORD MAYOR: Thank you, Councillor Lay, I think you made your point well. (Applause) Councillor Mulherin next.

COUNCILLOR MULHERIN: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Our NHS has suffered the biggest reform in its 65 year history, unmentioned in any political manifesto and contrary to the hollow assurances of David Cameron before the last General Election that there would be no top-down reorganisation.

Walk-in centres have closed; out of hours primary care is increasingly difficult to access; A&E waiting time targets are missed; hospitals are required to achieve Foundation Trust status. What we need is greater co-operation and integration, working together around the needs of the patients, not competition between private providers like Virgin, Serco, Circle and CareUK, who are now running hundreds of GP practices across the country.

We need universal healthcare free at the point of need, accountable to the public, accessible to those who cannot afford to pay, publicly delivered. GP Commissioning Groups – we have got greater fragmentation, three Commissioning Groups in Leeds. We had one PCT. As GP Bob Gill says in a new book on the subject, GPs have got less control, more complexity and all of the blame.

A survey across eleven industrialised countries in 2010 found that the NHS was the least costly except for New Zealand, and had the best access to healthcare of all healthcare systems, national healthcare systems. We have gone from that and record levels of patient satisfaction in the UK to unprecedented levels of criticism from patients, professionals and the media and incredibly low levels of staff morale in just a few short years.

Section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act removed the Secretary of State for Health’s duty to provide free of charge a comprehensive health service for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and replaced it with a duty to promote that service. The requirement to provide, not promote, that service is important. The requirements provide a service that trains health professionals, one that ensures standards, one that is accessible to all regardless of the ability to pay, one that has the strategic responsibility to reduce health inequalities, one that is democratically accountable, not a service that is driven by shareholders’ profits where profitable services are cherrypicked, avoiding complicated illnesses, long-term conditions or anyone who cannot afford to pay.

Foundation Trusts can now generate half their income privately, a 50% profit, and the Health and Social Care Act allows them to charge for a range of services. All hospitals are now required to become Foundations Trusts.

I fully support the return of Public Health to Local Authorities, as stated many times in here previously. As Councillor Wakefield said earlier, health and care needs have changed, we have changing demographic pressures in the city and a need to focus more on prevention and integration around the needs of people now, but to achieve that we did not need the massive top-down reorganisation of the NHS. Greater clinical involvement could have been achieved without creating CCGs and at less expense to the taxpayer. We could and should have kept the democratic accountability of the Secretary of State. Gaps are being created in the new system with a lack of clarity about who is responsible for what. Thankfully, we have not had a measles outbreak like the one in Swansea because if we had the system would have been found wanting.

The support organisations for CCGs have to my mind been set up to fail and are ripe for privatisation.

I am about to run out of time so I will just say to sum up that we need to reaffirm our commitment to the NHS’s founding principles and to ensure that it is not going to retire any time soon. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Campbell.

COUNCILLOR CAMPBELL: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I think Sandy’s point about collective amnesia is one well made because we have got two points that have been made for us this afternoon. One relates to funding. As Sandy says, £50m a year of funding for the health service is taken out of this city to pay for PFI projects. It is taken away from us, it went into the coffers of your mate Tony Blair’s friends down in the city who funded these things.

Let us also talk about the issue about privatisation. I have got here a note from the King’s Fund, an organisation I think we would all agree with. It says on here – I have not got time to read it all but the basis of Labour health reforms was activity- based payments for acute providers, so-called payment by results. It says down here at the bottom, “New Labour’s changes represent a major attempt to improve iconic services using market related incentives.” That was your Parliament, that was your Government, you were there.

The second point about that, I would actually say as well, the Coalition Government is currently pursuing a very similar logic in its own proposed reforms. Ironic that one.

I think, Lord Mayor, as there is little time, I will just read you an excerpt from a speech I have got here by the Prime Minister, actually, and it says:

“The Prime Minister said today a crunch point had been reached in the NHS but the Government must press ahead with its reforms. The scale and challenge of delivering the new NHS is very, very tough but he insisted that now was the moment for the Government to hold our nerve in the face of criticism and change. A year of challenge as the new system bites. There will be difficult transitions but the interesting thing is that the remedies are available. Take the tough decisions which are not the cause of the NHS’s problems but the route to making the NHS even better and fitter for the modern world. The reforms expose the deficits, they do not create them. Our reforms are opening up the system for scrutiny, they are closing off the hiding places for poor financial management. The truth is, we have now reached crunch point where the process of transition from the old system to the new way of working in the NHS is taking place. The four key areas moving the

NHS forward were practice-based commissioning, payment by results, giving patients choice of NHS provider and bringing in independent centres to manage the NHS work.”

