Agenda item

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 fifty one questions and their written responses are attached to the agenda.

1.1.   Urgent Questions

 

There were no urgent questions. 

 

1.2.   Questions by Councillors

 

NOTED

 

1       The fifty one questions on the Council agenda and written responses provided by the relevant Cabinet Member.

 

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

 

Question 1 (Cost to the Council of Temporary Accommodation) from Councillor Neville to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council:

 

“I thank Councillor Taylor for his response but can I ask him to elaborate on the response to point (c) in my question regarding the action taken to raise the matter with London Councils and the Government in terms of the need to review Homeless Person legislation and guidance, given the increasing pressure being faced by the Council.”

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor:

 

“In my answer I have tried to address the issue not only from the perspective of the Borough, but across London as a whole which I think is a more appropriate focus for any response.

 

There is clearly a link between the worsening housing position across London and the impact of the Governments Housing Policy and Welfare Reforms including changes in Housing Rent Policy; the decision to extend the Right to Buy to Housing Association properties; the enforced sale of Council owned housing, introduction of the welfare benefits cap and changes in Local Housing Allowance.  Supply has been further affected by Inner London boroughs now looking to secure cheaper property in Outer London in order to place their households in temporary accommodation.

 

This position has been created as an outcome of the current Government’s Housing Policy and I therefore feel it would be more appropriate if Councillor Neville were to join me in questioning whether the Government has the right policy and priorities, which I feel will be a more effective way to address the current position.”

 

Question 2 (Insurance Premium Tax) from Councillor Levy to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council:

 

“Does the Leader not agree that despite this “stealth tax” in combination with the wider regressive fiscal policy and cuts, which are impacting disproportionately on the most vulnerable, the Government is still failing to control the deficit and what impact does he feel this is having on the residents of Enfield?”

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor:

 

“Members may be surprised to hear that tax receipts fell in August whilst the deficit continues to rise.  I do worry about the extent and impact of the next round of cuts the Government are planning given their  ongoing failure to manage the economy and failure to control the deficit.  It strikes me that the impact of this failure will result in more cuts to public sector services and will also damage the welfare and income of residents across Enfield.”

 

Question 4 (Impact of the Government’s Austerity Measures on Children’s Services) from Councillor Barry to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s Services and Protection:

 

“I thank the Cabinet Member for sharing some of her concerns and would ask if she could clarify further what impact she feels the Government’s welfare reforms will have on children and young people?”

 

Reply from Councillor Orhan

 

“What I did not mention in my written response was the prevailing pressure on social housing in London and impact of welfare reform to date, which means that our borough is seeing a regular picture of rehoused families, unsettled and requiring significant support, from school places through to help to manage behavioural issues and social care interventions.  The evidence seen on a daily basis by our front-line of support services is that many of the newest arrivals to the Borough are bringing with them additional needs for support to maintain family health and wellbeing.

 

I am proud of our ability to date in developing services to meet changing needs; work to enable families to build on their strengths to tackle their issues where they can, and our endeavour to keep families together, keep children safe, healthy and achieving to the best of their potential.  We have done this whilst also improving our standard of work to the satisfaction that Ofsted deem us to be a “Good” Authority. 

 

However, Enfield runs a “lean” team.  Efficiency measures have already been taken over the previous year’s covering each part of Children’s Services.  The on-going demands for savings over the coming years will cut deeper than ever before and therefore I am concerned that we will be in the unenviable position of having more need and more demand but significantly less resource.  Children’s Services have an enormous number of statutory duties that we simply must meet to comply with legal regulation. The diminishing resources mean that once such statutory duties are met, there will be little to nothing left to help those who find themselves on the edge of crisis and we will be unable to be the essential support so many turn to when they become overwhelmed by their economic and social situation.  Without such targeted support before a crisis, more families could fracture, more children will need care at the critical end of the support spectrum, less children will achieve to their greatest educational potential and all of this will create a vicious cycle of vulnerability and demand for our most intensive and expensive services.  That to me is the critical factor, of the devastating impact, that these reforms are having.”

 

Question 5 (Elizabeth House Re-provision) from Councillor Rye to Councillor A Cazimoglu, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care

 

“Can the Cabinet Member say who she feels is to blame for the 5 year delay in this development being progressed on-site?  Is it the previous Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, the Cabinet Member for Finance or will Cabinet take collective responsibility?”

