Name

Item

Interest

Reason

Councillor Mrs Beer

Minute 109  – Construction Industry Blacklisting

Personal

Member of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trade Union (GMB)

Councillor Churchill

Minute 109: Construction Industry Blacklisting

Personal

Employer in the construction industry

Councillor McDonald

Minute  100: Urban Enterprise - New Enterprise Units at Millfields Trust

Personal

Lifetime vice president of the trust

Councillor Penberthy

Minute  100: Urban Enterprise - New Enterprise Units at Millfields Trust

Personal

Council appointee as a director on Millfields Trust and the trust’s appointed chair of the Inspired Charity  

Councillor Tuffin

Minute  100: Urban Enterprise- New Enterprise Units at Millfields Trust

Personal

Council appointee as a director on Millfields Trust

Committee / Outside Body

Membership

Appointments

(a)

Plymouth Fairness Commission (new body)

Two councillors: Cabinet Member for Cooperatives and Community Development and one councillor from the opposition party

Councillor Penberthy

Councillor Dr Salter

(b)

Municipal Charities of Plymouth

Four representatives: one vacancy from resignation of Mr Fred Brimacombe 

Pauline Bunkin

(a)

the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service Fire Plan:  the council was advised of the contents of a letter that he had written to the chair of the service confirming that the council was opposing the plans relating to Plymouth on the basis that the proposals did not acknowledge or address the issues raised by councillors.  The letter was available to councillors on request and could be viewed on the council’s website;

(b)

Mayflower 2020:  councillors were advised that Plymouth was seeking to be the official host city in the UK for the Mayflower 2020 celebrations and that he had written to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Labour Party asking them to support the plans, including attendance by the President of the United States.

The Plymouth Chamber of Commerce was leading a delegation from the city (including the Deputy Leader) to Massachusetts in May 2013 to strengthen the relationship with colleagues there and discuss working together towards Mayflower 2020;

(c)

Regional pay:  the council was reminded that last year, this council unanimously opposed the introduction of regional pay by the NHS in Plymouth and he was pleased to advise councillors that the report by South West Pay, Terms and Conditions Consortium did not include any proposals to implement regional pay.

The council would continue to seek reassurances that proposals on regional pay were not introduced again and to be vigilant about any further proposals that threatened employees, the economy or  public services;

(d)

the City of Culture Bid:   the city was encouraged to show its support in the final weeks before the submission of the bid for UK City of Culture 2017.  Whilst the bid had already achieved significant support, further support was sought.  Details of the twitter and facebook names and a link to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s facebook page were on the council’s website at  www.plymouth.gov.uk/cityofculture

Submissions could also be made to the Herald and consultation events would be held leading up to the shortlisting in June.  The dates and details would be publicised in advance. 

Question No

Question By

Cabinet Member

Subject

Q8/12-13

Mr R Aldred

Councillors Lowry (Cabinet Member for Finance) and Penberthy (Cabinet Member for Cooperatives and Community Development)

Cuts in Housing Benefit

This labour council have said that they are opposed to the spare room subsidy or bedroom tax, and I would like to know what steps they will be taking to ensure that housing associations do not evict those who are unable to afford the 14-25 per cent cut in Housing Benefit?

Response:

The council has taken a very proactive stance on mitigating the negative impact of the coalition Governments welfare reform changes. It is actively working to limit this, and examples of partnership initiatives to prevent evictions that result from loss of benefit due to under-occupation are:

·       Identifying individual households affected and targeting support:  The council’s Revenues and Benefits Department have identified every household that will receive reduced levels of Housing Benefit, and have shared this information with housing associations.  At a recent partnership meeting, housing association partners assured the local authority that they are proactively contacting each and every affected tenant to offer support.  In addition visiting officers from the local authority and the Department for Works and Pensions will combine to offer specialist affordability/employment related support to households in social housing who are experiencing high levels of loss (due to the combined impact of being subject to the benefit cap)

·        Pre-court eviction prevention panel:  A new initiative about to be piloted with tenants of Devon and Cornwall Homes (DCH) with support provided by Shelter.  The aim of the panel is to ensure that tenants engage with support after they have been issued with a notice seeking possession.  The next step would normally be court proceedings, but support to develop a personal action plan (delivered alongside a realistic view about future housing options) proactively seeks to prevent eviction.  Support will include development of an arrears repayment plan; money management skills; help to address debt issues; income maximisation work and other support required on an individual basis.

