ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002
(7.15pm – 10.15pm)
PRESENT: The Mayor (Councillor Edith Macauley) (in the Chair); Councillors: Pauline Abrams, Tariq Ahmad, Mark Allison,
Jillian Ashton, Su Assinen, Stephen Austin, Matt Bird, John Bowcott, Margaret Brierly, Fiona Bryce, Horst Bullinger, Angela Caldara, Horatio Cheng, David Chung, John Cole, Andrew Coles, Danny Connellan, John Dehaney, Nick Draper, Mary Dunn, Corinna Edge, Samantha George, Tony Giles, Maurice Groves, Stephen Hammond, Richard Harwood, Philip Jones, Andrew Judge, Dot Kilsby, Linda Kirby, Sheila Knight, Maxi Martin, McCabe, Christopher MacLaughlin, Oonagh Moulton, Ian Munn, Leslie Mutch, John Nelson-Jones, Dennis Pearce, Amanda Ramsay, George Reynolds, Judy Saunders, Deborah Shears, Andrew Shellhorn, David Simpson, Mickey Spacey, Geraldine Stanford, Terence Sullivan, Mike Tilcock, Leighton Veale, Martin Whelton and David Williams.
Apologies for absence were received from: Councillors Joe Abrams, William Brierly, Mick Fitzgerald, Gilli Lewis-Lavender, Russell Makin, Beth Mitchell and Peter Southgate; and for lateness from Councillors Ian Munn and Peter McCabe.
285 TO RECEIVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE MAYOR, LEADER OF THE COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET OR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (Agenda Item 2) Announcements were tendered as follows: The Mayor drew Members’ attention to the details of the Mayor’s Civic Engagements for the period 22 May to the 31 July that had been circulated around the Council Chamber. In particular, the Mayor highlighted the event that occurred on the 4 July when Her Majesty the Queen met with the Mayors’ of South London as part of her Jubilee Tour. The Mayor was accompanied by 9 people from the Borough including Mr Slim Flegg, a previous Mayor of the Borough, a representative of the Ethnic Minority Centre and two young people who are taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme. The Mayor also announced that, in addition to her special project on Mitcham Cricket Club, Crystal Care and Diabetes UK were to be her charities for the year. Councillor Maxi Martin, Cabinet Member for Care Services informed the Council that one of the Council’s recent care leavers, Ms Nicola Oliver, has been awarded a first class honours degree in mathematics from Brunel University. Councillor Martin read out a message received from Ms Oliver: “Please let them know that it was a good investment helping people like me. I and my daughter should never be dependent on benefits again and this enhances our opportunities for a better future.” Councillor Martin encouraged all Members to sign a card of congratulations to be sent to Ms Oliver.
187
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 Councillor Danny Connellan assured the Council that the lighting in the Council Chamber would be fully operational by the middle of next year.
286 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS (Agenda Item 3) RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Annual Council Meeting and of the Special Council Meetings held on 22 May 2002; and of the Extraordinary Meetings held on 29 May 2002 be signed as correct records.
287 TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS (Agenda Item 4) In view of the motion detailed in the agenda regarding ‘Youth Services’ Councillor David Williams advised of a personal interest in that he was a member of the management committee for the Endeavour Youth Club.
