Agenda and minutes

It was noted that Councillor Roberts had been omitted from the attendance list.

 

With this minor correction, the minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

 

1.       APOLOGIES

 

None.

 

 

2.       MAYOR’S DAY OUT

 

The Mayor reminded members that the Mayor’s Day Out to Great Yarmouth would take place on Thursday, 5 September. It was noted that anyone wishing to steward a coach should contact Susie Fletcher in the Arts and Entertainments Team as soon as possible.

 

 

3.       CAMBRIDGE OPEN WEEKEND

 

The Mayor confirmed that the City Council had again joined with the University of Cambridge to participate in the Open Cambridge weekend. The Council Chamber and civic suite would be open to the public on Friday 13 and Saturday 14 September with a timed talk about the civic history and insignia on both dates.   

 

 

4.       HARVEST FESTIVAL CIVIC SERVICE

 

The Mayor confirmed that the Harvest Festival Civic Service would take place on Sunday, 13 October at 9.30am at Great St. Mary’s Church.

 

 

5.       FUND RAISING EVENT FOR CENTRE 33

 

The Mayor confirmed that a fund raising event for Centre 33 would take place at the Guildhall on Wednesday, 16 October and details would be circulated in due course.

 

 

6.       PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF THANKS

 

The Mayor presented Councillor Sheila Stuart with a framed copy of the Council's ‘Resolution of Thanks’ for her year of mayoralty.

 

 

 

7.       DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

 

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Dryden	13/53/CNL	Personal: Justice of the Peace. Chose not to vote on this item.
Johnson	13/53/CNL	Personal: Employee of the University.
Marchant-Daisley	13/53/CNL	Personal: Member of the Law Society.
Reid	13/53/CNL	Personal: Member of the Law Society.
Reiner	13/53/CNL	Personal: Member of the Law Society and a Member of Liberty.
Saunders	13/54/CNL	Personal: Niece employed by Oxford Hub.
Smith	13/53/CNL	Personal: Member of Cambridge University and a Director of Studies at Robinson College.

 

Speaking on Motion 7b

 

Mr Carpen addressed the Council and made the following points:

 

(i)             Linked the motion to Cambridge Past, Present & Future’s 2030 Vision.

(ii)            Suggested the Vision lacked a community feel, focussing instead on transport, economics and the environment.

(iii)          Local government was not at the heart of city life, when it should be instead of in a separate silo. The City could be greater than the sum of its parts.

(iv)         Requested that city institutions established better connections between themselves, charities and citizens. For example, through social media.

(v)           Requested a Single Community Development Strategy be developed to facilitate better connections between organisations and citizens.

(vi)         Referred to the County Council’s Shape Your Place and asked how the City Council and voluntary services could link into this.

(vii)        Queried if current community development policies could be mapped.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing responded:

 

(i)             Noted Mr Carpen’s points and supported his aims.

(ii)            Offered to liaise with Mr Carpen after the meeting.

 

 

Speaking on Motion 7b

 

Ms Saltzmore addressed the Council and made the following points:

 

(i)             Spoke on behalf of University of Cambridge Student Union.

(ii)            Welcomed the principle of links between organisations and student volunteers, but would like greater co-operation between the Council, Anglia Ruskin and University of Cambridge Student Unions.

(iii)          Referred to the proposed amendment to Motion 7b and suggested more collaboration could be achieved with appropriate student organisations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing responded:

 

(i)             Noted Ms Saltzmore’s points and supported her aims.

(ii)            Welcomed greater collaboration between the Council and student volunteers in future.

(iii)          Offered to liaise with Ms Saltzmore after the meeting.

 

 

Speaking on Motion 7b

 

Ms Foreman addressed the Council and made the following points:

 

(i)             Spoke on behalf of Anglia Ruskin University Student Union.

(ii)            Students were heavily involved in voluntary work, but she had only found out about Motion 7b by accident.