None of us would disagree with that. That was down to a Prime Minister called Blair, Tony Blair, 18 th April 2006. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Golton.

COUNCILLOR GOLTON: Thank you, Lord Mayor. I was really disappointed when I saw this motion come forward because as a Leeds Councillor I felt really good about where I came from, primarily because of the fantastic campaign that we had about the children’s heart unit and that was because we could all agree on something. It was not anything to do with cuts, it was to do with the decision which was taken centrally, unaccountably and did not take into consideration what the needs of the city were, and every one of us around this Chamber could come together and actually agree on something and campaign for it.

This motion in front of us is a bystander motion. It has no action whatsoever in it. It is all about having an opinion; it is not about actually doing anything at all and it is an absolute waste of a motion. We could be doing something really productive in the same way that we did under Councillor Illingworth. I have to say, we have already had examples here about how the Labour Party certainly has no right to call anybody else a worse manager of the NHS. Using the language of religion, earlier you were accusing the Conservatives of using religion politically in a terrible way, isn’t it awful, and then we have Paul Truswell treating this Council Chamber like a revival meeting. “Have we got the world! Yes! Come on! Hallelujah!”

Yes, this is the new religion in a secular world but you do not have the true faith, you do not have the monopoly on saying the NHS is safe in our hands and through the PFI that you put forward building all those hospitals and leaving huge debts – we have mentioned it before, you have left huge debt behind for all your glossy projects that you wanted to stand in front of and cut ribbons, yes, but you were so in bed with the private sector yourselves that you have left a huge debt for the rest of us.

Basically, we are not going to take any kind of lectures from the likes of you, especially when all you can put forward here in your motion is a load of opinions and a load of name calling. What we want is some leadership from the Health and Wellbeing Board and I am afraid, Councillor Mulherin, your response today did not provide that. We need to have more accountability for our public health budgets here in Leeds and we also need to challenge the fact – this is supposed to be the party of equality and making sure that inequality is lessened. Why do we have GPs in this country that are the highest paid doctors in the OECD while we have nurses who are on very basic wages? We need to tackle something about that.

Don’t talk about, oh, doctors are all too busy, they cannot take on management services. They are paid well enough to manage our services and we need to hold them to account locally because that is what fragmentation means, it means people like us actually having a look at what they do and telling them what to do better. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR J McKENNA: This is your task for tomorrow, Stuart, get them down.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Urry.

COUNCILLOR URRY: Many people believed Conservative General Election promises of no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS and real increases in spending. Why not? Fact – Labour left record low waiting times for elective surgery; fact – Labour had record performance in A&E and record patient satisfaction. What a chance for the Coalition Government to focus on real issues, including the needs of an ageing population from all primary and community, not acute sector support to face the challenges of smoking, obesity, drugs and alcohol, the rising costs of medicines and new challenges from research, adaptation to digital technology including Telehealth and Telecare and the public wish for accessible responsive services and, yes, bearing down on pockets of unacceptable service such as Mid- Staffs and, more recently, Morecambe.

It was not to be. The Conservatives never mentioned NHS reform in their General Election campaign, nor did the Coalition agreement, but within two months a White Paper many, many months in the making set out a wholesale transfer of much NHS activity to commercial providers. The rhetoric was lovely - putting power in the hands of GPs. If GPs had wanted to be commercial procurers for any willing provider they would have trained as accountants, not physicians. Real increases in spending sounded nice too but Osborne never acknowledged the real cost of the NHS. The dogma was simply transferring NHS money to commerce.

The Coalition model cannot answer real questions, including the shrinking workforce. The NHS has always relied on professionals from abroad but immigration restrictions mean they are no longer coming here. Last year Pontefract A&E had to close its doors overnight as it had no staff. More Acute Trusts have declared deficits this year than ever before. Primary care services are seldom available after teatime in the week or at all at weekends, and what new horrors like Morecambe are still out there waiting to be found. Forget those record satisfaction levels under Labour. Last week the BMA said things were so bad we need a list of core services that have to be provided free with people paying for other ser ices. What happened to free at the point of use?