288 TO RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE LEADER AND RECEIVE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON HIS REPORT (Agenda Item 5) In his report the Leader of the Council made a number of points on the final report of the Audit of Corporate Governance. His comments are summarised as follows: He thanked those staff, in particular Ben Harris and his team, who prepared for the visit by the Audit team and those officers and members who made contributions during the Audit process. It is clear from the Audit report that any concerns about officer/member relationships have been allayed and that there is much that was positive from the report including: Improved local consultation through ward surveys and local area forums; Partnership working described as a strength in particular the work on community safety; an improved financial position; a sound response to special measures in Children’s Services; and the Council’s willingness to carry forward major projects i.e. schools reorganisation. There was still a need to improve corporate working, performance and project management, income generation and the need to prioritise. The Council was invited to have ‘greater pace and challenge’ and this it will seek to ensure in order that Merton becomes and remains an excellent Council. The Council has agreed strategic objectives and principles and a series of 3-year priorities. The Council wishes to deliver quality services and achieve a local environment of high quality. To achieve the Council’s vision there needs to be cross-Council co-operation accepting criticism where it is justified and well intentioned. A number of questions were put to the Leader and responses made summarised as follows:
188
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 Councillor Williams asked the Leader as to the urgency he gives to the gaps in the IdeA action plan as highlighted by the Corporate Governance inspection. The Leader responded that there is urgency across the Council. It was intended that the Cabinet and Corporate management Team will review progress on each of the targets on a monthly basis. In view of the Audit by Corporate Governance it is now appropriate that the individual targets of the IdeA action plan be subsumed in an action plan for the Audit of Corporate Governance. He confirmed that all the recommended improvements were to be carried out efficiently and promptly. Councillor Harwood drew attention to the observation arising from the Audit review of poor project management. He illustrated this point in referring to the school PFI deadline being missed once again and the collapse of the Council’s housing stock transfer proposals. The Leader responded that the stock transfer proposals have not collapsed and that it was always intended to offer the choice to tenants as to whether their properties should be transferred to a registered social landlord. Tenants have decided not to take the opportunity and the Council made no recommendations as to whether they should say yes or no to the transfer. It also suggests that no matter what the material benefits of transfer might have been the tenants have a liking for democratic central control of their houses. They want the Council’s management services to continue to manage them. In terms of the reorganisation of schools we are looking at the most complex and unique project this Council has ever undertaken combining PFI with schools reorganisation at the same time and involving several member partners. I, therefore, reject the contention that we are failing. We do take on board the comments made in the Audit report but these are not a general condemnation of project management. Councillor Samantha George asked as to why the Leader had addressed the Audit in his report when no other Councillors have seen or been able to discuss it and enquired as to when it was that the report would be presented to the Council. The Leader responded that it was wholly appropriate to bring the general lessons of the report on this matter to members at the earliest opportunity and that this was what he was seeking to do.
289 TO RECEIVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND WRITTEN ANSWERS AND SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS (Agenda Item 6) 1. By Councillor David Williams of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Support “The Leader of the Council and I were at an ALG meeting with Nick Raynsford in which he outlined draft proposals to replace Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) methodology and these have now been published. Irrespective of the political control of Merton or national government, this Council has had difficulty in gaining recognition of the extent of economic diversity within the Borough - in particular levels of deprivation and that Merton is neither a truly Inner or Outer London Borough. This Administration, with its friends in Government and two Labour MP's are in a unique position, at a time of change, to secure a lasting and more favourable Revenue Support Grant for Merton.
189
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 What steps are being taken to press Merton's case?” Reply “The Government has carried out a review of Local Government fundingand is proposing to make changes to the existing funding arrangements. These changes would result in a redistribution of money principally from London, the South East and the Shires to the Northern Metropolitanareas. The Government have produced exemplification’s based on 2002/03 data of the options being considered to illustrate how this will affect SSA in all Councils. The options being considered by Government range from London gaining £360m to London losing £510m.For Merton, the options under consideration show that at best Merton ould gain £4.8m and at worst lose £14m. There are however special arrangements which would limit the loss and gain in any one year. There is therefore a significant risk that Merton will lose a substantial amount of funding. As Government funding represents about 2/3rds of Council spending, any reduction in grant funding will result in a significant increase in Merton’s Council Tax. The ALG are currently collecting the views of its members and will be representing these to Government. The Government has issued its proposals for consultation and Merton will be making a submission by the 30th September based on “Making the Merton Case”. We will also be talking with our local MP’s and asking them to reflect our concerns over the proposed changes to the Deputy Prime Minister.” Supplementary question “In one sense there is nothing that divides the Council on this issue as we all want to see the best deal for Merton and there have been times when cross party groups have gone to see the junior member who is responsible. I just wonder if I could encourage the Leader of the Council to be a little more firm and even worked up in his enthusiasm for making the Merton case. We have two Labour MP’s a Labour Council and a Labour Government and we’ve had that for five years now. Is it not now the time for there to be a very strong case for Merton not just to reflect asking our MP’s to reflect concerns?” Reply “Yes there is a possibility under the new arrangements for SSA for us to be better of in some areas and worse off in others. Therefore