Agenda item

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

 

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are also attached for information.

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows: 

 

1.          He began by thanking all Enfield teachers, governors and schools for helping children to achieve their potential.

 

2.          Pride in the achievements of all free schools and academies and of the establishment of the 2010 Academies Act, which had enabled the setting up of more free schools and academies giving teachers and schools more autonomy to meet local demands, tailor lessons, as well as setting their own term dates, pay and conditions.

 

3.          That all funding for these schools, including the costs of acquiring the land and construction was met by Central Government, not the local authority.   

 

4.          Concerns that opposing and not encouraging, the building of free schools and academies in Enfield, had resulted in increased Council debt, higher levels of capital expenditure, leading to higher interest rates and Council Tax increases, when money could have been saved using the resources for free schools and academies offered by Central Government.  

 

5.          With the continuing pressure on school places, which was expected to grow still more by 2020, the Council should welcome this means of providing school places.

 

6.          Whilst recognising that Enfield was doing well in terms of educational attainment at the primary level, there was concern about the high level of absenteeism and long term absence in Enfield’s primary schools. 

 

7.          At the secondary level, while acknowledging that absence rates were at the national average, there was alarm at the below the national average educational performance of Enfield children. 

 

8.          Concern about the gap in educational attainment between pupils who have English as a second language and those with English as a first language.  In this, Enfield was the third worst performing borough in London.  It was felt that this needed to be addressed urgently, not only to benefit those who have English as a second language but also because of the impact on native speakers. 

 

9.          Whilst blessing all teachers for doing their best, he saw the adoption of more free schools and academies as a chance to turnaround schools that were failing and to enable more children to reach their potential. 

 

Councillor Ayfer Orhan, Cabinet Member for Education, Children’s Services and Protection responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting: 

 

1.          Her view that the facts in the opposition paper were either misrepresented or inaccurate.

 

2.          Whilst agreeing that there were pressing issues, the department and schools had worked diligently to secure school places and many schools were making good or outstanding progress. 

 

3.          The 2015 GCSE results showed that maintained schools were doing better than academy schools:  63% of maintained schools achieved a GCSE pass rate of 63% at A*- C compared with 43.1% of academies.  Academy results were below the national average and getting worse. 

 

4.          One of the borough’s free schools had been taken over by another and one academy was under investigation.  OfSTED judgements presented a mixed picture.  One school which was now struggling had been opened in an area where it was not needed and was a threat to another academy nearby.

 

5.          Since 2010 the Council had put in place a primary expansion programme and a secondary place strategy to provide the necessary school places.

 

6.          The Council was committed to working with all schools and providers, whatever their designation, to improve education in the borough. 

 

7.          The exam results were improving, at the secondary level faster than the national average.  The 2015 results were disappointing but this was just a dip.  Primary schools were making excellent progress year on year. 

 

8.          The Council was narrowing the attendance gap, despite the withdrawal of Government support in 2010. 

 

9.          Enfield was nationally recognised for the provision of language and support for children with English as a second language.

 

10.       The reductions in the youth service had come about as a consequence of Government cuts.  But the Council had met the challenge to provide the service in a different way and were not proposing to close youth clubs.  They were also working with a youth charity to enable them to access funding that the Council could not. 

 

11.       There was no link between reductions in the youth service and rising crime and youth violence.  Work would continue to help those at risk of sexual exploitation, crime and antisocial behaviour. 

 

12.       Working with the community and volunteers would help foster the big society promoted by the Government. 

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows: 

 

a.          The need highlighted by the members of the Opposition Group:

 

·             To recognise that the money spent on new schools could have been spent elsewhere on other Council priorities. 

 

·             To understand that reductions in the youth services would result in increasing demand for statutory services as gangs and other problems increase.

 

·             To lobby the Government for additional funds to meet the responsibility under the Children’s Act 1989 for those with no recourse to public funds and to tackle the issue of bogus asylum seekers and address the £3 million budget pressures being faced.  Young Albanian men seemed to be a particular issue in Enfield.  Conservatives offered to support the Administration in lobbying for adequate funds. 

 

·             To recognise that purchasing land for schools as at Chase Farm was incurring debt which could be avoided by supporting free school applications.

 

·             To recognise that immigration was putting pressure on school places and to review urgently the allegations concerning young Albanian men. 

 

·             To accept that new models of school funding were required and that heads should be free to lead and influence. 

 

b.          The need highlighted by members of the Labour Group to:

 

·             Recognise that Enfield was already engaging with the Academy Programme and that the Council had no influence over bids for free schools. 

 

·             Refute the assertion that the Council’s current planning for school places imposes an unnecessary burden on the tax payer:  in fact the academy programme was making local authorities hand over land and buildings to the academy sector. 

 

·             Recognise the findings from a National Audit Office 2013 review nationally that £241m had been spent on free schools where there was found to be no need for additional school places.

 

·             Lobby the Government to ensure that schools were properly funded and democratically accountable.

