Agenda and minutes

The Mayor advised that Guruji Vijas Sharma from Dharma Mandir, Hertford Road had unfortunately been delayed in attending the meeting so it would not be possible to offer a blessing on this occasion.

The Mayor made the following announcements:

(a)      New Years’ Day Parade

The Mayor thanked Art Start, on behalf of the Council, for representing Enfield at the New Years Day Parade on 1^st January.  The Swinging 60’s had been the theme and Enfield’s float had been based on a giant 60’s style record player surrounded by performers who entertained the crowds.

Since the Borough had joined the New Year Parade, its Floats had been successful in winning money of varying amounts for the Mayor’s Charity.

He also pointed out that Enfield now had its own street parade (taking place on 30^th November) of which Art Start were a major stakeholder and which again would be raising money for The Mayors Charity Fund plus Nightingale Cancer Support Centre and BEVAD.

The Mayor hoped that the Council would continue to support what he felt was a valuable form of advertising for the Borough at both the New Years Day and its own street parade.

The Mayor ended by thanking Art Start for their support and participation in the New Years Day Parade, especially given the poor weather, and reported that as a result of their efforts the Borough Float had achieved 5^th place overall resulting in a £2000 donation to the Mayor’s Charity appeal.

The Mayor invited Kathy Worrall of Art Start to come forward in order to receive the award, and she was congratulated by members.

(b)      Mayor’s Spring Charity Ball

The Mayor took the opportunity to remind members that his Spring Charity Ball would be held on Saturday 29^th March at Forty Hall.

To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday 27 November 2013.

AGREED that the minutes of the Council meeting held on Wednesday 27 November 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

Min.76: Opposition Business – Enfield: The Environment in which we all Live – reference on Page 5 of the agenda within bullet point 4 under (a) to read “Conservation” rather than “Conservative” Area.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ali Bakir, Jonas Hall, Christine Hamilton, Paul McCannah, Simon Maynard, Ahmet Oykener and Daniel Pearce.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Kate Anolue, Christopher Cole, Pat Ekechi, Achilleas Georgiou, Denise Headley Henry Lamprecht and Ann Zinkin.

The Mayor invited John Austin (Assistant Director Corporate Governance) to make a short statement relating to the potential declaration of interests in respect of two items on the agenda:

Agenda Item 9: Council Tax Support Scheme 2014/15 – Members were reminded that the Councillor Conduct Committee (14 February 13) had granted a dispensation in relation to disclosable pecuniary interests and the Council Tax setting process.  The dispensation would apply until May 2014, so no members would be required to declare interests in relation to this item at the meeting.

Agenda Item 12.2: Motion in the name of Councillor Hamilton – Probation Service procurement process – Members were advised that if they owned shares, held employment, office, trade or other relationship for profit or gain in relation to G4S or any other company involved in the procurement process then they would need to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest in this item and withdraw from the meeting.  This would also apply if the same interest related to any family member or person with whom the member had a close association or personal relationship and the member was aware that they had such an interest.

Having noted the advice provided no declarations of interest were made by members at the meeting.

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of Council.

The Constitution Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information.  Members are asked to note that these procedure rules are subject to amendment, following review by Members & Democratic Services Group with the changes to be submitted for approval under Agenda Item 8.

Councillor Lavender introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Conservative Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows:

1.         Concerns were identified in relation to the following aspects of the Council’s 2014/15 budget consultation process:

a.         The lack of forward financial planning and focus beyond 2014/15, given the announcement in the Chancellors Autumn Statement relating to local government spending and the provision of longer term indicative statements.  It was felt these provided a greater level of financial certainty than reflected in the budget consultation documents.

b.         The failure to outline, in detail, clear plans to deliver a balanced budget and need to include within the budget setting report and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) sufficient details in relation to 2015/16 and beyond on:

·                the level of income, expenditure and future risks;

·                the necessary reserves and provisions to enable the Council to be satisfied that the 2014/15 budget established a sustainable platform for the provision of services in future years.

c.         The need to ensure that sufficient provision was identified to fund all schemes within the Capital Programme, in order to:

·                eliminate any double counting or funding gap in the programme;

·                avoid schemes being added (such as Palmers Green Library) towards the end of the current Administrations term of office without the necessary funding source having been confirmed, planned for and included within the MTFP; and

·                ensure delivery of the programme in a planned way without schemes being delayed or not progressed.