·       Support to access Discretionary Housing Payments:  Our partnership forum is specifically working with housing associations to develop access to this limited funding pot for tenants who simply cannot afford the additional amount and would otherwise fall into rent arrears.  Priorities will include affected social tenants where: properties have been substantially adapted around tenant’s disability needs; where a medical condition, behavioural issues or disability mean that it is unsuitable for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

(1)

subject to a favourable outcome to both the European Regional Development Fund and Growing Places Fund applications, that the council acts as guarantor for Millfields Trust for repayment of the balance of the Trust’s loan from the Local Enterprise Partnership outstanding to a maximum of £2.1m in accordance with an agreed Heads of Terms between Plymouth City Council and the Millfields Trust which mitigates the potential financial impact upon the council;

(2)

to delegate approval of the Heads of Terms to the Director for Place. 

‘Recommendation (1) be formally adopted subject to the following amendments –

?

to add the following additional words in paragraph 2.5.20 ‘All new applications will be accompanied with a suitable Management Plan.’

?

to add the following additional words in paragraph 2.7 ‘Has a suitable Management Plan submitted.’

?

in line five of paragraph 2.5.15 delete the first word ‘resisted’ and replace with the word ‘refused’

?

add at the end of paragraph 2.5.15 ‘Any change of use from family home to a HMO in streets or areas that have no HMOs will be resisted’.’

(1)

the Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule is adopted as set out in Appendix 1 to the written report, and to set the date for the Charging Schedule to take effect as 1 June 2013;

(2)

the Community Infrastructure Levy Instalments Policy is adopted as set out in Appendix 2 to the written report.   

‘To amend the proposal by the deletion of recommendations (1) to (3) and substitute the words –

‘That the decision is deferred pending a review of the need for overview and scrutiny panels.’

(a)

the need for value for money from the proposals;  

(b)

that the proposals should be more radical; 

(c)

that the existing panels were not cost effective and savings would be achieved if they were abolished; 

(d)

that the strength of scrutiny was in the work of task and finish groups;

(e)

that there had not been effective consultation with the opposition group and that cross party working was required in the development of the proposals;

(f)

that the proposal to offer the chair of the Cooperative Scrutiny Board to the opposition group would lead to a disparity of the special responsibility allowance with that for the Leader of the Opposition;   

(g)

that a review should be consolidated with the review of the constitution which would be undertaken in less than 12 months’ time; 

(h)

that there was no reference to members’ allowances in the written report;

(i)

that the proposals would add value to the scrutiny process and strengthened the ability of councillors and the public to hold Cabinet to account;

(j)

that the panels gave new councillors an opportunity to learn more about the work of the local authority.

‘A Reliable Railway Link for Plymouth                                                 

This council considers it scandalous that the only mainline railway connection to the fifteenth largest city in the country, as well as to the entire County of Cornwall, continues to rest upon a bank of pebbles which wash away when it rains too much. A 21st century city cannot prosper when it relies upon 19th century infrastructure. We therefore call upon the government to replace mere discussion with urgent practical action, and spend just a tiny fraction of the £30 billion being proposed for the Midlands' HS2 scheme to install in the very near future at Cowley Bridge outside Exeter, and any similarly vulnerable sites on the route to Plymouth, a concrete viaduct or other robust technical solution.’

