Agenda item

13.1    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.

 

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

 

The list of thirty five questions received and their responses are attached to the agenda.

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

 

None received.

 

2.      Questions by Councillors

 

NOTED

 

1.      The thirty five questions, on the Council’s agenda, which received a written reply by the relevant Cabinet Member.

 

2.      In relation to Question 1:

 

a.      The amended answer that had been circulated to all members in advance of the meeting.  John Austin (Assistant Director Corporate Governance) advised members that the response was in the name of Councillor Savva and not Councillor Simon.  The amended response is set out below:

 

Councillor Savva’s Response

 

“Thank you to Cllr Lavender for pointing out an administrative error. While the details were indeed omitted, I can assure him that the items he refers to were heavily scrutinised. If he cared to ask any of his members or any member sitting on the Older People & Vulnerable Adults or Health & Well Being Scrutiny Panes he would have been informed that they did address all the issues he refers to. I would like to thank all the members from both sides who sit on these Panels and all officers and co- optees for their hard work and input.

 

The background to this report is that all Local Social Services Authorities were notified of the funding to be transferred by the Dept of Health through the NHS to Councils, for spend on social care activities that also benefit Health. This formed part of the 2010 government spending review commitments.  The confirmed allocation is for 2011/12 & 2012/13, but  with no guarantee that it will continue. The money has been treated as non recurrent and the department has sought to spread benefits from it into future years rather than restrict it to two. 

 

Enfield is expected to agree areas of spend with the Local NHS. The Health Cabinet Sub-Committee agreed the broad areas of expenditure in April 2011.  In addition areas of funding have in their own right already been the subject of decision at Cabinet and in the case of the Stroke Strategy at full Council. This report deals the allocation of the funding transfer as a whole. This decision has been on the forward plan for some time.

 

Both the Older People & Vulnerable Adults and the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Panels want to see improved outcomes for our residents.  The development of new services and improved pathways of care which reflect best practice have been outlined in the joint commissioning priorities across health and social care.  These have been considered and welcomed by Scrutiny Panel members.

 

Draft strategies (and their implementation where applicable) covering many areas of the spending plan within the Key Decision have been scrutinised by the Panels and their working groups. These include primary care development; end of life care; re-ablement and intermediate care; stroke services; dementia services; personalisation of care (including brokerage, community equipment and adaptations); safeguarding; and telecare/assistive technology.”

 

3.      Councillor Lavender reported that he had received an apology from Councillor Simon and officers, in response to a complaint made about the original response circulated with the agenda.  He had been grateful for the apology, which had been accepted and as a result would not be pursing his complaint any further.

 

4.      The following supplementary questions received for the remainder of the questions indicated below:

 

Question 1 (scrutiny of decision on social care joint commissioning expenditure) from Councillor Lavender to Councillor Savva, Chair of the Older People & Vulnerable Adults Scrutiny Panel.

 

I remained concerned to ensure that the decision on this expenditure has followed proper corporate governance procedures and been subject to the necessary level of scrutiny by the relevant scrutiny panel.  In view of this can I ask Councillor Savva to confirm whether he has read the decision and if so is he comfortable with the lack of information?  If not, why has the decision not been called-in for review?”

 

Reply from Councillor Savva:

 

“Whilst Councillor Simon has apologised I do not intend to do so as Councillor Lavender has not attended any of my Panel meetings.  This issue has been reviewed by my Panel and I would like to thank all members of my scrutiny panel for their stirling work.  If he is in any doubt about the quality of scrutiny undertaken he is welcome to attend any of my Panels.”

 

Question 2 (Changes to Council Tax Benefit Subsidy) from Councillor Ibrahim to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council

 

In view of the disappointing response to the consultation, can the Leader comment further on what he feels the impact in Enfield will be?

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor

 

“As I said in the written response, I am disappointed with the response to the consultation and have requested again that new grant is based on the relevant data.  There is a need to be clear that this proposal will result in a decrease in the standard of living for our residents and I am disappointed that the minister was not prepared to reconsider the proposed reduction to ensure that the distribution of grant was fair”

 

Question 3 (Resources available to the Internal Audit Department) from Councillor Lavender to Councillor Lemonides, Chairman of the Audit Committee

 

Does Councillor Lemonides support the reduction in capacity of the Internal Audit Department? 

 

Reply from Councillor Lemonides

 

“I believe in doing the right thing.”

 

Question 6 (Council Tax) from Councillor Levy to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council

 

Can the Leader of the Council comment on Central Government pronouncements that Councils have a moral duty to freeze Council Tax, whilst at the same time they are doing nothing to fix the damping mechanism?

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor

 

“I welcome the opportunity to confirm that the Council will be proposing a 0% increase in the Council Tax, although some authorities have taken the decision not to do so.  We are disappointed that the grant being offered by Central Government to offset this is only for one year.  This will create difficulties in terms of longer term financial planning and may store up problems for future years, but the approach taken will be for each authority to decide.”

 

Question 7 (20 Mile per hour zones) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment.

 

Given the scale and extent of the 20mph zone programme can Councillor Bond provide details of the full estimated costs for each scheme and explain why these costs can not be included as part of the public consultation process on individual schemes so the public are aware of the costs?