We cannot go on like this. What we really need now is integration of NHS and Social Care giving a single approach to commissioning and delivering services, strong community services with multidisciplinary teams providing integrated services, more focus on clinics and diagnostics close to home, better use of new treatments, including drugs and digital technology and, above all, partnership neutral support, not market forces driving commissioning decisions. Happy birthday NHS. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Illingworth.

COUNCILLOR ILLINGWORTH: Thank you very much. Lord Mayor, the NHS is a huge organisation, it offers a wide range of services and the quality of those services ranges from excellent to abysmal. Even among the worst performers, such as Mid-Staffs, there were still isolated groups who were doing very well, and even in the best units there are still some isolated failures.

We need a general uplifting quality needed to raise the lowest standards fastest but this is not helped by setting one unit against another, by constant emphasis allocating blame. Witch hunts and scapegoating are not the best ways to improve quality.

It is often said the NHS should be more like the air transport industry where you accept that things go wrong occasionally but, provided they are reported quickly and some action is taken, then it is not vindictive to the person who has made a mistake.

I used to teach medical students and it always struck me as daft that there was intense competition for admission and we took students with brilliant grades who were basically unsuited to become doctors and we rejected those who would have been excellent doctors because they came from a poorer background and could not get the grades we needed.

Most of my students are middle class. We also recruited at a very early age before people have made up their mind and most other countries have postgraduate recruitment to medicine and it is those older students that level the playing field, it allows people from different backgrounds to get in.

Even when students leave medical school there is not much attempt to match supply and demand. That is one reason why we are short staffed in A&E, that we have not in fact got the specialist staff that we need to train. Some junior doctors fail to move at each stage, each year – some people do not move to the next rung of the ladder. We waste their training, we throw them on the scrapheap and that is poor planning, poor management that results in that.

The European Working Time Directive has limited some of the worst excesses in junior doctors’ hours but it is still a brutal system and it still tests a minority of staff to destruction rather than helping them succeed.

What is to be done? It seems to me that our NHS would benefit from a good dose of democracy at just about every level. Recruitment of community or lay representatives to NHS governing bodies is one area that could be greatly improved.

The present system is open to abuse with a preponderance of senior members recruited from London and often very closely connected with the NHS. It is not a Government system. Local Authorities are a potential recruiting ground with an excellent geographic and social mix. A good way to combat fragmentation and eliminate this target driven silo mentality would be to recruit more of us, more local Councillors, to independent monitoring and governing roles within the NHS. Thank you, Lord Mayor. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Carter.

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: My Lord Mayor, at least one member of the Labour Group has put forward some suggestions, which is more than any of the rest of them did.

When I looked at this resolution and got to the bottom I could not believe who had tabled it, to be honest, and I have only got two words to say to Councillor Truswell – well, it is one hyphenated word, actually, it has been said before – Mid- Staffs, because the problems in Mid-Staffs started way back in 2007. It has now been predicted that in the period of time up to 2010 there may have been 1,200 excess deaths. You may think that is Mid-Staffs – I am telling you, we should be bothered about that as much as we are about being bothered about what is happening in Leeds.

The police, we believe, are investigating up to 300 deaths for criminal negligence at Mid-Staffs and there are a number of other enquiries we have yet to find out about, all that happened in that time.

Councillor Truswell dares to mention the name of Andy Burnham. Andy Burnham turned down 81 requests for action when he was Secretary of State about Mid-Staffs – 81 requests for action; he did nothing. When I watched the debate on

television he had his head down. He well might have his head down and you, Councillor Truswell, trumpet him as a saviour of the NHS? No, thank you very much.

Furthermore, my Lord Mayor, of course throughout all the mishandling, throughout the cover-ups, the gagging orders, the bans on whistle blowers (I am surprised, John, you even think about defending that) that went on for 13 years, who was sitting on the plush green benches of the House of Commons? Paul Truswell. Why couldn’t you say something about all that catalogue of mistakes then when you were sat there as a member of the Government party?

Then, of course, we have the CQC scandal that is unrolling and that started in 2008 as well, when you were still there. I have to say, my Lord Mayor, Councillor Truswell has taken cant and hypocrisy to a new level. No wonder, Councillor Truswell, they do not know you have gone in the House of Commons – they never knew you were there. (Applause)

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Truswell.

COUNCILLOR TRUSWELL: Thank you, Lord Mayor. Hallelujah, brethren. The Tories’ credibility on the NHS can be summed up in just five words – no more top down reorganisations. When you have said that, you have said it all.