‘This Council considers it scandalous that the only mainline railway connection to the fifteenth largest city in the country, as well as to the entire County of Cornwall, continues to rest upon a bank of pebbles which wash away when it rains too much. A 21st century city cannot prosper when it relies upon 19th century infrastructure. We therefore call upon the Government to replace mere discussion with urgent practical action, and to immediately allocate the money required spend just a tiny fraction of the £30 billion being proposed for the Midlands' HS2 scheme to install in the very near future at Cowley Bridge outside Exeter, and any similarly vulnerable sites on the route to Plymouth, a concrete viaduct or other robust technical solution.‘

(a)

action already undertaken by the city’s leaders, including meetings with the Prime Minister, to highlight the continuing impact of the current situation on the economy of the south west;     

(b)

the original motion would not achieve immediate action as the budget for the Midlands’ HS2 scheme had yet to be determined;  

(c)

a multi agency approach was required on behalf of Plymouth and the sub region with a view to achieving a commitment by the government to improve transport links;   

(d)

members of the Management Board had met with Alison Seabeck MP and they had been advised that there was technical work required with regard to Cowley Bridge and a solution had yet to be determined.

‘Recommendation (1) be formally adopted subject to the following amendments –

?

to add the following additional words in paragraph 2.5.20 ‘All new applications will be accompanied with a suitable Management Plan.’ (page 79 refers)

?

to add the following additional words in paragraph 2.7 ‘Has a suitable Management Plan submitted.’ (page 83 refers)

?

in line five of paragraph 2.5.15 delete the first word ‘resisted’ and replace with the word ‘refused’ (page 78 refers)

?

add at the end of paragraph 2.5.15 ‘Any change of use from family home to a HMO in streets or areas that have no HMOs will be resisted’. (page 78 refers)’

(a)

that no opposition councillor had made a response during the consultation process; 

(b)

the advice of the planning officers that, at this stage, there should only be minor alterations and no new issues should be raised. The third and fourth amendments proposed significant changes to the policy;

(c)

in relation to the first and second amendments, the impact would be considered as part of a planning application and any issues arising could be addressed by planning conditions;

(d)

in relation to the third amendment,  it was considered that ‘refused’ limited flexibility.  There was also a risk of costs at appeal if councillors’ ability to make a balanced judgement was removed;

(e)

in relation to the fourth amendment, the proposal was contrary to the authority’s responsibility to ensure the provision of a mix of housing accommodation.  It would limit officers’ ability to make balanced judgement and would be effectively a blanket ban, which would lead to a significant risk of costs at appeal.  If agreed, it was likely that the document would need to go out to consultation again. If supported, there would be an opportunity to raise it as part of the approval process for the Plymouth Plan;    

(f)

 the need to protect family homes;

(g)

that the amendment sought to limit the supply of houses in multiple occupation;

(1)

formally adopt the Development Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document: First Review (Appendix 1 to the written report);

(2)

delegate authority to the Assistant Director for Planning Services to approve the final publication version of the Supplementary Planning Document.  

‘Under – Occupancy ‘Bedroom Tax’     

?

The under-occupancy reductions ‘bedroom tax’ came into effect on 1 April 2013.  The reductions stipulate a 14 per cent reduction for those homes deemed to have one bedroom more than they need and 25 per cent reduction for those homes deemed to have two more bedrooms than they need.

?

It will affect anyone of working age (below 61 ½) deemed to be under-occupying a social housing home.  This equates to 2000 homes across Plymouth with the average reduction being £10 per week for one additional bedroom and £20 per week for two.

?

Those couples who need an extra bedroom because of one of them having a medical condition or disability are not exempt and will be subject to a reduction.

?

Non-resident parents who have their children to stay at weekends in the holidays for instance are not exempt and will be subject to a reduction.

?

Families who offer regular respite support to other family members are not exempt and will be subject to a reduction.

?

People living in homes which have been substantially adapted at tax-payers’ expense to meet their need are not exempt and will be subject to a reduction.

?

This council is committed to supporting all residents both children and adults, including those with disabilities and medical needs.

?

The Discretionary Payments Fund that the government has made available is estimated to cover less than 17 per cent of those affected by the ‘bedroom tax’.