the ALG is lobbying as a whole and boroughs are lobbying individually as well. I am endeavouring to get boroughs to lobby as groups as well where the new options of the SSA would make it convenient for more than one borough to lobby in certain areas. So it is in process and the case for Merton and I personally went with a group who met one of the Education Ministers and gave him a copy before we started so they can’t say they haven’t seen it. The unique position of having two Labour MP’s fascinates me really because of the unique position of the Tories having two MP’s for years and years. They always went along and lobbied. Everyone got in and said their piece and when they came out there was a queue outside going in after them of all the other boroughs in London and all of the other authorities throughout the whole of the country and yes they all got ten minutes each but never got any money. We need to see the minister outside that normal round of meetings to discuss our position in other areas. The lobbying does go on, the lobbying will always go on and there’s effort in making the point of
190
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 getting Merton on the map well and truly.” 2. By Councillor Margaret Brierly of the Cabinet Member for Care Services “According to a report by Laing Busisson1, more than 13,000 residential care places for the elderly were lost in the UK last year. In the light of this disturbing trend nationally, could the Cabinet Member for Care Services reveal the following: How many residential and nursing care home beds have been lost in Merton in the last 6 months and where? How many residential and nursing care homes have closed down in the last 6 months, where and why? How many residential and nursing care homes are considering closing down and why? How have residential and nursing care homes have been hit by the Government's policies over the last 18 months - specifically the Care Standards Act?” 1. Labour and social dimensions of privatisation and restructuring: Health care services Restructuring and privatisation of health care services: Selected cases in Western Europe by Stephen Bach, Prepared for the International Labour Office Action Programme on Privatisation, Restructuring and Economic Democracy. Reply “In the past 6 months there has been no loss of residential or nursing care home beds, nor has there been any closure of a home. Regarding future intentions, we have had written notification from one organisation that it is considering the possibility of closing a home in Merton, and inviting us to work with them over alternative uses. Beyond that it is difficult to speculate whether other care homes are moving beyond concerns to firm consideration of closing. All local homes are to some extent being affected by government policies: The Care Standards Act has more rigorous requirements in areas such as room sizes and staff training and qualifications. These requirements are welcome in that they will improve the quality of life for residents of care homes and for people supported at home. However, these requirements have cost implications for homes. Homes do not always have confidence in the ability or willingness of local authorities to pick up these costs in higher fee levels, given the financial constraints on local authorities. This in turn may affect whether a home is prepared to make the necessary investments to comply with new standards, even though some of the standards regarding room sizes will not take effect until 2007 at the earliest. Such a decision is also affected in London by the surge in values for residential properties, since a home may become worth more as a residential property than as a care business. Income streams for care homes are also being affected by changes in funding arrangements for two main groups. Firstly, from this year onwards, all those residents in homes who are on “preserved rights” (i.e. they were funded by the Benefits Agency prior to 1993 and have kept this funding stream) will instead have their fees paid by the local authority. Funding is being transferred to local authorities by the Benefits Agency, but it is too early to say
191
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 whether this will be entirely sufficient for this new commitment, and of course this in turn may lead to some loss of confidence among care homes that this funding stream is secure. Secondly, responsibility for funding nursing care in care homes is being taken over by the NHS, with such care no longer being subject to charging. This affects those funding their own care from this year, and those funded by local authorities from next year. While this development is welcome from the point of view of residents, it is a further complication for nursing homes, who in future may have to look in three directions for their funding for some residents (local authorities, the NHS and the residents themselves). The government is listening actively to national representatives of the care homes sector, as well as to local authorities, since it does not wish to lose capacity in care homes, especially given the pressure on NHS hospitals. It has recently signalled that it is prepared to postpone the introduction of the new rules on room sizes, in order to ensure that this does not lead to loss of capacity in care homes. In Merton we meet regularly with all local homes and with a committee of their representatives, so that we understand at first hand their concerns and are able to discuss possible solutions where these are within our control.” Supplementary question “I would like to say to the Cabinet Member for Care Services that any cuts in nursing care home beds as well as in residential care homes not only raises concerns about the care of our elderly residents but does she realise that the whole problem of bed blocking is exacerbated by the lack of sufficient residential and nursing care home beds. Perhaps she would use her proven persuasive powers to convince her Government to put more money into social services to help solve this and many other problems.” Reply “I do understand that this is a huge issue and a concern to all of us and I think a full explanation has been tabled. We will be monitoring and we’re having discussions to update all colleagues as the position changes and I do fully understand the depth of concern and its one concern I share also and I promise to keep colleagues updated on the position. 3. By Councillor Stephen Hammond to the Leader of the Council “The strike action by Unison members of Council staff disrupted the delivery of services to residents of Merton. Local residents need to be assured that future strikes will be less disruptive and that the Administration has put in place plans to ensure rubbish is collected and does not threaten public health. Could the Leader of the Council state whether or not the administration supports their staff in this action? Could he confirm how much the Government's revised offer made 25th July will cost the council over and above the £2m budgeted and how the Council intends to fund this difference? The Unison claim is for an increase in the flat rate increase in the London Weighting plus a 6% increase in pay could the Leader of the Council confirm that this would result in an increase of over £100 in Band D Council Tax?”