2.         Whilst the negative impact of the Government’s damping mechanism was recognised, it was felt that the increased level of Government funding being provided through specific funding streams and grants in relation, for example, to education and the New Homes Bonus also needed to be acknowledged.

3.         The need to acknowledge and outline detailed plans to address the £66m gap identified as a result of the longer term indicative financial statements in relation to the planning and delivery of Enfield’s MTFP over the next 4 years.  A quick review of the consultation being undertaken in other boroughs had identified how this was being undertaken with proposals linked to a focus on service delivery and priorities.

As a result the Opposition Group were looking for more detail and transparency within the Council’s budget consultation process and MTFP in relation to the plans for addressing the budget gap identified and prudent delivery of a balanced budget.

Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting:

1.         The need to recognise the unprecedented level of cuts in local government funding implemented by the coalition Government, which the current Administration had been required to manage.

2.         The view expressed within the Opposition Business paper that there was now more financial certainty within local government was challenged, with specific uncertainties highlighted in relation to:

·                the ongoing impact of the current economic downturn, particularly on the more vulnerable members of the local community and in the removal of significant spending power within the local economy as well as on business rate yield  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services seeking approval to:

(a)       Amendments to the procedure for dealing with Opposition Priority Business;

(b)       A revised and updated Member/Officer Protocol; and

(c)       To the provision of substitute members on the Councillor Conduct Committee

(Report No.176)

Members are asked to note that the amendments to the procedure for dealing with Opposition Priority Business and Member/Officer Protocol were considered and approved for recommendation on to Council by the Members & Democratic Services Group on 13 January 2014.  Subject to approval by Council, the amendments will come into immediate effect.

The provision of substitute members on the Councillor Conduct Committee has been agreed by the Councillor Conduct Committee (3 December 2013).

Councillor Simon moved and Councillor Brett seconded a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services (No.176) seeking approval to a number of separate amendments to the Constitution.

NOTED that

1.         The amendments had been recommended following a review of the Procedure Rules relating to Opposition Priority Business & Protocol for Member/Officer relations by the Members & Democratic Services Group (13 January 14) and membership requirements for the Councillor Conduct Committee.

2.         The amendments to the Procedure Rules for Opposition Priority Business (OPB) had been designed to clarify the requirements in relation to the way that recommendations arising from OPB were presented and considered.

3.         The amendments to the Protocol for Member/Officer relations had been designed to reflect recent legislative changes and to update the protocol so that it remained as effective and clear as possible.  The protocol also included changes to the procedure for dealing with Super Part 2 reports at Cabinet and, where required, call-in meetings.

4.         The changes being sought to membership of the Councillor Conduct Committee had followed a review of the procedure for handling complaints undertaken by the Committee (3 December 13).  Given the non-political and balanced nature of the Committee members had recommended that the use of substitute members should be permitted in order to ensure that a political balance on the Committee could be maintained when members were unable to attend meetings.  The options considered in terms of when the use of substitute members would be permitted had been set out in section 3.3.4 of the report.

5.         Whilst the Opposition Group had expressed a preference for substitutes to only be permitted when members of the Committee were unable to participate in meetings or hearings as a result of a disclosable interest, they felt that the proposal within the report was acceptable as a way forward.

6.         The need identified to ensure that all substitute members received training in advance of being able to participate in meetings of the Councillor Conduct Committee.

AGREED

(1)       The amendments to the procedure for dealing with Opposition Priority Business, as detailed within the section 3.1 and Appendix 1 of the report.

(2)       The updated version of the Protocol for Members/Officer relations as detailed within section 3.2 and Appendix 2 of the report.

(3)       The provision for substitute members (2 to be nominated by each Group) on the Councillor Conduct Committee (as detailed in section 3.3 of the report), with the use of substitutes permitted when an ordinary member of the Committee is unable attend a meeting due (a) to other commitments; or (b) as they have a disclosable interest.

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services reviewing and seeking approval to changes in the local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2014/15, which the Council is required to produce under section 13A(1)(a) and Schedule 1A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

The report also recommends the 2014/15 council tax and business rate bases (Appendix D and E) and the council tax technical change (Appendix F).

(Report No.142A)

(Key Decision – Reference No.3832, 3833 & 3834 combined)

Members are asked to note that:

(a)       Cabinet (11 December 2013) considered and approved the local Council Tax Support Scheme for recommendation on to Council.

