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 Neville introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

 

Issues highlighted were as follows: 

 

1.               That it was necessary for all councillors, not just the majority group, to have confidence in the control and management of the Council’s finances.  The opposition group had no such confidence.  They were concerned about the £8m, now £7.2m, projected over spend.  Decreases had been promised but had not occurred. 

 

2.               While acknowledging that some parts of the over spend were due to spending demands in demand led services, others were not. 

 

3.               The Opposition Group had concerns about the high levels of Council borrowing which were now significantly higher than they had been in 2010.  They felt that the capital programme was being added to in an unplanned way and that if there had been better financial planning during the Labour administration’s first term, the Council would not be in the current situation.

 

4.               Reference was made to report of the Head of Internal Audit and Risk Management to the Audit Committee in July 2016 which had identified some failings across the Council.  He cited Property Services as an example: the report had indicated that the Council had no corporate asset management strategy, no performance management framework and that income targets had not been informed by strategic objectives.  Whilst these issues had subsequently been addressed, it was felt that there were still issues around shortfalls in rents, benefits paid out to people who were not entitled, mismanagement of payments to those with no recourse to public funds, business resilience and private sector leasing. 

 

5.               In his view, Cabinet members appeared to have done nothing to address these issues and had showed no clear sense of direction.  Criticising the Government was not felt to be the answer.  Even if the Government were to blame, he felt that officers should still be called to account to address failings of financial management within the Council.

 

6.               The Opposition were calling for an immediate response and for a special meeting to be arranged to discuss how to bring down the over spend in the three areas listed in the Opposition Business Paper.  He felt that Cabinet members should be taking action, the capital programme should be more carefully planned and a business plan put in place. 

 

Councillor Lemonides, Cabinet Member for Finance and Efficiency responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting: 

 

1.              A large amount of work, to eliminate the over spend, was going on behind the scenes that opposition members might not be aware of.  The deficit had been discussed in great detail in many meetings including at the Corporate Management Board and between directors and their lead cabinet members. 

 

2.              Since 2003/4, as a result of “damping”, the Council had lost over £100m.  If the Council had received this money they would not have had to borrow - the cost of the borrowing was equivalent to the cost of the over spend. 

 

3.              The Council had had to balance rationing and efficiencies and finding innovative ways to provide services against declining Government funding.  Earlier planning would only have meant more rationing, less innovative ways of saving money, more inappropriate schools, more taxes or more cuts. 

 

4.              It was not possible to use capital to hide deficits.  The cost of an asset cannot exceed its worth. 

 

5.              The Council had undergone huge changes in the last few years as a result of the reduction in funding including the introduction of the internal hubs and the loss of 40% of Council staff.   

 

6.              Councillor Neville had been selective in the way that he had quoted from the Audit and Risk report.   Management had responded positively to the recommendations highlighted in the report.  Internal Audit had tracked the progress made to implement the agreed actions to address the risks.   

 

7.              Positive assurance opinions were provided for seven of nine key financial systems audited in 2015/16, including high assurance for three key systems: payroll, national non-domestic rates (NNDR) and housing benefits/discretionary housing payments.  In addition, a review of housing rents provided high assurance over the collection of rental income.   Action plans for improvement are being developed with each of the service areas, where required.  If there had been any serious issues, the accounts would have been qualified, which they were not.

 

8.              The Capital Programme was planned.  The Council was investing to save by borrowing to purchase assets, to build new houses, to invest in heat networks.  Housing Gateway was providing homes for homeless people and saving money on overnight rents.  The Council was also looking at ways to make people more self-sufficient. 

 

9.              The Council had suffered from migration from wealthy London boroughs, exporting their problems to poorer Outer London boroughs.

 

10.           The Council had balanced the books in 2015/16 and would also do so in 2016/17 as it was required to do by law.  The Government should be going after the rich and increasing corporation tax, not using local government as a scape goat for adult social care. 

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows: 

 

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

 

·           To acknowledge that it was the Labour party in 2010 which had left the country with no money.  When the Conservative administration had lost power there had been £70m in reserves, which had since been wasted on projects such as the Residents Priority Fund. 

·           To acknowledge that if there had been better planning there would be less of a deficit and that more detail should be provided on how it would be covered. 

·           To highlight concern about the waste of money on communications, depletion of the Council’s reserves and increased borrowing. 