 

Reply from Councillor A Cazimoglu:

 

“I was hoping that this issue would not treated as a political football as I feel I have already provided a full and transparent response to the question.  You will appreciate that we were required to ensure that due process was followed in terms of the procurement process and I am delighted to confirm that having appointed a construction partner, work began on-site on 10 August 2015, with the new facility scheduled to be completed and open towards the end of 2016.

 

In terms of blame for the delay, Councillor Rye might want to consider the fact that Elizabeth House was the subject of a report to Cabinet in 2007 when he was Leader of the Council, at which stage the decision was made to close the facility.  Councillor Rye was quoted in the minutes of the meeting as saying that he accepted reprovision would be a difficult and challenging process.  This might explain why his Administration did nothing when they were in power and were awash with money.”

 

Question 6 (Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) & Benefit Sanctions) from Councillor Abdullahi to Councillor Brett, Cabinet Member for Community Organisations and Culture.

 

“Can I ask the Cabinet Member how many sick and disabled people were sanctioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) last year and what can be done about it?”

 

Reply from Councillor Brett: 

 

“Nationally, at least 10,000 sick and disabled people have been sanctioned in the last year.  Some have lost their benefits for up to 3 years.

 

It is one thing to apply sanctions at a level to improve chances of employment: it is another to apply them to the point where a number of those to whom sanctions are being applied meet untimely deaths, as has been recently reported and recognised by the DWP themselves.  Regulations are in place to protect those classified as vulnerable and a safeguarding audit should be undertaken before sanctions are applied.  As a minimum people are entitled to a face to face interview, including a home visit.

 

In my role as Cabinet Member, I recently held a teleconference with representatives from the DWP and Council officers to outline my concerns and share information with them.”

 

Question 7 (Elizabeth House Re-provision) from Councillor Rye to Councillor A Cazimoglu, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care.

 

“As there have been three failed procurements since 2010, what guarantees can you give as Cabinet Member, that the 2016 deadline will be met and will you undertake to report back to Council and Cabinet on any further slippage on the scheme?”

 

Reply from Councillor A Cazimoglu:

 

“I am glad that Councillor Rye has recognised the difficulties with the procurement process.  Changes in market conditions have meant that it is now more difficult to attract interest than it used to be.  One of the main reasons for this are Government cuts which have caused delays to investment decisions and concerns about the longer term sustainability of the care system.

 

A former Care Minister has warned that, without more cash, the health care system could collapse within 2 years.  Many of the biggest care home providers are seriously considering pulling out of the market and are not expressing interest in tendering.  The Kings Fund estimate that there is a £1.1 billion gap between the cost of care and funding being made available, which is a position created by the current Government.

 

Our objective is to be able to provide safe good quality care at good value for money.  If Councillor Rye is looking to apportion blame for these problems he may therefore want to look closer to home.”

 

Question 8 (Silicon Enfield Initiative) from Councillor Lemonides to Councillor Sitkin, Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Business Development

 

“Given the cuts in grant being made by the current Government, can the Cabinet Member tell us how the Council intends to fund on an ongoing basis the excellent Silicon Enfield Initiative?”

 

Reply from Councillor Sitkin

 

“Due to this Government’s swingeing and draconian cuts, the Council is short of the internal resources it needs to progress the Silicon Enfield initiative as quickly as we would like. Having to rely on external sources of funding slows down the speed at which we can progress while also causing a partial loss of control.  Having said that, the Business and Economic Development department’s novel way of engaging proactively with businesses and community stakeholders – the very same approach that explains the very rapid improvement in Enfield borough’s employment performance – means we are very hopeful of succeeding in this endeavour as we have elsewhere. The project is broken down into several stages (including premises, training, community outreach and entrepreneurship), each of which is at a different stage of advancement. At this stage of the negotiations it would be counterproductive to release detailed information but it is clear that the deals in question are going to be of great benefit to Enfield’s economy and all of its communities.

 

Can I also take this opportunity to clarify the information given in my written response to the original question by highlighting that we are looking at the creation of tech hubs in both the Winchmore Hill and Edmonton Green libraries, as well as at Meridian Water. Note that these latter two sites will ensure greater access to these economic development opportunities to some of our borough’s less affluent communities, a philosophy very much in line with this Administration’s One Enfield value system.”

 

Question 9 (Future Nursing and Residential Care Provision at Honeysuckle House) from Councillor Rye to Councillor Cazimoglu, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care.