(iii)          Welcomed the proposed amendment, but would have preferred earlier involvement in the process.

(iv)         Proposed more collaboration between the Council and students in future.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing responded:

 

(i)             Noted Ms Foreman’s points and supported her aims.

(ii)            Recognised that Anglia Ruskin and University of Cambridge Students were key players in voluntary work.

(iii)          Offered to liaise with Ms Foreman after the meeting.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor altered the order of the agenda to take agenda item 7b next. However, for the ease of the reader the minutes will follow the order of the printed agenda.

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to: 

 

Revenue:

a) Agree carry forward requests, totaling £717,250, as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report, subject to the final outturn position.

 

Capital:

b) Carry forward (net) capital resources to fund re-phased capital spending of £11,967,000 as shown in Appendix D of the officer’s report - Overview.

 

 

 

 

Resolved (by 21 votes to 0) to:

 

Approve the Annual Treasury Management Report 2012/13, which included reporting of the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2012/13.

 

Resolved (by 41 votes to 0) to:

 

         i.          Create a new post of Head of Finance which will become the Council’s Section 151 Officer on appointment.

       ii.          Delete the post of Head of Accounting Services.

     iii.          Create a new post of (provisionally titled) Director of Business Transformation.

     iv.          Delete the post of Director of Resources and to approve notice of redundancy being given to the Director of Resources in the event that he is not appointed to another post.

      v.          Delegate authority to the Chief Executive to amend the Council’s Constitution and Scheme of Delegation to reflect these changes.

     vi.          Delegate authority to the Chief Executive to take all steps necessary to implement the new structure (other than those delegated to the Employment (Senior Officer) Committee), including the timetable for implementation of the Director and Head of Service proposals and the final determination of the structure of the Finance service below Head of Service level.

   vii.          Authorise the Chief Executive to designate and make arrangements for the section 151 role and Director role on an interim basis should this become necessary.

 viii.          Make allocation from underspend in the 2012/13 budget to fund one-off redundancy and recruitment costs, should these be required.

 

 

 

Resolved (unanimously) to:

i.                 Approve the Code of Corporate Governance.

Resolved (by 23 votes to 0) to:

 

Approve the changes to Part 4G of the Constitution, Contract Procedure Rules for implementation with effect from 1 November 2013. 

 

 

Resolved (unanimously): 

 

(i)             That the Budget Setting Report should be the place where the Council sets out its medium term financial strategy in future years, rather than being produced as a separate Medium Term Strategy document.

 

(ii)           That the Council undertakes a Mid-Year Financial Review in its autumn cycle comprising the following core elements:

 

a)   To consider the implications of year-end actuals on both revenue and capital expenditure going forward and level of reserves and first quarter performance against agreed budget

b)   To consider any implications from the Annual Statement

c)    To reflect any changes from the Government’s Budget and Spending Review Announcements

d)   To test underlying assumptions about inflation and interest rates in the light of latest information and conditions

e)   To review forecasts on retained business rate and Council Tax in light of actual growth and latest projections

f)     To consider what impact all of the above have on reserves and future savings targets

(iii)          That the proposed Mid-Year Financial Review document should be considered by Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee before the Leader makes a recommendation to Council.

(iv)         To delegate authority to the Chief Executive to amend the Council’s Constitution to reflect these new arrangements.

 

1. Councillor Owers to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

In light of the workload in a city the size of Cambridge in terms of issues related to dogs, such as dealing with dangerous dogs and strays, enforcing against dog fouling and the welfare of dogs, is it appropriate to have only a part-time dog warden?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that she recognised how important the control of dogs in the City was and that this was one of the reasons why Dog Control Orders had been introduced to assist in the management of stray dogs and irresponsible dog owners. Although the Dog Warden’s post was part time (18.5 hours per week) this post is supported by 3 Full Time Enforcement Officers and the Public Realm Manager all of whom had been trained in handling stray dogs and dog owners. In addition the City Council was engaging with the police and PCSO’s to offer support in issuing Fixed Penalty Notices.  An out of hours contract with an external contractor to manage stray dogs out of hours was also in place.