 

Council was informed that as Councillor Bond had submitted his apologies for absence a written response would need to be provided to the supplementary question.

 

Question 9 (Alternatives to 20mph zones as a means of achieving speed reduction) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment.

 

Can Councillor Bond explain why no reference is made to the introduction of variable speed limits as one of the alternative measures in his response, as this would be one of the less costly measures?

 

Council was informed that as Councillor Bond had submitted his apologies for absence a written response would need to be provided to the supplementary question.

 

Question 11 (20mph speed zone consultation analysis) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Bond, Cabinet member for Environment.

 

In response to my question, could Councillor Bond provide a detailed breakdown of the research undertaken on each scheme, including details on recorded speed surveys in areas around each school and in the surrounding roads where each scheme is to be implemented?

 

Council was informed that as Councillor Bond had submitted his apologies for absence, a written response would need to be provided to the supplementary question.

 

Question 15 (Introduction of Sunday Parking Charges) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment.

 

As I don’t feel any of these points have been properly addressed could I ask Councillor Bond to provide a full and detailed answer to the questions originally asked?

 

Council was informed that as Councillor Bond had submitted his apologies for absence, a written response would need to be provided to the supplementary question.

 

Question 17 (Sunday Parking Charges – Westminster City Council’s parking judicial review) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment.

 

Have Councillors Bond, Taylor and Stafford taken note of what has happened in Westminster with regard to parking?

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor (in place of Councillor Bond):

 

“Yes we have noted what occurred in Westminster, but this is Enfield, not Westminster.”

 

Question 19 Sunday Car Parking Charges and Enfield Town Economic Wellbeing from Councillor Neville to Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment.

 

I don’t feel the written response provided has answered my original question so will ask again if Councillor Bond could explain how he feels that the implementation of parking charges on Sunday can be reconciled with the Council’s duty to promote economic well being?

 

Council was informed that as Councillor Bond had submitted his apologies for absence, a written response would need to be provided to the supplementary question.

 

Question 21 (Statutory Guidance on Parking Charges) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet member for Finance and Property (in place of Councillor Bond).

 

Is the administration aware of statutory rather than operational guidance that parking charges should not be used to raise revenue, and how does Councillor Stafford reconcile this with his recent statement at a public meeting?

 

Reply from Councillor Stafford

 

“I was misquoted”

 

Question 25 (Increase in off street parking charges) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Bond, Cabinet Member for Environment.

 

I don’t feel this response has answered my original question so will ask again if Councillor Bond could provide the details requested in relation to the Palace Gardens Centre

 

Council was informed that as Councillor Bond had submitted his apologies for absence, a written response would need to be provided to the supplementary question.

 

Question 27 (Bourne Car Park Sale) from Councillor Rye to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council.

 

What consultation will be undertaken in future when disposals of these types of assets, i.e. with high usage by the public, are being considered?  This should not just be left to the Cabinet report. 

 

Reply by Councillor Taylor:

 

“I will be having discussions with Councillor Stafford as to the most appropriate way of consulting in future around asset disposals.”

 

Question 30 (Starks Field Primary School) from Councillor Laban to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People.

 

Please elaborate on what has been done since the start of January 2012 to improve results at Starks Field Primary School.

 

Reply from Councillor Orhan

 

“I feel that the response I have already provided is appropriate, and feel we should now await confirmation of the final results.  I would be happy to respond to any further queries in writing once the final results are available”

 

Question 32 (Additional Provision at Bowes Primary School) from Councillor Laban to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member of Children and Young People.

 

Whilst I welcome the response can Councillor Orhan comment again on why Bowes Primary School is managing extra provision when there are twenty five other schools which have achieved better results in the borough?

 

Reply from Councillor Orhan

 

“I believe my response has made it clear why.  Bowes Primary School has served the Borough well.  The Headteacher has been accredited by the National College of Schools Leadership as a National Leader in Education.  The current Government considers it a flagship teaching school, and it has an outstanding record in providing high quality effective support for schools in challenging circumstances.  Bowes is part of the Enfield family of schools and is an asset to the borough.”

 

Question 34 (Bids to Mayor of London’s fund) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Goddard, Cabinet Member for Business and Regeneration.

 

The written response does not appear to have answered my original question.  Could Councillor Goddard please confirm what bids have been made to the Mayor’s fund in respect of the disturbances in Enfield Town?

 

Reply from Councillor Goddard

 

“We were advised by the GLA to ensure that any schemes submitted to Mayor’s Regeneration Fund needed to be fully ready in terms of acquisition costs (in the case of arson) specification costing and design. Further guidance was issued and it became obvious that Croydon and Haringey would receive the majority of funding available. Although the GLA indicated support for our borough wide proposals, it was clear that only schemes that had a track record of development progress and prior consultation with the GLA Family, alongside an established timetable for delivery, would be considered. 

 

We were encouraged to submit longer term schemes that were not yet worked up (such as Enfield Town) to other forthcoming funding rounds. As a result it was clear that a viable scheme could not be submitted under the riot arrangements. We are working with the Enfield Town Business Association, EBRA and other key stakeholders to progress the development of economic development schemes. We are now in active discussions with developers and landowners and we will be developing the Area Action Plan for Enfield Town this year as a framework for development that will protect and preserve the vibrancy of Enfield Town.”