This amendment – and I will come to Councillor Carter in a few seconds – talks about putting doctors in the driving seat. My Lord Mayor, GPs are in the driving seat in much the same way as a crash dummy occupies the driving seat before a car is smashed up. The proof, a recent poll by the BMA shows that 65% of GPs – two thirds – felt less empowered in their work that they did a year ago before the changes came in.

They try and claim that they are protecting the NHS, yet in the first two years they actually cut the budget in real terms and, for good measure, in March Osborne clawed back £2.2b that could have been spent on patient care.

Stuart, this motion has fulfilled a purpose. It has smoked out the fact that you and the Tories on the NHS are like that . Do you honestly believe that a Tory/Liberal Government will spend more on the NHS than Labour? Would Labour have given tax cuts to millionaires? No.

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: You did.

COUNCILLOR TRUSWELL: Would Labour have wasted three billion on an unnecessary change to the structures?

When I put this White Paper down I was pretty certain of one thing – Councillor Carter would not be able to resist the temptation to comment, and you would not be able to resist the temptation to conduct a personal attack on me, which I feel again is a huge smokescreen.

If we are talking about what happened under the Tories, let us go back a little while. Let us think about Community Care where people were chucked out on to the streets…

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: Let’s go back to Margaret Thatcher.

COUNCILLOR TRUSWELL: …without any real support. That was down to your Government. When we talk about Labour we talk about higher levels than ever of satisfaction – more doctors, more nurses, better pay, reductions in waiting times.

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: Delusions.

COUNCILLOR TRUSWELL: Bexley Wing and Wharfedale Hospital and I do accept the issue of PFI, that was an infection acquired from the Tories which we have to get rid of as soon as possible. Under the Tories we had Killingbeck Hospital closed; St George’s Rothwell (are you listening?) closed; Roundhay Maternity Hospital closed; Marguerite Hepton Boston Spa closed; Woodlands Orthopaedic Unit Rawdon closed.

The Tories opposed the foundation of the NHS in 1948. For 30 years, thankfully, they lived with it but in the 80s and 90s they brought it to its knees. Today they are dismantling it and just before the launch of the NHS in 1948, Nye Bevan described his Tory opponents as lower than vermin. I think that is a bit strong…

COUNCILLOR J McKENNA: Oh no it isn’t.

COUNCILLOR TRUSWELL: …but I think if their successors continue to dismantle the NHS in the way that they seem to be determined to, then they will deserve the contempt we have for them. (interruption)

COUNCILLOR J PROCTER: Your time’s up. Sit down.

COUNCILLOR TRUSWELL: Let’s just say that as sinners we accept our sins, we are repenting; you are just continuing to sin. (Applause)

COUNCILLOR A CARTER: Rubbish. Rubbish. Nothing so ex as an ex MP.

THE LORD MAYOR: I think I will call for the vote. The first thing I am going to call for is I am going to look at the amendment in the name of Councillor Latty. (A vote was taken) That is LOST.

We will now move forward to voting on the substantive motion in the name of Councillor Truswell. (A vote was taken) The motion is CARRIED.

ITEM 18 – WHITE PAPER MOTION – HOUSING DELIVERY REPORT.

THE LORD MAYOR: Can I turn over the page just to the next motion, which is White Paper around Housing and it is Councillor Leadley.

COUNCILLOR LEADLEY: My Lord Mayor, back to the real world. (laughter) My Lord Mayor, since my original motion was placed on this meeting’s agenda it has been known that the Executive Board to which it refers may be the subject of a legal challenge. In those circumstances it would be unwise to open the matter to debate in this Chamber, so I seek leave of Council to withdraw the motion. Thank you, my Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor David Blackburn.

COUNCILLOR D BLACKBURN: I formally second.

THE LORD MAYOR: I would like to seek leave of Council for withdrawal of that motion in the name of Councillor Leadley. (A vote was taken) I think that is CARRIED unanimously.

We move to Councillor Gruen.

COUNCILLOR P GRUEN: I am obviously going to withdraw my amendment to a non-existent White Paper.

THE LORD MAYOR: Councillor Congreve.

COUNCILLOR CONGREVE: Second, Lord Mayor.

THE LORD MAYOR: All those in favour? (A vote was taken) I think that is CARRIED unanimously.

I think that brings us to the end of today’s lively Council meeting. Thank you all for attending.

(The meeting closed at 7.27pm)