 

 

2. Councillor Moghadas to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

What happened to the Council’s application for the 'Piece' to be officially designated a Town Green under the 1965 Registration of Commons Act?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the application for registration of Christ’s Pieces as a Town Green was made in 2006.  The County Council, to whom applications were made under the Commons Registration Act 1965, rejected the application as Christ’s Pieces did not meet the terms required under the Act.

 

 

3. Councillor Pitt to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

Now that Dog Control Orders have been introduced could the Executive Councillor explain the next steps?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the recently introduced Dog Control Orders came into force with effect from 8^th July 2013.

 

Notices had been placed on sites, as appropriate, informing the public which Orders are in place for those areas. A fortnight of educational work is being undertaken, with the support of the Police, informing and advising dog owners of their responsibilities. Internal training and advice with the Rangers, Customer Services and Open Space Officers has also been carried out so that officers can advise the public appropriately.

 

It was noted that the Council would continue working with the Police and would be seeking support from PCSO’s in the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices along with the Dog Warden and Enforcement Team after the educational period has finished.

 

Moving forward in the use of Dog Control Orders, the Council would assess and review their usage and successfulness in combating the issues of dog fouling and irresponsible dog owners and review and amend as required. 

 

4. Councillor Herbert to the Leader

 

On the Greater Cambridge City Deal:

 

a) when is the Government promising to make a final decision on successful proposals?

 

and

 

b) based on the first round of City Deals, when is most likely date that the proposed City Deal could first start?

 

The Leader confirmed that he had attended a meeting in July to make a presentation to Central Government Ministers regarding the City Deal. It was noted that: 

 

a)   The Government has said that it intends to conclude deals with successful second wave cities by early 2014. 

It was possible that the Council would conclude the deal sooner, but experience of the first wave was that the more complex proposals (for instance those most similar to the Council’s  “GainShare” proposal) took longest to conclude.

 

b)   The first wave deals have been implemented to varying timescales, with different elements within individual deals taking effect sooner than others, depending on the complexity and the degree of change from previous arrangements.

It was anticipated that partners in the Greater Cambridge Deal would aim to start operating as a “shadow Board” shortly after the conclusion of the deal, and it may be that some elements of the proposal can start to be implemented from next Spring.  However, the governance model the Council is proposing would require primary legislation and decisions from each participating Council. 

 

It was therefore estimated, that the City Deal Board may not be fully established and formally constituted before Spring 2015 or possibly later.

 

In any event, the Council would need to develop a detailed implementation plan as part of the work to conclude the deal with Government, which will set out what will happen, and when, more clearly. 

 

As highlighted in the two reports to Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee, any major changes to the exercise of the City Council’s current powers would be brought through scrutiny committee and then to full Council for proper debate and decision.

 

5. Councillor Bird to the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

Can the Executive Councillor say if the Housing Department, or any other department, has done an Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA) on social rented or private sector tenants hit by multiple welfare changes such as the bedroom tax, the localisation of council tax benefit, the benefit cap, Personal Independence Payments and Universal Credit? 

 

Can she say how many tenants have been affected by more than one change and what help is being given? Does she also agree that the sweeping statement by Julian Huppert on 16 July in the Cambridge News that disabled people are exempted from the Benefit Cap was misleading as the Carers Allowance is included in the cap as are some aspects of the Employment and Support Allowance both of which affect many disabled people or those with disabled adults or children in their household?

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing responded that she was not aware that the Council had undertaken an Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA) and assumed that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would have done so. If this this had not happened they would have been challenged by lobby groups.

 

The Executive Councillor expressed surprise that localisation of council tax had been submitted as an Oral Question when mitigation measures had already been discussed at the recent Special Meeting of Council.