192
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 Reply “There is little doubt that the pay of public sector workers in London is inadequate. A particular cause of concern is the high cost of housing. It is not perhaps something that is a cause of concern for Cllr Hammond or the Parliamentary Conservative Party that he is obviously aspiring to join. The situation was made considerably worse by the loss of social housing through the policies of the unlamented Thatcher and Major governments. Conservative Councils in particular did everything they could to push housing into the private sector: homes that are often now in the hands of private sector landlords charging market rents This has created a situation where home ownership and in many cases home occupation is beyond the pockets of public sector workers. So we understand why Council workers are aggrieved. As a Council responsible for delivering services to residents, we cannot support the strikes. The claims that have been put forward are unrealistic. The cost of the Unison claim for Merton including both London Weighting and a 6% pay increase could add around £100 to the Council Tax. The Council has provided for the 3% pay offer made by the Employers in full. Once the hourly rate has been increased by this percentage very few staff remain who earn less than £5.00 per hour. The cost of funding the improved offer of a minimum hourly rate of £5.00 per hour will cost the Council approximately £10,000 per annum. I regret that, as for other Councils, the strikes in May and on the 17th July did cause disruption for residents, with refuse and waste paper collections being made one day late. The two strikes in June did not cause major disruption: collections were already behind due to the double bank holiday and staff agreed that responding to the call for strike action would make catching up impossible. In the case of the July strike many Councils opted to leave the affected day’s refuse uncollected until the following week. I am pleased to report that this was not the case in Merton. We intend to ensure in the event of any further strikes, all collections are caught up as quickly as possible, as has been the case up to now.” Supplementary question “I’d like to thank the Leader for his reply and answering parts of my question and indeed commenting on a possible future career for me which I will take as his view on the longevity of two Labour MP’s in this Borough. However, what he does actually point out is the contradictions in his answer. He initially says he understands why Council workers are aggrieved. He then goes on to say we cannot support the strike and the cases that have been put forward are unrealistic. I wonder for the sake of clarity for his employees who are maybe in this room and outside, he’d like to suggest what he regards as realistic particularly in light of the stance by the ALG starting to move the claim as off last Thursday?” Reply “I think all I can possibly say is that we are capable of meeting the offer that has been made by the employers. We do understand very much the situation of officers of this Council, staff of this Council and many other Council’s who as public servants are on very low rates of pay compared to those in the private sector. When it comes to London there’s very clearly an issue around the cost of housing a cost that has clearly been increased down the years through Conservative policy that takes a while to change back to normality. But they will be changed and in due course I hope they
193
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 will be a greater amount of affordable housing across London which will make it easier to recruit and retain hard working public servants. We cannot accept as a Council, which has a duty to the Borough’s residents, this proposal to take strike action.” 4. By Tariq Ahmad of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Support “Council Officers must at all times be seen to be impartial and apolitical in the dispensation of their duties. Objective assessment in their roles without political interference is crucial in protecting their impartiality. In this light the Conservative Opposition is deeply concerned by the increasing use of council officers in dealings with the press, often to deflect attention away from the lead members of the ruling Labour administration in Merton. This has become more apparent over recent months in politically sensitive areas, the issue of the zero star rating for Merton's Social Services being the most recent example. We feel this undermines the public perception of impartiality of Council officers and places them in the difficult position of having to fend off political questions. Will the Council therefore: Desist from using officers in this manner with immediate effect? Take the necessary steps in establishing a media protocol for Council Officers? Support the recommendation that the application of such a procedure be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission?” Reply “Thank you for raising the issue of staff communication with the press. There has been a code of communicating with the media in place for the past five years and which clearly states that officers should not speak to press directly without the express permission of a press officer. All staff are made aware of the code during their induction and is adhered to at all times. The quotes you are referring to in the local press derive from press statements and releases written by press officers on behalf of other officers. The officers do not speak to the reporters direct. Officers are quoted regarding service delivery. In the past “a Council spokesperson said” was used, but this creates the impression that the Council is a faceless organization, when the reality is council officers are working hard to deliver high quality services in Merton. Matters of a political nature referring to policy are quoted by the appropriate Cabinet Member or Councillor. As you are probably aware, the majority group has nominated one of its new councillors as the party’s communication officer. This councillor speaks to the press concerning political issues. For instance the communications officer recently contacted the press regarding the defection of Councillor Horation Cheng. However, the Social Services star rating focuses on service delivery, therefore it was appropriate for the director of this service to be quoted on this occasion.” Supplementary question “The question of media spokespeople or persons is one which can be politically driven and the question stems from a concern that there have been several
