Agenda item

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

Due to Parliamentary General Election Purdah restrictions the Opposition Priority Business Paper will be published as a “to follow” paper after the General Election on Friday 9 June 2017. 

Councillor Laban introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.

Issues highlighted were as follows: 

1.               The duty of the Opposition was to bring forward for debate, issues that were important to the local community.  Knife crime was felt to be one such issue.

2.               Over the last 3 months knife crime had become a regular occurrence:  there had been six incidents since April 2017, with three incidents recently happening in one week.  These incidents were destroying the lives of victims, their families and their communities and affecting the reputation of the borough.  Concerns had also been bought up in the recent General Election Campaign.

3.               This was not a party political issue, but was something where the parties should work together, on behalf of residents, to find out why it was happening and what could be done to prevent it. 

4.               In 2008, following a previous spate of violent crime, the cross party Life Opportunities for Young People in Enfield Commission had been set up, producing a report with recommendations including on care and support within the family, housing, health care, education and attainment, leisure, work, safety and security, supporting the third sector and improving the inclusion of disengaged and alienated communities.  Times had moved on since then and resources were under greater pressure. 

5.               A new strategy of action was now required, this was felt to be a borough emergency and all (the police, the community and the council, the GLA and the Conservative Government) should work together to promote action to tackle the incidents of violent crime.

6.               The Council should increase closer working with local agencies and schools to make people feel safe in their communities.  Councillors were asked to come together and to agree the recommendations in the Opposition Business Paper. 

Councillor Fonyonga, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Health, responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting: 

1.               That she was disappointed in the OPB paper as it did not suggest anything new:  all the recommendations included in the paper were, in her opinion, already being implemented. 

2.               A public meeting involving senior representatives from the Metropolitan Police had been held last month, with both the current and former MP attending and a second had been organised for the following week. 

3.               The scrutiny structure existed to examine issues on a bi partisan basis. 

4.               Cressida Dick, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was currently well aware of the need for more police resources and has herself written to the Prime minister to ask for more. 

5.               Members and officers were in contact with and had already met Sophie Linden, the Deputy Mayor for Policing, and future meetings had been arranged.  The Deputy Mayor was also limited in what she could do because of lack of funding. 

6.               Schools and youth institutions already worked closely with the police and had been doing so for many years.  Operation Crest, an initiative to combat youth violence and reduce knife crime had been delivered to around 3,000 students in Enfield schools. 

7.               A communications campaign had been put together and was ready to be launched. 

8.               The opposition had in her opinion put forward nothing new or helpful, therefore she felt that although she could not support the paper, she was willing to listen to any new ideas which might help tackle the problems. 

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 responsibility of the Council to do more to address the concerns of residents in relation to issues connected with gangs and knife crime.

·       The personal testimony of Councillor Dines and his experience of low level anti-social behaviour, open drug dealing and threatening gang behaviour. 

·       The concern to avoid people being made prisoners in their own homes. 

·       The need for the Council to improve street design, to design out places where gangs could congregate and to install more CCTV cameras. 

·       To acknowledge the need for a bipartisan approach, the seriousness of the issue, the appalling state of affairs and the concern that what was being done was not enough: improvements were needed.

·       A new strategy was required providing convincing evidence of the need for more resources. 

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

·       To acknowledge that Councillor Laban had been chair of the Crime Scrutiny Workstream for the past two years and had had many opportunities to discuss and address knife crime concerns, but in this period had failed to produce any reports, feedback or outcomes.

·       Councillor Levy felt that Councillor Laban had failed to fulfil her scrutiny responsibilities and wasted time on call-ins which lacked evidence.

·       A cross party joint scrutiny panel meeting on knife crime, with the police borough commander, was being arranged and was due to be held in early July 2017. 

Following an accusation under 21.2 of the Council procedure rules of acting with unworthy motives, the Mayor asked Councillor Levy to apologise, which he did. 

·       The testimony of Councillor McGowan, who had been involved in several knife crime incidents.  Details were provided to members at the meeting. 

·       To acknowledge the need for more outreach workers to work with organisations across London tackling these issues.  Before they had been cut, outreach workers had performed a vital function, acting as an interface between the police and the community, a conduit for information who helped the police but also supported the community and prevented trouble before it occurred. 

At the end of the debate Councillor Laban summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group as follows:  She had been disappointed with the reception the issue had received, had hoped that politics could be put aside and the borough’s interests put first.  She had been one of the most vocal members of the Crime Scrutiny Workstream and because of her concerns had bought the issue to full Council. 

Councillor Taylor then summed up on behalf of the majority group commenting on the recommendations in the Opposition Business Paper by referring all members to the paper that had been tabled by Councillor Fonyonga.  He felt that that paper had covered all the issues that had been raised, that an enormous amount of work was being undertaken and the recommendations in the Opposition Priority Business Paper had been adequately responded to. 

Knife crime was a problem that affected many parts of London.  If there were simple solutions, the issues would have been resolved.  He had every confidence that if there were adequate resources the Council would be able to make a more effective response. 

Following the debate a vote was taken on Councillor Taylor’s response, with the following result:

For:  34

Against:  17

Abstentions: 0

The recommendations in the Opposition Business Paper were not agreed.