Agenda and minutes

Attendees were welcomed to the meeting.

It was noted that Councillor Dogan Delman was substituting for Councillor Edward Smith.

The Chair outlined how the meeting was to proceed and guided Members to focus on the Call-in – Cabinet Decision (16 August 2016): Education Services: A New Model of Service Delivery and questions would be taken on this item in relation to the ‘Reasons for Call-in’.

The Education Co-optees were entitled to comment and had voting rights at this meeting, as the matters related to Education.

Members of the Council are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

NOTED

1.    Councillor Laban advised that her brother was known to be in the education sector, but clarified that he was not a client of the Council.

2.    Councillor Abdullahi, Simon Goulden and Alicia Meniru advised that they were all school governors.

3.    The Chair confirmed that the interests mentioned did not compromise the committee members, and did not relate to the substance of the report under discussion.

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny on the following reason: (Report No: 79).

Cabinet Decision (16 August 2016): Education Services: A New Model of Service Delivery.

Decision included on Publication of Decision List No: 20/16-17 Key Decision 4339 (List Ref: 1/20/16-17) issued on 18 August 2016.

It is proposed that consideration of the Call-In be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of reasons for the Call-In by representative(s) of the Members who have called in the decision.

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-In by the Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agreement on action to be taken.

1.    The Chair invited Councillor Georgiou to elaborate on the reasons for the Call-in.

2.    Councillor Georgiou stated:

?  The report was very vague on proposals for scrutiny of Ensen, and the written response was unsatisfactory. He considered it better to call-in the decision at this stage and not waste staff time on something with little credibility.

?  He believed the risks would be too great to create an arm’s length trading company, and what was set out was ill thought through. The issue should have more than a red/amber/green risk assessment.

?  A great job was already being done in Enfield in respect of education. As there was already successful trading with academies, free schools, etc, he questioned the need to create an arm’s length company.

?  There was a very serious financial aspect to this decision, and the financial implications referred to the savings targets, though he did not agree with the part about funding cuts. Even if there were just preliminary talks, staff time would be better served on existing education services in the borough.

?  The Chair’s remarks were noted in respect of a follow up report to Cabinet including a business plan and more financial details and that would normally also be subject to call-in.

?  It was questioned what would happen if many other providers joined this market. The trading company could also be undercut by the private sector. Taxpayers’ money could be wasted if Ensen failed. There was nothing to stop other local authorities doing the same as the Enfield model.

?  He believed that this decision was a lead up to Enfield trying to set up a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). The Chair noted that this was a statement of opinion, which the other side would be unable to rebut.

?  The report did not justify this radical step being proposed by the authority. If this decision was sent back, he would be happy to look at a more detailed business model and to help the Education Department in assessing risks. The Chair highlighted that a recommendation of the report was to develop a full business plan to address the future financial viability of the company, and that a risk assessment would be a natural part of that report, and he would expect further dialogue with officers and Members on the matter.

?  In summary, the comprehensiveness of the report could be improved. The Education Department had up to now done a very good job and had good relationships with all types of schools in the borough, but undercutting of a proposed trading company would be its downfall and make it unsustainable. Once that path had been taken it would be too late and the money would have been spent. In his view the decision was incorrect.

Councillor Georgiou requested that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet for reconsideration.

3.    The Chair invited Councillor Orhan (Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s Services & Protection) and Jenny Tosh (Chief Education Officer) to respond as follows:

Councillor Orhan stated:

?  The report sought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.