Subscribe to trusted local news
If you are accessing this story via Facebook but you are a subscriber then you will be unable to access the story. Facebook wants you to stay and read in the app and your login details are not shared with Facebook. If you experience problems with accessing the news but have subscribed, please contact subscriptions@thestrayferret.co.uk. In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
05
Aug
Call for meeting over changes to Lifeline emergency service to be re-held
Opposition councillors are demanding a fresh vote on controversial changes to North Yorkshire’s Lifeline service after claiming disputed advice prevented a councillor from taking part in a key decision that could have changed the outcome.
Lifeline is a 24-hour emergency alarm and telecare service provided by North Yorkshire Council to help elderly, disabled, and vulnerable residents live safely and independently in their own homes.
The Conservative administration approved plans reduce the Lifeline services and increase charges in, Harrogate, Selby, Richmondshire and Ryedale.
But opposition group leaders have now called for the housing and leisure overview and scrutiny committee to be reconvened following last month’s vote on changes to the service.
The decision was made by senior councillors and officers without a public consultation or a vote of all councillors.
Liberal Democrat councillors used the council’s call-in procedure to bring the decision before the scrutiny committee, asking for it to be referred to full council.
However, the proposal was defeated by seven votes to six after Lib Dem councillor Chris Aldred, who represents High Harrogate and Kingsley, was prevented from voting because he had signed the call-in request.
Opposition councillors now claim that advice has since emerged suggesting the council’s constitution does not automatically prevent a councillor who signs a call-in from voting on it.
Had Cllr Aldred voted in favour of referring the decision to full council, the result would have been tied at seven votes each.
The deciding vote would then have rested with committee chairman Councillor Steve Shaw-Wright, who had supported referring the matter to full council.
Green Party councillor Kevin Foster said the issue went beyond a procedural error.
What happened here is plainly wrong. A mistake was made, the advice given is now in dispute and, as a result, a councillor was prevented from taking part in a vote where his vote could have changed the outcome.
This is not some minor procedural technicality. An important decision affecting a service relied upon by elderly and vulnerable residents across North Yorkshire is at stake.
He added that the opposition was calling for the committee meeting to be reconvened and the vote held again “with clear advice provided beforehand so every councillor knows exactly where they stand”.
Cllr Foster said a fresh vote was needed to restore confidence in the council’s democratic processes and ensure the Lifeline proposals received the scrutiny they deserved.
The opposition groups are also seeking an explanation of how the disputed advice was given and what safeguards can be introduced to prevent a similar situation arising in future.
In response, the council said the chair of the committee concluded that the councillor should not take part in the vote.
The authority said the vote stood and the meeting would not be re-held.
0