Agenda and minutes

None.

Agreed as an accurate record.

To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and that the items marked Part II will be considered in private.

It was agreed that all items of business were considered in public.

To hear the Call-In of any decisions made at the Cabinet meeting prior to this meeting or made by Cabinet Members, other Council Committees or a delegated officer and published within five working days of this meeting.

Members should bring their Cabinet agenda to the meeting.

Members should consider any other decisions published in the five working days before this meeting.

The purpose of this meeting is to decide whether to refer back any decision to the decision maker.

Members gave consideration to the Cabinet reports of 24 June 2010 and after careful consideration Members decided not to call-in any decision made by the Cabinet at their meeting.

However Members sought clarification on the following items:

Cabinet Agenda Item 7 - National Housing Revenue Account Review

On page 73 of the report, paragraph 10, reference was made to the current HRA subsidy system being generally held to be unfair by the majority of stakeholders. Members asked for further information on this in relation to how many stakeholders found it unfair, which stakeholders found it unfair, and what was the percentage of stakeholders that found it unfair? 

[Subsequent to the meeting, officers provided the following response:

The HRA subsidy system is generally regarded as unfair by councils and tenants who lose out from the system. No survey information was available but this feeling had been expressed by officers during the last decade or so in numerous national conferences on the subsidy system. Individual, annual HRA rent setting reports within the majority of councils also contained references to the unfairness of the subsidy system.

The Audit Commission in their 2005 report, ‘Financing Council Housing’ also pointed out that: ‘The current system means that in many areas, local authorities’ tenants, on low incomes, are subsidising services to tenants who may also be on low incomes in other local authorities. This is in contrast with other government initiated investment programmes, which make significant demands on the exchequer and therefore on national taxation.’

The number of dissenters was significant. Of the 205 local authorities in the HRA subsidy system in 2008-2009, 153 were making a contribution into the system (negative subsidy) and 52 were receiving subsidy from the system (positive subsidy). The requirement for those authorities in negative subsidy to contribute some of their rent income back to central Government for redistribution to other areas was particularly unpopular as it took away some of the money paid as rent by tenants, who were generally on low incomes or on benefit, into the overall national purse.

Future projections from the current formula also clearly indicated that all housing authorities would become negative subsidy authorities. Consequently, even the authorities that gained from the subsidy system had expressed concern about the current operation of the subsidy system.

The current government, through continuing with the HRA Review started by the previous government appears to be acknowledging that the system is unfair. They also acknowledged that the current subsidy system was expensive for both central and local government to administer.]

Cabinet Agenda Item 11 - Sustainable Community Strategy - 2008-18 Progress and Future Direction

On page 166,  SHP 10 - Increase sanctioned detection rate for serious acquisitive crime - Members asked for an explanation of what this task means? 

Under the paragraph "Consultation Carried Out or Required" on page 167, Members requested who were the key stakeholders who were consulted?

[Subsequent to the meeting, officers provided the following response:

 SHP 10 - Increase sanctioned detection rate for serious acquisitive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.