 

It was noted that the ‘Bedroom Tax’ and benefits cap were now in effect, and that Personal Independence Payments were being handled by the DWP. The Executive Councillor therefore did not have the information to judge the cumulative impact of benefit changes on council tenants.

 

 

6.  Councillor Tunnacliffe to Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing

 

Can the Executive Councillor provide an update on preparations for the 2014 Tour de France?

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Wellbeing responded that the City Council was leading on project management in liaison with Leeds City Council, Yorkshire County Council and Sport England.

 

It was confirmed that the City Steering Group had been established and would co-ordinate transport and safety, and that a separate multi agency group had also been established.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the intention was to make the most of opportunities and develop a sports legacy.

 

7. Councillor Dryden to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

Could the Executive Councillor for Public Places explain why she stopped the proposed public art to commemorate the first Football Association written rules memorial, that was to be constructed on Parker’s Piece after it had been agreed by her predecessor and what is more, the consultation period had not yet finished?

 

The Executive Councillor responded that the project was reviewed following her appointment, which highlighted issues of a commercial nature, some of which could be overcome. For example there had been a claim which asserted that the subbuteo figure infringed the copyright of a large American toy company. This claim was ultimately dropped, but the fact remained that the subbuteo figure was arguably a commercial representation.

 

These events put into question the underlying commercial references that the artwork could have deemed to signify, and the Executive Councillor therefore concluded that a commercial figure was not an appropriate subject for a major piece of art on Parker’s Piece. 

 

Consultation had not yet begun, and the Executive Councillor did not think this proposal was an appropriate subject for consultation given the commercial representation of the central figure. Taking into account the above issues as well as input from the project board, a decision was made that this concept could not be pursued any further and a process to seek alternative concepts should take place followed by a public consultation of shortlisted concepts.

 

8. Councillor Pippas to the Leader

 

What are your reactions to the report "2030 Vision for the Cambridge sub-region" which was published last week?

 

The Leader responded that he welcomed the report which included impressive examples of people coming together to help the city grow. It was noted that various workshops had taken place that were helpful in the production of the Local Plan and the City Deal. This showed the need for connectivity and joined up thinking.

 

The following Oral Questions were also tabled, but owing to the expiry of the period of time permitted, were not covered during the meeting:

 

9. Councillor Johnson to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

 

What was the cost to the City Council of two consultant reports requested as part of the work towards the 2014 Local Plan, namely the 2009 'Cambridgeshire Development Study Final Report' by WSP, and the 2012 'Infrastucture Delivery Study' by Peter Brett Associates. Both reports identified risks associated with growth beyond the current development strategy. 

 

 

10. Councillor Moghadas to the Executive Councillor for Public Places

 

A local resident to Coldhams Common believes some of the new fencing on the common is being illegally erected, as it has not had Secretary of State approval as required, and that which has had approval has not strictly followed the plan as agreed. Can the Executive Councillor assure the Council this is not the case and update the Council on details of the management plan for the common?

 

 

11. Councillor Owers to the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services

 

Can the Executive Councillor give an update on the investigation into alleged deliberate overfilling of trade bins by some of the Council's refuse collectors?

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Council notes:

 

·       That the Justice Secretary has recently held a consultation on the future of civil and criminal legal aid funding.

·       All political parties have agreed that the current system can be made more efficient.

·       That it is an important principle that people should be able to hold government to account when it makes unlawful decisions. Restrictions on the availability of civil Legal Aid which may prevent people from being able challenge an employer, public authority or government decision can be detrimental.

·       That the Justice Secretary is proposing to restrict legal aid to those who have been lawfully in the UK for over 12 months continuously and who have documentary evidence to prove this.

·       There is a risk that cutting back on criminal legal aid support may make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves.

·       The proposed changes will have a material impact on Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau and other agencies across the city who provide a critical role for the vulnerable.