 

“The back history of this issue is interesting as the Council has only had one care contractor for more than 20 years.  During my time as leader this was not a distressed contract.  Given that the Cabinet Member has only answered part of my original question, can she now advise how she intends to guarantee that the Council will avoid incurring the unfavourable financial penalties arising from any potential closure of Honeysuckle House should the new provision not be achieved within the three year timeframe set under the contract?”

 

Reply from Councillor Cazimoglu

 

“I have been clear in my previous answer in explaining where the difficulties have occurred.  We are currently reviewing future options with Cabinet already having received a report and another scheduled for the October meeting.  Existing residents at Honeysuckle House will be moved to a new home, with the site to be agreed. (Post Meeting Note: The response has been updated to reflect clarification provided to Councillor Rye by the Cabinet Member after the meeting).  Let me assure you that I certainly will not allow the Council to enter into contracts that do not provide value for money.”

 

Question 10 (OFSTED judgements of Enfield Schools) from Councillor N Cazimoglu to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s Services and Protection

 

“I congratulate the department for its success in terms of getting Enfield Schools into this good or outstanding position and also for the good Ofsted rating for Children’s Services and safeguarding.  Can the Cabinet Member also update us on the outcomes from more recent inspections?”

 

Reply from Councillor Orhan:

 

“I am pleased to advise Council of a further successful inspection outcome following a recent Ofsted and HMIP thematic inspection that focussed on how well we support young offenders living away from home. The Inspectors from both inspectorates were very complimentary about the governance, strategic direction and day to day delivery of the services for this particularly vulnerable group of young people. All services were considered very good and have further improved following the inspection in February 2015, particularly the services for Looked After Children.   They will be highlighting some areas that they consider best practice to inform national recommendations when the report is published next Spring, and one of those areas is the partnership working in the Single Point of Entry (SPOE).

 

This national  thematic review will be published in Spring 2016 and Enfield will be highlighted as an area of best practice. I would like to pay tribute to our staff for this achievement and I am delighted that their extraordinary efforts have been recognised in this way.”

 

Question 11 (Primary School - Chase Farm Hospital site) from Councillor Anne Marie Pearce to Councillor Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s Services and Protection. 

 

“Can the Cabinet Member confirm whether any nearby alternative sites have been identified for consideration should the current negotiations to secure land for a school development on the Chase Farm Hospital site fail?”

 

Reply from Councillor Orhan:

 

“Thank you for your interest.  I can confirm that negotiations with the Royal Free Hospital Trust are continuing but we are at a sensitive stage of a complex negotiation process so cannot provide any more detailed information at this stage.  I will ensure members are kept informed, but you can be assured that a range of options are under consideration and have been since 2010.”

 

At this stage the Mayor advised that the 30 minute deadline for Council Questions was due to expire.  Members were asked if they wished to extend the time available for Council Questions and Councillor Neville subsequently moved and Councillor Rye seconded a motion to extend the time available by a further 30 minutes.

 

The motion was put to the vote without discussion and was lost with the following result:

 

For: 19

Against: 31

Abstentions:0

 

Councillor Stewart advised that the Majority Group were minded to extend the time available to continue consideration of Council Questions but in view of the other business on the agenda only by a period of 15 minutes.  She subsequently moved a motion to extend the time available by 15 minutes, which was seconded by Councillor Taylor and approved unanimously without a vote.

 

The Mayor then continued consideration of Council Questions, with the following supplementary questions raised:

 

Question 12 (Budget Cuts) from Councillor Chibah to Councillor Stafford, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency

 

“By 2018/19 Council budgets have been and are projected to be cut by a total of £110m, which represents 60% of the revenue budget.  Can the Cabinet Member explain why he feels these savage cuts to the public sector continue, when the Chancellor originally stated that he would be able to balance the books by 2015?”

 

Reply from Councillor Stafford:

 

“I am mystified like many others, given the Chancellors commitment to balance the books.  I feel there are two reasons why we are still waiting for this commitment to be fulfilled.  The first relates to the Conservative Party nationally, supported by the right wing media, convincing people of the lie that the recession was caused by Gordon Brown, when infact we were in the midst of a global recession caused in the main by activity within the USA.  I am not sure how the demise of Lehman Brothers was caused by Gordon Brown.

