Mr Taylor, I note that on your website you have written the following:

“A Liberal member of the committee was absent, and the alternate Cllr Blair
“could not attend because it is the school holidays”. I wonder how many of
Cllr Blair’s constituents realise she doesn’t represent them for significant
chunks of the year when the schools are on holiday? I note she also did not
attend August’s North Area Committee Meeting.”

I take great exception to that. My record of attendance at Council meetings is exemplary and the North Area Committee in August was the first one I have missed as it coincided with a two week holiday, my first holiday in two years as it happens. I assume you are not saying that councillors are unable ever to have holidays and as I choose not to take my children out of school during term time any holiday will inevitably fall in the standard school break.
I was unable to attend as alternate at Strategy and Resources as I was on a planning training course, together with the Chair of the Planning Committee, for which I had sent my apologies some time previously.

If you are to write about me please ensure that your facts are accurate.

With regards,

Cllr Blair

I replied:

>On 6 Sep 2008, at 21:53, Clare Blair wrote:

>I was unable to attend as alternate at
>Strategy and Resources as I was on
>a planning training course

This is not what was reported to the meeting by the chair. It was noted you were the designated alternate for the Liberal Democrats, but “could not attend because it was the school holidays”.

I have accurately reported what was said to the meeting by the chair. I am happy to publish your version too.

Richard.

I was referring to s.27 Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder.

These powers enable the police to give anyone aged 16 and over a direction to leave a locality, to minimise the risk of alcohol-related crime or disorder arising and/or taking place.

The Cambridge Community Safety Partnership in May discussed how these powers could be used in areas where dispersal zones under S.30 of the Antisocial behaviour act were removed.

The powers came into force on the 22nd August 2007. Cambridgeshire police claim they were among the first in the country to use the powers in Peterborough in February 2008. They are now being described as “new powers” in Cambridge.

I cannot currently find any evidence PCSOs can use these new powers, where as they can enforce dispersal zones.

As you know I attended the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee on Monday.

I would like to make some comments on the agenda.

Under the heading :

“NON KEY ITEMS REFERRED FOR SCRUTINY BY LABOUR GROUP”

Items included the:

The RIPA Report
The Dispersal Zone

In the case of the RIPA report the council leader stated at the meeting that he had ensured it was on the agenda, not the Labour Group. In fact I believe both wanted it to be discussed at the meeting.

In the case of the Dispersal Zone, the agenda itsself states this item is on the agenda because it is council policy to bring these before the committee.

As neither of these items were on the agenda solely because they were referred for scrutiny by the Labour group, I think to include them under this heading was misleading.

I would like to suggest that one way of improving the clarity of the agenda would be to title the section: “Non Key Items Referred for Scrutiny by Members”, with a note next to each item identifying the member/group who put it on the agenda.

Also as I am commenting on the agenda I would like to note that the “Decisions for the Leader” were grouped together and taken first and the “Decisions for the Executive Councillor, Customer Services and Resources” followed. The council Leader left when ‘his section of the meeting’ was over. However the decision on the Quayside steps was misplaced. It was according to the report a decision taken by the Leader, but it was placed on the Agenda directly under the heading of: “Decisions for the Executive Councillor, Customer Services and Resources”. I believe this error resulted in the Leader not being present to participate in the discussion on this item.

Mr Roberts,

During Monday’s Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee you reported verbally that two new “dispersal orders” are now available to use in Cambridge, “Section 20″ and “Section 27″. You described one of these orders as: “A mini-dispersal zone around an individual rather than an area”. The Director of Community Services then said this was a section 27 order.

Could you please point me towards further information on these new powers; their formal title and a reference to the relevant Act of Parliament would enable me to research them further.

I note Section 30 refers to the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, sections 20 and 27 of which refer to parenting orders.

–

Richard Taylor