·       That the City Council acknowledges the crucial work that the CAB undertakes and provides on going financial support to the Cambridge CAB.

 

This Council believes:

 

·       That the proposed changes to civil legal aid will make it harder for vulnerable people to have access to justice and is likely to exclude even more people from enforcing their rights to fair treatment at work.

·       That the Justice Secretary was right to respond to pressure from lawyers, Liberal Democrat MPs and others to end his proposal of removing choice in criminal legal aid.

·       That there are alternative ways of saving money from the criminal legal aid budget, such as those proposed by the Law Society, using frozen assets to pay for legal expenses, and having Director's insurance to cover the costs of legal aid in corporate fraud cases.

 

This Council resolves:

 

·       That the leader writes to the Justice Secretary urging him to look at alternative models for criminal legal aid, such as that proposed by the Law Society, to abandon the proposed residency test and ensure that funding for judicial reviews is continued.

·       That the Leader writes to the two city MPs calling on them to lobby the Justice Secretary to achieve these aims.

·       That the Council works with Cambridge CAB and other agencies to minimise the impact of the changes should they go through.

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Reiner seconded the following motion:

 

This Council notes:

 

·       That the Justice Secretary has recently held a consultation on the future of civil and criminal legal aid funding.

·       All political parties have agreed that the current system can be made more efficient.

·       That it is an important principle that people should be able to hold government to account when it makes unlawful decisions. Restrictions on the availability of civil Legal Aid which may prevent people from being able challenge an employer, public authority or government decision can be detrimental.

·       That the Justice Secretary is proposing to restrict legal aid to those who have been lawfully in the UK for over 12 months continuously and who have documentary evidence to prove this.

·       There is a risk that cutting back on criminal legal aid support may make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves.

·       The proposed changes will have a material impact on Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau and other agencies across the city who provide a critical role for the vulnerable.

·       That the City Council acknowledges the crucial work that the CAB undertakes and provides on going financial support to the Cambridge CAB.

 

This Council believes:

 

·       That the proposed changes to civil legal aid will make it harder for vulnerable people to have access to justice and is likely to exclude even more people from enforcing their rights to fair treatment at work.

·       That the Justice Secretary was right to respond to pressure from lawyers, Liberal Democrat MPs and others to end his proposal of removing choice in criminal legal aid.

·       That there are alternative ways of saving money from the criminal legal aid budget, such as those proposed by the Law Society, using frozen assets to pay for legal expenses, and having Director's insurance to cover the costs of legal aid in corporate fraud cases.

 

This Council resolves:

 

·       That the leader writes to the Justice Secretary urging him to look at alternative models for criminal legal aid, such as that proposed by the Law Society, to abandon the proposed residency test and ensure that funding for judicial reviews is continued.

·       That the Leader writes to the two city MPs calling on them to lobby the Justice Secretary to achieve these aims.

·       That the Council works with Cambridge CAB and other agencies to minimise the impact of the changes should they go through.

 

Councillor Birtles proposed and Councillor Marchant-Daisley seconded the following amendment:

 

Changes underlined – deletions struck through

 

 

This Council notes:

 

 

·       That the Justice Secretary has recently held a consultation on the future of civil and criminal legal aid funding.

·       All political parties have agreed that the current system can be made more efficient.

·       That it is an important principle that people should be able to hold government to account when it makes unlawful decisions. Restrictions on the availability of civil Legal Aid which may prevent people from being able challenge an employer, public authority or government decision can be detrimental.

·       That the Justice Secretary is proposing to restrict legal aid to those who have been lawfully in the UK for over 12 months continuously and who have documentary evidence to prove this.

·       There is a risk that cutting back on criminal legal aid support may make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves.