(b)       The NNDR 1 DCLG Business Rate Base Return (Appendix E) has been marked as “To Follow”, pending completion following receipt from DCLG on 17 January 14.

Councillor Stafford moved and Councillor Taylor seconded the report of the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services (No.142A) presenting the local Council Tax Support Scheme, Council Tax and Business Rate bases  and Council Tax technical change for 2014/15.

NOTED

1.      As part of the Government’s welfare reform programme, the Council had adopted (in January 2013) a local Council Tax Support Scheme and was now required, on an annual basis, to consider whether it wished to revise or replace its scheme.

2.      Having reviewed operation of the scheme and undertaken a programme of consultation (as detailed in sections 4 and 5 and Appendix C of the report) along with an Equalities Impact Assessment (as detailed in Appendix B of the report) a revised scheme for 2014/15 had been developed, considered and recommended by Cabinet (11 December 2013) to Council for adoption.

3.      The full Council Tax Support Scheme had been detailed in Appendix A to the report, with the main revisions relating to exemptions being applied:

a.      for working age recipients of Council Tax Support who also receive Carers Allowance, the support component of Employment Support Allowance or higher rate Disability Living Allowance (or Personal Independence Payments);

b.      for working age foster carers recruited, trained and supported by Enfield Council in receipt of Council Tax Support;

4.      The changes to the report detailed on the amendment sheet tabled at the meeting.

5.      The following concerns identified by the Opposition Group in respect of the support being made available for local businesses relating to business rates, in terms of:

a.      the limited focus of the Business Rate Hardship Relief Scheme pilot in Edmonton Green ward as opposed to other extended areas of the borough;

b.      the need for a review of the criteria applied to the Hardship Relief Scheme and use of other relief options available to support small businesses, given their importance to the local economy;

In view of the concerns highlighted, Councillor Rye moved and Councillor Prescott seconded that an additional recommendation be considered as part of the Business Rate Base setting process requesting that Cabinet bring a further report to either full Council or Overview & Scrutiny Committee on the wider development of initiatives relating to local business rates.  In moving the additional recommendation it was noted that the deadline for approval and submission of the NNDR Business Rate (Form 1) return was 31 January 14.  Councillor Stafford advised that he would be willing to support the proposal but felt it was important to note that whilst utilising Government subsidies there was also a need to recognise the constraints on the Council as a result of the limited funding available.  The inclusion of the additional recommendation was therefore agreed without a vote.

Following a period of further debate the recommendations in the report (as amended) were agreed, without a vote.

AGREED

(1)     The Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2014/15 with the following amendments:

(a)       That working age recipients of Council Tax Support who also received Carers Allowance, the support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

To receive a report from the Chief Executive & Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services providing details on the outcome of a review undertaken by the Electoral Review Panel of all polling districts and polling places, under the requirements of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013).

(Report No.177)

The Electoral Review Panel commenced its review on 1 October 2013 and following consideration of all representations received agreed the final outcome on 20 November 2013 for recommendation on to Council.

Council is being asked to consider and approve the final recommendations from the Panel for adoption with effect from 17 February 2014.

Councillor Stafford moved and Councillor Brett seconded the report from the Chief Executive & Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services (No.177) detailing the outcome of a review undertaken by the Electoral Review Panel of all polling districts and polling places, under the requirements of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013).

NOTED

1.         The Electoral Review Panel had commenced its review on 1^st October 2013 and following consideration of all representations received agreed the final outcome for recommendation on to Council at its meeting on 20^th November 2013.

2.         Members thanks to John Austin & Peter Stanyon (Head of Electoral, Registration and Governance Services) for their extensive effort and work undertaken on the review, which had involved an extensive range of consultees (as detailed in section 3.3 of the report).

AGREED to adopt the recommendations of the Electoral Review Panel as set out in paragraph 3.4 and sub-paragraphs 3.4.1 to 3.4.20 within the report, for implementation with effect from 17 February 2014.

The above recommendation was agreed unanimously, without a vote.

11.1    Urgent Questions (Part 4 - Paragraph 9.2.(b) of Constitution – Page 4-9)

With the permission of the Mayor, questions on urgent issues may be tabled with the proviso of a subsequent written response if the issue requires research or is considered by the Mayor to be minor.

Please note that the Mayor will decide whether a question is urgent or not.

The definition of an urgent question is “An issue which could not reasonably have been foreseen or anticipated prior to the deadline for the submission of questions and which needs to be considered before the next meeting of the Council.”