 

The global recession has resulted in real pressure on income and other tax receipts impacted on economic growth.  As an example where is the third runway at Heathrow, the new container port in London and HS2?  The truth is that George Osborne, as Chancellor, cannot balance the books and has resorted to using the “Ladybird” book of economics.  There is no growth, meaning the assault on the public sector will continue.  I fear we will see further evidence of this in the coming weeks when the latest cuts to the police are announced.”

 

Question 13 (FOUND event - Trent Park) from Councillor Lavender to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for Environment

 

“Will Councillor Anderson agree to a time bound response from officers regarding consideration of the various issues I have raised and will he ensure that I am informed of the outcome and that officers will then ensure the necessary actions are delivered?”

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor in Councillor Anderson’s absence:

 

“I would agree that the request within the supplementary question is reasonable and will ensure that Councillor Anderson is advised accordingly.”

 

Question 14 (Enfield CCTV Station) from Councillor During to Councillor Brett, Cabinet Member for Community Organisations and Culture? 

 

“Enfield has been proactive and shown good leadership in setting up a CCTV monitoring station, with credit to our former late colleague Lynn Romain for her work in this respect.  Can the Cabinet Member give us a recent example of how the images provided by the cameras have been useful?”

 

Reply from Councillor Brett:

 

“I am happy to share a recent example from June when there was an attempt from men dressed as railway engineers to break into a cash machine located at a local station.  The attempt was captured on the boroughs CCTV with the footage used by the police to assist them with their enquiries.  I only wish that the quality of the CCTV cameras operated by TfL on the North Circular Road and A10 was as good as those operated by the Borough.”

 

Question 15 (Highways Contractor) from Councillor Laban to Councillor Anderson, Cabinet Member for the Environment

 

“Will the Cabinet Member provide an undertaking that if this Highways Contractor continues failing to deliver on schemes the Council will look to end its relationship with them and seek an alternative provider?”

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor in Councillor Anderson’s absence:

 

“As Councillor Anderson has submitted his apologies for tonight’s meeting I will ask him to ensure a written response is provided.”

 

Post meeting Update: A written response has been provided for Councillor Laban.

 

Question 16 (Adult Social Care) from Councillor Jiagge to Councillor A Cazimoglu, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care

 

“Can the Cabinet Member tell the Council how the savings in Adult Social Care have been managed?”

 

Reply from Councillor A Cazimoglu:

 

“In 2013-14 and 2014-15 over £20m worth of cuts have been made in terms of Adult Social Care, achieved mainly by cutting back office costs, while looking to maintain the quality of services.  We are now awaiting the outcome from the Government’s autumn spending review to see if and where any further savings will be needed.

 

I hope that social care will be protected and can assure you we are continuing to look at all options to ensure that any funding gap can be bridged in a way that will still enable residents needs to be met and value for money to be provided.  I would also like to take the opportunity to thank staff for the excellent job they are doing in continuing to deliver services.”

 

Question 20 (Pension Tax Relief) from Councillor Jemal to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council

 

“The Treasury are consulting on changing the tax treatment for pension contributions.  Is there a risk in this for pension saving, both in the Council’s scheme and for Enfield residents more widely?”

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor

 

“These matters will be discussed by the Council’s Pension Policy & Investment Committee in due course.  It is not yet clear whether the proposed changes will affect people in defined benefit pension schemes.  It is being proposed that the tax exempt status for pension contributions will be removed and replaced with tax exemptions on the money paid out.  This could mean that people’s pension pots will be smaller and there may be a potential need to increase employers’ contributions to make up the shortfall.

 

These proposed changes are out for consultation and it may be that they do not affect defined benefit schemes. I will ensure that these changes along with their potential impact on Enfield are something the Pension Policy & Investment Committee continues to keep under review.”

 

Question 22 (Lane Closures on the M25) from Councillor Pite to Councillor Taylor, Leader of the Council

 

“Can Councillor Taylor advise if he is aware of Connect Plus having undertaken any assessments into the effectiveness of the new traffic management scheme on the M25?”

 

Reply from Councillor Taylor

 

“Connect Plus have advised there will be a post opening project evaluation report into the effectiveness of the new scheme. This will look at the first year’s operation to identify any problems that need to be addressed, or highlight any improvements that have been made as a result of the new all lanes running scheme.  Clearly any problems experienced on the M25 will impact on roads within the borough so there will be a need for the Council to analysis the outcome of the evaluation report and make representatives as appropriate.”

 

At this stage, the Mayor advised that the time available for Council Questions (as extended) had expired and the meeting moved on to consider the next item of business.