·       The proposed changes to criminal legal aid, and the withdrawal of the Legal Help scheme earlier this year for debt, housing and welfare benefit advice have, and will continue to have an impact on the vital work of the Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau, and other providers of social welfare law advice in our city.   Access to free advice can be critical for the most vulnerable. The proposed changes will have a material impact on Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau and other agencies across the city who provide a critical role for the vulnerable.

·       That the City Council acknowledges the crucial work that the CAB undertakes and provides on-going financial support to the Cambridge CAB.

 

 

This Council believes:

 

·       That the proposed changes to civil legal aid will make it harder for vulnerable people to have access to justice and is likely to exclude even more people from enforcing their rights to fair treatment at work.

·       That the Justice Secretary was right to respond to pressure from lawyers, MPs from all parties  Liberal Democrat MPs and others to end his proposal of removing choice in criminal legal aid.

·       That there are alternative ways of saving money from the criminal legal aid budget, such as those proposed by the Law Society, using frozen assets to pay for legal expenses, and having Director's insurance to cover the costs of legal aid in corporate fraud cases.

 

This Council resolves:

 

 

·       That the leader writes to the Justice Secretary urging him to look at alternative models for criminal legal aid, such as that proposed by the Law Society, to abandon the proposed residency test and ensure that funding for judicial reviews is continued.

·       That the Leader write to the two city MP’s calling on them to lobby the Justice Secretary to resist the changes to criminal legal aid and support the provision of free advice on Social Welfare Law following the removal of Legal Aid in such cases by the Coalition Government. That the Leader writes to the two city MPs calling on them to lobby the Justice Secretary to achieve these aims.

·       That the Council works with the Cambridge CAB to minimise the impact of the withdrawal of legal help funding for Social Welfare Law advice and liaises with local providers of criminal law advice under the current legal aid scheme to minimise the impact of those changes should they go through.  That the Council works with Cambridge CAB and other agencies to minimise the impact of the changes should they go through.

 

On a show of hands the vote was tied at 21 votes to 21 and was lost on the Mayor’s casting vote.

 

 

 

 

Councillor Cantrill proposed and Councillor Pitt seconded the following amendment:

 

Changes underlined

 

This Council notes:

 

 

·       That the Justice Secretary has recently held a consultation on the future of civil and criminal legal aid funding.

·       All political parties have agreed that the current system can be made more efficient.

·       That it is an important principle that people should be able to hold government to account when it makes unlawful decisions. Restrictions on the availability of civil Legal Aid which may prevent people from being able challenge an employer, public authority or government decision can be detrimental.

·       That the Justice Secretary is proposing to restrict legal aid to those who have been lawfully in the UK for over 12 months continuously and who have documentary evidence to prove this.

·       There is a risk that cutting back on criminal legal aid support may make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves.

·       The proposed changes to criminal legal aid, and the withdrawal of the Legal Help scheme earlier this year for debt, housing and welfare benefit advice have, and will continue to have an impact on the vital work of the Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau, and other providers of social welfare law advice in our city.   Access to free advice can be critical for the most vulnerable. The proposed changes will have a material impact on Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau and other agencies across the city who provide a critical role for the vulnerable.

·       That the City Council acknowledges the crucial work that the CAB undertakes and provides on-going financial support to the Cambridge CAB.

 

 

This Council believes:

 

·       That the proposed changes to civil legal aid will make it harder for vulnerable people to have access to justice and is likely to exclude even more people from enforcing their rights to fair treatment at work.

·       That the Justice Secretary was right to respond to pressure from lawyers, MPs from all parties  and others to end his proposal of removing choice in criminal legal aid.

·       That there are alternative ways of saving money from the criminal legal aid budget, such as those proposed by the Law Society, using frozen assets to pay for legal expenses, and having Director's insurance to cover the costs of legal aid in corporate fraud cases.

 

This Council resolves:

 

·       That the leader writes to the Justice Secretary urging him to look at alternative models for criminal legal aid, such as that proposed by the Law Society, to abandon the proposed residency test and ensure that funding for judicial reviews is continued.