?

The government’s own Equality Impact Assessment estimates that two-thirds of households affected will have a member with a disability.

?

Many independent analysts are predicting that households will move into the private rented sector, costing more, and that care needs for many disabled people will increase, again costing more.  Rents for private housing invariably costs more than social housing and are less likely to be adapted for disability needs.

?

There is not an excess supply of small properties available for households to move into in Plymouth.

(a)

that the ‘bedroom tax’ will unfairly hit many people including families with disabled children or adults, families who share the care of their children, families who offer respite care to other family members;

(b)

this policy may well end up costing the public purse more; 

(c) 

that disabled people (both adults and children) deserve respect and not to be penalised for their medical needs;

(d)

that the council values the role of non-resident parents and believe they should be encouraged to play as full a part in the lives of their children as possible;

(e)

that council values and appreciates the role of families who offer respite care – and not only because it saves the taxpayer billions of pounds.

(f)

that housing associations will have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

‘National Minimum Wage

Council notes:

A review from the government (BIS) has suggested that the Low Pay Commission (LPC) should formally consider its impact on ‘employment and the economy’ before recommending future increases in the national minimum wage (NMW). The review explicitly recommends that new terms for the commission should incorporate ‘the understood and accepted goal to raise the wages of the lowest paid without damaging employment or the economy’.

Council also notes: the recent abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Council further notes:

?

the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 created the first minimum wage across the United Kingdom. The NMW took effect on 1 April 1999 and is traditionally announced in March each year by the LPC, after negotiations with employers, unions and the government;

?

the NMW currently stand at £6.19 per hour for workers aged 21 years and older, £4.98 per hour for workers aged 18 to 20;

?

according to the Low Pay Commission (2012), the adult rate of the NMW has increased by nearly 69 per cent since its introduction. That is faster than both average earnings and prices. Since October 2006, however, the increases in the minimum wage have broadly been in line with average earnings, though below inflation;

?

based on a wealth of economic research, the Low Pay Commission conclude that the lowest paid have received higher than average pay rises, there has not been a rise in wage inflation and, on balance, there has been little or no significant adverse impact of the minimum wage on employment. They quote: ‘The NMW was introduced 12 years ago and, at about the same time, wage inequality at the bottom of the earnings distribution started to fall, having risen over the preceding 20 years’;

?

according to research for the LSE (2012), areas with the lowest wages prior to the introduction of the minimum wage experienced the greatest falls in inequality over the period from 1998 to 2010. In addition, the fall in wage inequality has been more pronounced in younger age groups. These findings have resonance for Plymouth – a generally low wage economy with a relatively large younger (aged 18-24) population;

?

while no specific data for the impact of the NMW on Plymouth exist, trends in the city’s earnings over the last decade point to an improvement in relative position. Between 2000 and 2010, average weekly workplace wages in the city increased from £360 to £422 per week[1]. This meant that average wages relative to the SW average increased from 97% to 101per cent (1 per cent above) and from 86 per cent to 89 per cent relative to the national average.  On a resident basis, the relative gaps also closed – 92 per cent to 93 per cent (vs. SW) and 83 per cent to 85 per cent (vs. UK);

?

the value of the NMW in real terms has fallen to 2004 levels under the coalition.

Council believes that any freeze or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

‘Construction Industry Blacklisting

A number of construction companies have been challenged about supporting the existence of and subscribing to unlawful construction industry ‘blacklists’, which detail covertly gathered information on construction trade unionism, militant tendencies, poor timekeeping, trouble making, etc. Blacklisting is an unacceptable practice and cannot be condoned.  The GMB union is leading a national campaign aimed at forcing those who have been involved in blacklisting to apologise to those who have been affected by it.

It is understood that the construction industry blacklist was collated by the Consulting Association (a private consultancy) and was then provided at a cost to construction companies as they sought to recruit/avoid new workers.  The Information Commissioner has investigated and taken action against the Consulting Association for this practice.  Furthermore, the Information Commissioner has taken enforcement action against a number of construction companies based on the evidence recovered from the Consulting Association.