·           To acknowledge that the Opposition was committed to campaigning for fairer funding for Enfield and had acknowledged that demand led adult social services created pressures on funding. 

·           To recognise that it was not just rich Conservative Inner London boroughs that were exporting people to Enfield but also rich Inner London Labour boroughs. 

 

b.          The need highlighted by members of the Majority Group:

 

·         To acknowledge the huge cut backs in Government funding since 2010 which had led to the decimation of Council services, despite the efforts of the administration to meet peoples’ needs and preserve services while maintaining standards and making ends meet. 

·         To recognise that most Cabinet members already met weekly with their directors, regularly monitoring budgets, assessing risks and controlling expenditure.

·         To acknowledge the demographic changes in the borough.

·         To acknowledge that Enfield was providing what were recognised as excellent services such as those for vulnerable children, despite having one of the lowest spend per child, for which the department and all involved were to be congratulated. 

·         To recognise that statutory duties could not be avoided or the events that gave rise to them controlled.  More and more duties were being placed on local government.

 

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou proposed and Councillor Neville seconded a proposal to increase the amount of time for discussion on this item by 10 minutes.  This was not agreed. 

 

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

 

He felt that no real answers had been provided on the financial issues under discussion and said that he had not been convinced by the arguments put forward.  More needed to be done to control the Council’s finances.  It was not sufficient to note reports, members should be taking decisions. The over spend had been projected since July 2016, mismanagement was not acceptable and was he felt partly responsible for the current situation. 

 

Councillor Taylor then summed up on behalf of the majority group commenting on the recommendations in the Opposition Business Paper by saying that: 

 

The money in reserves was there to cover hard times according to Councillor Hurer so it was sensible to use it now.  Two thirds of London boroughs were also showing overspends due to demand pressures.  He wanted the Opposition to be mandated to indicate what services they believed should be cut when they discussed the budget for 2017/18 next month if they were taking their role seriously. The situation was challenging, but the administration was working to keep services and in his opinion was managing the budget effectively, despite being penalised by government.  He did not agree with the recommendations in the Opposition Business paper. 

 

As an outcome of the debate Councillor Neville requested that a roll call vote be taken on the recommendations within the Opposition Priority Business Paper.  The Mayor refused a roll call vote but allowed that names would be recorded in the minutes.  The outcome of the vote was as follows: 

 

For:  22

 

Councillor Celebi

Councillor Chamberlain

Councillor Jason Charalambous

Councillor David-Sanders

Councillor Delman

Councillor Dines

Councillor Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor E Hayward

Councillor R Hayward

Councillor Hurer

Councillor Jukes

Councillor Laban

Councillor Lavender

Councillor Milne

Councillor Neville

Councillor AM Pearce

Councillor D Pearce

Councillor Rye

Councillor Smith

Councillor Steven

Councillor Vince

 

Against: 35

 

Councillor Abdullahi

Councillor Anderson

Councillor Barry

Councillor Bond

Councillor Brett

Councillor A Cazimoglu

Councillor N Cazimoglu

Councillor B Charalambous

Councillor Chibbah

Councillor Dogan

Councillor Doyle

Councillor During

Councillor Ekechi

Councillor Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Hasan

Councillor Hurman

Councillor Jemal

Councillor Jiagge

Councillor Keazor

Councillor Kepez

Councillor Lemonides

Councillor Levy

Councillor Maguire

Councillor McGowan

Councillor Orhan

Councillor Oykener

Councillor Pite

Councillor Savva

Councillor Sitkin

Councillor Simon

Councillor Stafford

Councillor Stewart

Councillor Taylor

Councillor Uzoanya

 

Abstentions:  1

 

Councillor Erbil

 

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

 

Recommendations

 

1.       That without  further delay the Cabinet, prepares and presents at the Council meeting on 28 February 2017, being the Council Tax setting meeting, a separate  report with clear proposals for the management of  the projected overspend for what is left of this financial year, and for preventing a similar occurrence in the ensuing financial year.

 

2.       That Individual Cabinet Members, particularly in those areas where overspends are occurring, monitor their departmental spending on at least a monthly basis, giving direction as to taking avoiding action.

 

3.       That the Capital Programme should, going forward be much more carefully planned, and that requires both Directors and Cabinet Members to ensure that they have effectively a business plan in place and that they stick to it except in the most exceptional and urgent circumstances, and until such time as improved and more careful planning is put into place there will be no further increase in the council’s overall borrowing”.