·       That the Leader writes to the two city MPs calling on them to lobby the Justice Secretary to achieve these aims.

·       That the Council works with Cambridge CAB and other agencies to minimise the impact of the changes should they go through.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried by 41 votes to 0.

 

 

Councillor Marchant-Daisley proposed and Councillor Cantrill seconded the following amendment:

 

Changes underlined – deletions struck through

 

This Council notes:

 

 

·       That the Justice Secretary has recently held a consultation on the future of civil and criminal legal aid funding.

·       All political parties have agreed that the current system can be made more efficient.

·       That it is an important principle that people should be able to hold government to account when it makes unlawful decisions. Restrictions on the availability of civil Legal Aid which may prevent people from being able challenge an employer, public authority or government decision can be detrimental.

·       That the Justice Secretary is proposing to restrict legal aid to those who have been lawfully in the UK for over 12 months continuously and who have documentary evidence to prove this.

·       There is a risk that cutting back on criminal legal aid support may make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves.

·       The proposed changes to criminal legal aid, and the withdrawal of the Legal Help scheme earlier this year for debt, housing and welfare benefit advice have, and will continue to have an impact on the vital work of the Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau, and other providers of social welfare law advice in our city.   Access to free advice can be critical for the most vulnerable. The proposed changes will have a material impact on Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau and other agencies across the city who provide a critical role for the vulnerable.

·       That the City Council acknowledges the crucial work that the CAB undertakes and provides on-going financial support to the Cambridge CAB.

 

 

This Council believes:

 

·       That the proposed changes to civil legal aid will make it harder for vulnerable people to have access to justice and is likely to exclude even more people from enforcing their rights to fair treatment at work.

·       That the Justice Secretary was right to respond to pressure from lawyers, MPs from all parties  and others to end his proposal of removing choice in criminal legal aid.

·       That there are alternative ways of saving money from the criminal legal aid budget, such as those proposed by the Law Society, using frozen assets to pay for legal expenses, and having Director's insurance to cover the costs of legal aid in corporate fraud cases.

 

This Council resolves:

 

·       That the leader writes to the Justice Secretary urging him to look at alternative models for criminal legal aid, such as that proposed by the Law Society, to abandon the proposed residency test and ensure that funding for judicial reviews is continued.

·       That the Leader writes to the two city MPs calling on them to lobby the Justice Secretary to achieve the aim of challenging the legal aid cuts these aims.

·       That the Council works with Cambridge CAB and other agencies to minimise the impact of the legal aid changes should they go through.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was carried unanimously.

 

 

Resolved (unanimously) that:

 

This Council notes:

 

 

·       That the Justice Secretary has recently held a consultation on the future of civil and criminal legal aid funding.

·       All political parties have agreed that the current system can be made more efficient.

·       That it is an important principle that people should be able to hold government to account when it makes unlawful decisions. Restrictions on the availability of civil Legal Aid which may prevent people from being able challenge an employer, public authority or government decision can be detrimental.

·       That the Justice Secretary is proposing to restrict legal aid to those who have been lawfully in the UK for over 12 months continuously and who have documentary evidence to prove this.

·       There is a risk that cutting back on criminal legal aid support may make it harder for people to be able to defend themselves.

·       The proposed changes to criminal legal aid, and the withdrawal of the Legal Help scheme earlier this year for debt, housing and welfare benefit advice have, and will continue to have an impact on the vital work of the Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau, and other providers of social welfare law advice in our city.   Access to free advice can be critical for the most vulnerable. The proposed changes will have a material impact on Cambridge Citizens Advice Bureau and other agencies across the city who provide a critical role for the vulnerable.

·       That the City Council acknowledges the crucial work that the CAB undertakes and provides on-going financial support to the Cambridge CAB.

 

 

This Council believes:

 

·       That the proposed changes to civil legal aid will make it harder for vulnerable people to have access to justice and is likely to exclude even more people from enforcing their rights to fair treatment at work.