194
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 examples in the past. Social Services was but one and the Unison strikes is another recent example whereby Council officials were actually used, I accept totally through the means of a press release in answering questions. But the protection that is given to the public at large when you quote a particular individual as a press spokesperson it is inevitable that there is a press inquiry resulting from that press release or press statement that will be fielded back to the particular person concerned. So the reason for suggesting a media protocol of some kind was to appreciate the fact that political matters should not be dealt with with officers of the Council and want to protect the integrity of Council officers. Therefore, I once again call upon the Cabinet member concerned to consider quite carefully that it is a viable option we’re quite willing to work together with the ruling Labour Group for putting forward a practical, workable and sensible media protocol which will protect the integrity of all Council officers.“ Reply “There is a protocol for press release to the media. We have great faith in the reliability of our officers to answer questions straightforwardly without putting a political slant on it. I do not and nor do my colleagues, tell the officers what to say to the press. My memory does go back to the days when teachers in this borough were not allowed to speak to the press or anybody else on pain of the sack by the then administration which was headed by a certain Theresa May. Those sort of things do not happen and have not happened on this side of the chamber and they will not happen in the future.” 5. By Councillor Richard Harwood of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration “How many (a) tennis courts and (b) other outdoors recreation facilities owned or operated by the Council are unusable or in a sub-standard condition?” Reply “I assume that Councillor Harwood's question relates to hard surfaced outdoor sports facilities in parks. As many Members will know, there has been severe pressure upon the Council's capital programme for many years and, as a consequence, very limited funds have been allocated to the specialist repair of these surfaces. These include tennis courts, multi-sport areas and kick-about areas. It would perhaps produce a blizzard of figures if I were to deal with these separately. Taking them all together, however, and there are 71 individual courts, 20% are judged to be in good condition, 45% in fair condition, 18% in poor condition and 17% have had to be taken out of use. The estimated backlog of repairs is £946,000 to bring all sites up to a good condition. Unfortunately, this is still beyond the scope of the capital programme. I am, though, very pleased to tell Members that it has been possible to allocate £100,000 from the current year's capital programme for priority repairs and it is hoped shortly that funding will be agreed formally with an external partner for the resurfacing of a number of courts to a total value of £250,000. I am happy to give Members more details on this when these partnership arrangements have been finally agreed and an announcement made by the partners.” Supplementary question “Isn’t it astonishing that in a borough that hosts the greatest tennis tournament in the world, 12 out of the 71 courts and other sports areas in the Borough are out of action,
195
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 13 are in a poor condition and there are health and safety issues arising from the state of those facilities. Isn’t it time the Council focused its capital resources on maintaining the infrastructure it has rather than getting distracted by glamour projects?” Reply “I’m not quite sure what you mean by glamour projects. We obviously prioritise our capital programme and at the moment the priority has been for the schools reorganisation. As I said in my original answer that we have allocated some money from the capital programme for maintaining the courts. We have been negotiating with outside partners to actually lever in external funding as well to do some refurbishment and I have mentioned that in my reply as well and I hope to be able to announce that very shortly in the public domain. We do do a lot of negotiations with partners and try and lever in a lot of external resources into these sort of services. As Councillor Harwood will be aware we have just had an inspection by the Audit Commission on sports and leisure and they will be giving us their initial findings later on this week. Once this is in the public domain I am sure we will be able to look long and hard at our facilities and see what our priorities are.” 6. By Councillor Deborah Shears of the Cabinet Member for Education and Lifelong Learning “Virtually all High schools have closed early this summer, due to the building works being undertaken for schools reorganisation. What steps has the Council taken to provide education for those pupils missing out on their schooling, who will not receive their full entitlement to education as a result?” Reply “The Summer Plus leisure activity programme has been extended and commenced on 15 July for Secondary school students. Merton's Secondary schools have arranged a range of events over the summer holiday period, for example, Bishopsford ran English, Mathematics and Gifted and Talented Summer Schools all last week. There is a planned follow-up to the Gifted and Talented Summer School during the Autumn Term. The Summer School at Tamworth Manor which commenced last week and continues until 8 August includes a range of activities, for example, