Agenda item

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.

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

 

·              The Opposition Group were concerned at what they felt to be a lack of corporate governance recently demonstrated in a number of areas.

 

·              The key focus of the concerns raised had been highlighted in the case study detailed in Appendix A of the Opposition Business Paper relating to the appointment of Cornerstone, which covered a number of specific issues including:

 

(i)      the way in which the attempts to address the shortfall in Primary School Places within the borough had been managed;

 

(ii)     the basis of the decision to dispose of the Council’s Carterhatch depot and acquire the Morson Road site;

 

(iii)    the due diligence undertaken and background to the contractual arrangements relating to the appointment of Cornerstone and way in which the constitutional requirements under the Council’s decision making procedures had been complied with in terms of publication of relevant decisions;

 

(iv)    the provision of information at the call-in meeting relating to the appointment of Cornerstone regarding the payment of invoices, which the Opposition felt had been misleading;

 

(v)     the way in which the decision making process in relation to the statutory consultation provision for the school, expansion programme had been complied with;

 

·              Reference was made to the report produced by Grant Thornton setting out the results of their Local Government Governance Review 2013: “Improving council governance – A slow burner”, and the consequences that a lack of good governance would have on service provision.  In addition to the issues raised in relation to the case study the Opposition highlighted concerns around:

 

(i)      the value currently being added through the scrutiny function as a result of the adversarial way in which it was felt Overview & Scrutiny Committee had dealt with issues being raised under call-in;

 

(ii)     the way in which it was felt the Administration had managed recent Council meetings in an effort  to avoid discussion, scrutiny or the questioning of major decisions;

 

(iii)    the publication of decisions and their implementation without the proper governance or decision making processes having been exhausted or complied with;

 

(iv)    the whipping of Majority Group members on Planning Committee

 

As a result of the concerns expressed the Opposition Group made a number of recommendations including the need for an urgent review and benchmarking of the Council’s corporate governance arrangements against the review undertaken by Grant Thornton and employment of a rigid first line of defence model of corporate governance.  It was also felt that the Council should receive an apology from the Leader of the Council for the lapses it was felt had occurred in the Council’s corporate governance arrangements, highlighted as a result of the Opposition Business Paper.

 

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

 

·              what was felt to be the limited scope and focus of the introduction provided by the Leader of the Opposition compared with the wider range of issues outlined within the Opposition Business Paper.

 

·              His concern at the tone of the language and unsubstantiated nature of many of the comments made within the introductory statement by the Leader of the Opposition and need for care, during the remainder of the debate, in relation to reference to individual members, officers or other third parties.

 

·              The Administration’s view that the decision making process and legal advice provided in relation to the disposal of Carterhatch depot, acquisition of Morson Road, appointment of Cornerstone and management of the Primary Expansion Programme had been appropriate and complied with the Council’s decision making procedures.  For these reasons the Leader of the Council advised that he did not feel any apology to the Council would be required.  In addition he highlighted the opportunity provided at the Council meeting in July 2012, as a result of concerns expressed by the Opposition, to extend the time of the meeting to enable a debate on the acquisition of the Morson Road site.

 

·              The need to recognise that the Council had been assessed as complying with all of the relevant CIPFA corporate governance requirements as demonstrated though the Annual Governance Statement.  It was pointed out that the opportunity to raise the type of concerns highlighted at the meeting in relation to the Council’s corporate governance arrangements already existed through the Audit Committee and Members & Democratic Services Group but these mechanisms had not been used to date.

 

·              The aim of the Administration to work in the best interests of the borough and nature of representative democracy which often required tough decisions to be made, as had been the case in relation to the decisions on which the Opposition’s case study had been based.

 

·              The allegations in relation to whipping of Majority Group members on Planning Committee were strongly denied with evidence also provided of the number of times the Opposition members on the Committee had voted as a block against the recommendations of the Planning Officer over the previous 15 months.

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows:

 

·              Whilst recognising the difficulties and costs involved in providing additional school places there was a need to actively consider other available options such as the creation of free schools.