 

·             Recognise that there were no plans to close youth centres and that youth services will continue to be provided.  Since coming to power in 2010, the Labour Administration had opened 8 new youth centres; seven of these were offering free activity programmes, despite the cuts.  That there were over 200 voluntary sector providers in the borough providing youth activities. 

 

·             Accept that the critical reason for the Council’s financial problems lay with the Government cuts to public services. 

 

·             Acknowledge that the extra costs arising from supporting those with no recourse to public funds were a result of the Government’s inability to manage immigration and failure to support local authorities in meeting their statutory obligations.  Immigrants settled in Enfield as they did in boroughs like Croydon as it was located near to a major M25 service station.   

 

·             Acknowledge that the Government had ceased all capital investment in maintained schools. 

 

During the course of the debate, the time for Opposition Business was extended by 10 minutes.

 

At the end of the debate Councillor Neville summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group as follows:

 

·             That he did not understand the issues that the administration had with accepting free schools and academies. 

 

·             That the cuts were due to the Labour Government’s mismanagement of the economy.

 

·             That in his view the Council had wasted money on fruitless projects and that now that there was no money left, the authority was having to borrow to deliver projects. 

 

·             That in his view it was the height of folly to spend money to purchase land to build a school on the former Chase Farm hospital site, just days after the Government announcement that all schools were to become free schools or academies. 

 

·             That public services needed to respond to the problems of a broken society and the growth of youth crime and that this needed a cross party approach. 

 

Councillor Taylor then summed up on behalf of the majority group by saying that he could only concur with the last recommendation in the Opposition Business paper and to assert that the Council was already working with academies and free schools in the borough. 

 

Meeting Adjournment

 

The Mayor adjourned the meeting for a ten minute comfort break at this point. 

 

Following the adjournment, as an outcome of the debate the Leader of the Opposition requested that a vote be taken on each of the recommendations within the Opposition Priority Business Paper.  In accordance with section 15.4 of the council procedure rules this was on a roll call basis, with the results as follows:

 

AGREED not to approve the following recommendations within the Opposition Business Paper:

 

(1)        Recommendation 1 – that the Council undertake and publish a full financial risk assessment of the effects of the budget reductions to youth centres.

 

(2)        Recommendation 2 – That the administration reviews its housing allocations policy to ensure it is not disproportionately affected by having to fund those with no recourse to public funds via the Children’s Act.

 

(3)        Recommendation 3 – To lobby central Government to ensure adequate funding for London local authorities affected by having to fund those with no recourse to public funds via the Children’s Act, especially where process delays prolong the financial pressure. 

 

(4)        Recommendation 4 – the Council will engage with and embrace the Government’s Academy and Free School Programme to secure sufficient school places for our children.

 

(5)        Recommendation 5 – that the Council supports future free school bids that present themselves to the local authority.

 

(6)        Recommendation 6 – That the Administration will begin to plan for future school places in a way that does not impose further unnecessary financial burdens on the tax payer.

 

(7)        Recommendation 7 - That the Council will take firm action to reduce high rates of school absence.

 

(8)        Recommendation 8 - That the Administration will work with the Opposition to find ways of tackling the attainment gap between pupils with English as a first language and pupils with English as a second language.

 

(9)        Recommendation 9 – That the Council will actively support any school currently not an academy that wishes to become one.

 

In support of the recommendations (1) – (9) above:  15

 

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Jason Charalambous

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terry Neville

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against recommendations (1) – (9) above:  30

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Ali Bakir

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Gurney Dogan

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Turgut Esendagli

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Christine Hamilton

Councillor Ahmet Hassan

Councillor Suna Hurman

Councillor Jansev Jemal

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Mary Maguire

Councillor Don McGowan

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

 

Abstentions: 0

 

(10)        Recommendation 10 – That the Council reports back within one year of this meeting to show what steps have been taken in achieving the goals set out in this Opposition Priority Business Paper. 

 

In support of recommendation (10) above:  45

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Ali Bakir

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Chris Bond

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Jason Charalambous

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Gurney Dogan

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Turgut Esendagli

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Christine Hamilton

Councillor Ahmet Hassan

Councillor Ertan Hurer

Councillor Suna Hurman

Councillor Jansev Jemal

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Mary Maguire

Councillor Don McGowan

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terry Neville

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against – 0

Abstentions – 0

 

Councillor Bambos Charalambous declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as a family member was involved in a school trust.  He left the meeting during the debate and did not take part in the discussion. 

 

Councillor Toby Simon declared a non-pecuniary interest as the Chair of an Edmonton Primary School Governing Body.  He remained in the meeting and participated in the debate and decision on this item. 

 

Councillor Abdullahi, Savva, Fonyonga, Bond, Achilleas Georgiou, Jason Charalambous, Jiagge, Smith, Fallart, Rye, Vince, Elaine Hayward and Hurer declared non-pecuniary interests as school governors.  They remained in the meeting and participated in the debate and decision on this item.