Owing to the concentration of construction activity in and around large cities, many of those alleged to have been discriminated against live in the country’s major cities, and this practice may have disadvantaged residents of Plymouth.
 

Given the potential impact on residents of the Plymouth area, this council –

(a)

deplores the use of unlawful blacklisting;

(b)

supports the GMB campaign;

(c)

agrees to amend  the council’s tender documentation for construction projects, which will request bidders to confirm that they do not subscribe to the use of unlawful construction industry ‘blacklists’ and exclude tenderers who use such blacklists, and further, will terminate the contract where the contractor is subsequently found to have used such blacklists;

(d)

will encourage its partners to take similar measures with regard to their suppliers.’

(e)

that the procurement team had already adopted the policy; 

(f)

that if the practice was unlawful, it should be reported to the police and the council would not have a contract with the company concerned. 

(1)

adopt the revised code of conduct;

(2)

amend the council’s constitution accordingly.

(1)

the establishment of the Health and Wellbeing Board from May 2013;

(2)

the core membership of the board;

(3)

that political proportionality is not applied to the board;

(4)

the terms of reference (attached to the written report).

(1)

undertake a ‘root and branch’ review of the constitution to be managed through the Constitution Review Group;

(2)

structure the review around:

(a)

agreeing and setting the principles of how the constitution should be formed;

(b)

creating a written constitution to reflect those principles and put them into practice;

(3)

utilise external assistance in undertaking the review as described in the report.

?

the co-location with health at Windsor House; 

?

the transfer of the freehold of Devonport Market Hall Building.

From

To

Subject

1

Councillor Bowyer

Councillor Coker

Would he mount a positive campaign to address an increasing problem from inconsiderate parking of parents on school runs? He was concerned that there would be a serious injury.

Councillor Coker responded that the safer journey to schools’ programme was reviewed annually and that there was not a huge budget for it. He would work with the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People to bring forward   and incorporate it in this year’s review.

2

Councillor Sam Leaves

Councillor Coker

What type of risk assessment had been undertaken to minimise injury to runners in the half marathon from potholes in the roads.

Councillor Coker responded that the organisers of the half marathon, in conjunction with the highways department, had a duty to undertake risk assessments.  He had been assured that they had been done and if she emailed him, she would be welcome to see them.

3

Councillor Michael Leaves

Councillor Vincent

Would he reconsider and withdraw his decision following the call in on the revised household waste recycling centre opening hours and waste acceptance criteria?

Councillor Vincent responded that he was reviewing the decision with officers, in the light of the comments made by scrutiny and at present the outcome had not yet been determined.

4

Councillor Tuffin

Councillor Evans

Could he advise council on the good OFSTED report for Pilgrim Primary School in the St Peter and the Waterfront Ward please?

Councillor Evans responded (in the absence of the portfolio holder for children and young people), that the school had 172 pupils and would shortly receive investment of £2.4m. Outstanding grades had been achieved across all areas with the highest marks in all categories.

5

Councillor Foster

Councillor Peter Smith

Why was the council engaging consultants to look at sickness levels?  What was the cost?

Councillor Peter Smith responded that the issues needed to be addressed and that improvements were being seen.  The consultant would undertake a comprehensive review.

A written response would be provided on the cost.

6

Councillor Jordan

Councillor Lowry

What was the total cost for the new signs around the city?

Councillor Lowry responded that his role was not to be responsible for every element of expenditure.

7

Councillor Parker

Councillor Penberthy

What have you done to support the council’s commitment to keep people in their homes? What impact was there on homeless people last year?

Councillor Penberthy responded that 371 disability facilities grants had been completed.  Applications had been dealt with in an average of four months which exceeded the target of nine months and contained within the existing budget which had assumed fewer applications.   

Families had been provided with support to keep them in their own homes who  otherwise would have been homeless.

Bed and breakfast accommodation had been controlled through house let. Everyone who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.