 

·              The poor commercial judgement which the Opposition Group felt had been displayed in relation to the terms of the sale of the Carterhatch deport and acquisition of the Morson Road site.  In response the Cabinet Member for Environment explained the rationale for the relocation of the Council’s depot.  The views expressed in relation to the commercial judgement of the Majority Group were also challenged, with reference made to the successful implementation of the recent Energy Retrofit pilot programme.

 

·              The need to recognise that the Audit Committee had undertaken a review of the Grant Thornton report “Towards a Tipping Point” referred to within the Opposition Business Paper and had noted that Enfield had been green rated in relation to each of the relevant corporate governance benchmarks.

 

·              The need to recognise that the application of the Nolan principles in relation to standards in public life, referred to within the Opposition Business Paper, would also apply to members’ activities in other areas for example as freemasons.

 

·              The need to recognise the requirement for transparency in the decision making process and valid role for the Opposition Group in holding the Executive to account as part of a healthy representative democratic process.  As part of this the Opposition Group highlighted specific concerns about what they felt was the use of “filibustering” motions and the excessive manipulation of items on Council agendas to avoid dealing with more substantive and important issues.

 

At this stage in the debate the Mayor advised that the time available for Opposition Business had expired.  In view of the nature of the discussion and number of members who had indicated they still wished to speak it was agreed that the time available should be extended for a further 20 minutes.  This was subsequently extended again for an additional period of 30 minutes.

 

The debate continued with the following issues raised:

 

·              It was not felt that an analysis of the voting record of Majority Group members on Planning Committee supported the concerns raised by the Opposition Group in relation to the whipping of members.

 

·              Concerns were highlighted by the Opposition Group at the record of Overview & Scrutiny Committee in referring issues back under the call-in process.  In response the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee, whilst recognising the value of call-in, felt there was also a need to accept the impact which the quality of the reasons provided for call-in would have on how issues were dealt with.

 

·              The need for scrutiny to be undertaken on a non party political basis, as far as was possible, and to recognise the variety of options available for members to scrutinise issues and hold the Executive to account.

 

·              The objective of the current Administration to address the shortfall of school places in the borough, which it was pointed out had also been an issue for the previous Conservative Administration,  and which the decision to appoint Cornerstone had been designed to assist with.  The Deputy Leader took the opportunity to confirm that a Portfolio decision relating to the final terms and sales agreement for the disposal of Carterhatch was shortly due to be approved and would be open to the usual call-in arrangements.

 

Councillor Lavender summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group.  He highlighted what he felt to be the factual basis of the concerns raised within the Opposition Business Paper in relation to (a) the basis of the appointment of Cornerstone, due diligence undertaken as part of this process and way in which the decision making process had complied with the necessary constitutional requirements; and (b) the implementation of the decision in relation to the statutory consultation on the expansion of Grange Park School and the planning process in relation to the expansion of George Spicer School under the school expansion programme.  As a result the Opposition had significant concerns regarding the corporate governance procedures followed.  It was felt these issues required further review in order to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances were in place to preserve the integrity of the Council and confidence in its corporate governance processes.

 

In response to the debate, Councillor Taylor, felt that the appropriate checks and balances were already in place to guarantee the integrity of the Council’s corporate governance procedures.  The Audit Committee and Members & Democratic Services Group would both be willing to consider any issues raised through the Opposition members on those bodies and he advised the Majority Group were not therefore minded to accept the recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper.

 

As an outcome of the debate the Leader of the Opposition requested that a vote to be taken on the following recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper:

 

(1)    request cabinet as a matter of urgency to benchmark the Council’s corporate governance arrangements against the report by Grant Thornton “Local Government Governance Review 2013: Improving council governance – A slow burner”

 

(2)    set up a cross party public investigation into the decision making process on the planning committee and in particular the allegations of “whipping”

 

(3)    request the Members and Democratic Services Group to review procedure at council meetings so to ensure that motions requiring notice can never be taken ahead of main items on the agenda unless urgent, and in that case the meeting has to be extended to accommodate the time taken for an urgent motion; and

 

(4)    The Council should employ rigidly a first line of defence model of corporate governance, as detailed within the Opposition Business Paper.

 

The above recommendations were put to the vote and not approved, with the following result:

 

For: 22

Against: 32

Abstention: 0