·       That the Justice Secretary was right to respond to pressure from lawyers, MPs from all parties  and others to end his proposal of removing choice in criminal legal aid.

·       That there are alternative ways of saving money from the criminal legal aid budget, such as those proposed by the Law Society, using frozen assets to pay for legal expenses, and having Director's insurance to cover the costs of legal aid in corporate fraud cases.

 

This Council resolves:

 

·       That the leader writes to the Justice Secretary urging him to look at alternative models for criminal legal aid, such as that proposed by the Law Society, to abandon the proposed residency test and ensure that funding for judicial reviews is continued.

·       That the Leader writes to the two city MPs calling on them to lobby the Justice Secretary to achieve the aim of challenging the legal aid cuts.

·       That the Council works with Cambridge CAB and other agencies to minimise the impact of the legal aid changes should they go through.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This council acknowledges that for many people in Cambridge there appears to be a substantial gap between the life experiences of the permanent community and those of the student population, which is not conducive to the wellbeing and future of our city.

 

This council recognises the essential role of both universities - Anglia Ruskin University and the University of Cambridge - in the city and their central contributions to Cambridge’s economic success, but acknowledges that more could be done to foster social links.

 

The council notes, in particular, that there is a tangible disparity between the daily lives and life chances of those within the most deprived parts of our city and many of the students who, fortuitously, have the chance to study in Cambridge.

 

This council acknowledges the valuable work being done by Cambridge Hub, which recruits student volunteers and encourages their participation - locally, nationally and internationally - in a range of essential social, environmental and charitable activities.

The council notes that Cambridge is blessed with a rich civil society, but community projects and community-based groups in some of the most deprived parts of our city often lack one or more of the following:

 

·       A large pool of volunteers

·       Time-rich/flexible volunteers

·       Access to help in range of fields crucial for effective social action, such as:

o   Website design

o   Fundraising

o   Event organisation

o   Social media and communication training.

 

This council notes that the Cambridge Hub works with partners to recruit, support and connect student volunteers to available community opportunities.  However, the council notes that it has been difficult for the Cambridge Hub to expand its local activism in the more deprived parts of Cambridge because of a lack of local coordination, knowledge and help in directing activities towards the greatest needs.

 

This council resolves to:

 

·       Request that Cambridge City Council Community Development team meet with Cambridge Hub during the summer to discuss where and how the Hub can help community groups before the bulk of the student population returns to Cambridge.

·       Write to community groups currently receiving, or who have received, financial assistance and/or wider support in the last two financial years, advertising the help Cambridge Hub can provide with an invitation to a community event in September to meet and discuss partnering opportunities further.

·       Email all councillors the list of local organisations that will be contacted, so that each councillor has the chance to suggest additional community projects and groups in their own ward that they believe could benefit from building a relationship with Cambridge Hub.

·       Lastly, recognise that more needs to be done by the council, especially in the current economic climate, to reduce the social divide between town and gown.

 

While acknowledging that council finances are under unprecedented pressure, the Chief Executive is asked to arrange a discussion including both universities on presenting an annual award - on behalf of us all - to one student and one community volunteer who have worked most successfully to bridge the divide between ‘town and gown’.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 13/54/CNL

Members noted the written questions and answers circulated around the chamber. 

 

The Chair ruled that under 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the following item be considered despite not being made publicly available for the Committee five clear working days prior to the meeting. Under the Council’s Access to Information Procedure Rules, a decision taken under special urgency must be reported to Council quarterly. It was deemed preferable to report to this meeting and not wait until the next meeting on 24 October 2013.

 

The following decision of the Executive Councillor for Public Places was noted:

 

·       Approved the commencement of the project, which was already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan (SC573). 

·       The total cost of the project was £34,480, funded from Reserves, of which £25,000 had been approved.

·       Approved the additional funding of £9,480.