Submission of urgent questions to Council requires the Member when submitting the question to specify why the issue could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the deadline and why it has to be considered before the next meeting.  A supplementary question is not permitted.

11.2    Councillors’ Questions (Part 4 – Paragraph 9.2(a) of Constitution – Page 4 - 8)

The list of forty three questions received and their written responses are attached to the agenda.

1.1    Urgent Questions

None received.

1.2    Questions by Councillors

NOTED

1.      The forty three questions on the Council’s agenda which had received a written reply from the relevant Cabinet Member.

2       The following supplementary questions and responses received for the questions indicated below:

Question 1 (Protection of Public Health Budgets) from Councillor Ann Marie Pearce to Councillor Hamilton, Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing and Public Health:

“Can confirmation be provided as to how funding provided for Public Health purposes has been channelled into new Public Health projects?”

As Councillor Hamilton had submitted her apologies for the meeting, members were advised that a written response would be provided.

Question 2 (Council Tax Collection and Arrears)from Councillor Savva to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Property:

“In view of the response provided, does Councillor Stafford feel previous concerns raised by the Opposition Group in relation to the level of Council Tax collection and arrears are not justified or accurate?”

Reply from Councillor Stafford:

“My response sets out the Council’s performance in relation to its Council Tax collection rate.  The current Administration inherited approx. £3.3m worth of uncollected taxes from the previous Conservative led Administration and this level has reduced overall since we have been in power.  I’m therefore not sure why these concerns have been raised.”

Question 3: (Public Health budget) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Property:

“It would appear that the definition of activities which can be funded through the public health budget is not as wide as Councillor Stafford would like it to be. Can he therefore justify the engagement of a corporate policy research officer (scale PO1) which appears to be funded through the public health budget?”

Reply from Councillor Stafford:

“Given the budget deficit identified, the Council is looking at a range of alternative options to address the position.  This will include consideration of the legitimate use of public health funding, although the position will be kept under review.”

Question 5: (budget consultation process) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Property:

“Would Councillor Stafford accept that the main focus of the budget consultation process is resident based and, if so, that it is important as part of any meaningful consultation for details to be included on any proposed reduction in services and their likely impact?”

Reply from Councillor Stafford:

“Unfortunately, given the uncertain financial position faced by local government given the funding reductions imposed by central Government, the proposals and options included within the consultation document have been more limited.  The main focus of the consultation process this year has therefore been on how the limited funding available should be prioritised rather than on where reductions should be made.”

Question 7: (Tourism and Town Twinning Working Party) from Councillor Lavender to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council:

“Can the Leader of the Council confirm when the decision was made to treat the Tourism & Town Twinning Working Party as a private rather than public meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

12.1    In the name of Councillor Charalambous:

This Council acknowledges with pride Chickenshed’s contribution to arts, community and education in the London Borough of Enfield over the last 40 years and restates the Council’s commitment to a continued partnership which has benefited so many of the borough’s residents.

12.2    In the name of Councillor Hamilton:

I call on Enfield Council to urge the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Justice, to think again about their proposals for the privatisation of the probation service where they are proposing G4S and the like running the probation service.

We oppose the government’s plan to privatise the probation service to make cost savings from centrally managing more offenders in the community and closing prisons.  This will increase risk to Enfield residents.

12.3    In the name of Councillor Hamilton:

This Council believes that the safety and security of Enfield residents is being put at risk by the Mayor of London and the Tory led Coalition Government as a result of cuts to the key emergency services – the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire Brigade, the London Ambulance Service and the Accident & Emergency Departments.

The Council believes that the cuts are too far and too fast and that the many millions of pounds being taken from the budgets of the NHS, the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Fire Brigade will inevitably endanger families and communities in Enfield.

The closures of Met police station front desks, fire stations and A & E departments alongside cuts to the London ambulance service means that the safety of Enfield residents is put at risk.

This Council calls on the Mayor of London and the Coalition Government to reconsider the changes which reduce the safety and security of our residents.

12.4    In the name of Councillor Lavender:

Enfield Council notes with sadness the death of Lord McAlpine and requests that Councillor Hamilton withdraws the remarks she made in a debate at Council that a senior Conservative was a paedophile at a time when unfounded allegations were being made against Lord McAlpine and which were subsequently withdrawn.

1.1    Councillor Charalambous moved and Councillor Anne-Marie Pearce seconded the following motion:

“This Council acknowledges with pride Chickenshed’s contribution to arts, community and education in the London Borough of Enfield over the last 40 years and restates the Council’s commitment to a continued partnership which has benefited so many of the borough’s residents.”

Following a debate, during which the cross party nature of activity undertaken to establish and support the work of Chickenshed was acknowledged, the motion was agreed unanimously, without a vote.

1.2 Councillor Taylor moved and Councillor Bearryman seconded the following motion, originally submitted in the name of Councillor Hamilton:

“I call on Enfield Council to urge the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Justice, to think again about their proposals for the privatisation of the probation service where they are proposing G4S and the like running the probation service.

We oppose the government’s plan to privatise the probation service to make cost savings from centrally managing more offenders in the community and closing prisons.  This will increase risk to Enfield residents.”

During the debate on this item, concerns were raised by the Opposition Group in relation to the naming of a specific company within the motion whom it was reported had subsequently been withdrawn from the tendering process.  As a result Councillor Taylor advised that he would be willing to move an amendment to the motion in order to remove reference to the specific company.

Following a period of further debate, Councillor Taylor then moved and Councillor Brett seconded the following amendment:

To delete the following words at the end of the first paragraph “where they are proposing G4S and the like running the probation service.”

The amendment was put to the vote and agreed, with the following result:

For: 30

Against: 1

The substantive motion (as amended and detailed below) was then immediately put to the vote and agreed, with the following result:

“I call on Enfield Council to urge the Government, and in particular the Ministry of Justice, to think again about their proposals for the privatisation of the probation service.

We oppose the government’s plan to privatise the probation service to make cost savings from centrally managing more offenders in the community and closing prisons.  This will increase risk to Enfield residents.”

For: 30

Against: 16

Abstentions: 2

The Mayor advised, at this stage of the meeting, that the time available to complete the agenda had now elapsed so Council Procedure Rule 8 would apply.

NOTED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8 (page 4-8 – Part 4), the remaining items of business on the Council agenda were considered without debate.

The following motions listed on the agenda lapsed due to lack of time:

1.1    In the name of Councillor Hamilton:

“This Council believes that the safety and security of Enfield residents is being put at risk by the Mayor of London and the Tory led Coalition Government as a result of cuts to the key emergency services – the Metropolitan Police Service, the London Fire Brigade, the London Ambulance Service and the Accident & Emergency Departments.

The Council believes that the cuts are too far and too fast and that the many millions of pounds being taken from the budgets of the NHS, the Metropolitan Police Service and the London Fire Brigade will inevitably endanger families and communities in Enfield.

The closures of Met police station front desks, fire stations and A & E departments alongside cuts to the London ambulance service means that the safety of Enfield residents is put at risk.

This Council calls on the Mayor of London and the Coalition Government to reconsider the changes which reduce the safety and security of our residents.”

1.2    In the name of Councillor Lavender:

“Enfield Council notes with sadness the death of Lord McAlpine and requests that Councillor Hamilton withdraws the remarks she made in a debate at Council that a senior Conservative was a paedophile at a time when unfounded allegations were being made against Lord McAlpine and which were subsequently withdrawn.”

To confirm the following changes to committee memberships:

(a)    Older People & Vulnerable Adults Scrutiny Panel

Councillor R.Hayward to be removed from the membership list for the Panel.

AGREED the following changes to committee memberships

AGREED to confirm the following changes to committee memberships:

1.         Older People & Vulnerable Adults Scrutiny Panel – Councillor R.Hayward’s appointment be deleted in order to ensure the agreed political balance on the Panel was maintained.

2.         Councillor Conduct Committee – Councillors Cranfield & Levy to be appointed as the Majority Group substitute members with names to be notified for the 2 Opposition Group substitute members.

To confirm any changes to nominations to outside bodies.

No changes were notified.

To note that the next meeting of the Council will be held on Wednesday 26 February 2014 at 7.00 p.m. at the Civic Centre.

In addition Members are asked to note that the final meeting of the 2013/14 Municipal Year will be held at 7.00pm on Wednesday 2 April 2014.

NOTED

1.         The next meeting of the Council would be held at 7.00pm on Wednesday 26 February 2014 at the Civic Centre.

2.         The final Council meeting of the 2013/14 Municipal Year would be held at 7.00pm on Wednesday 2 April 2014 at the Civic Centre.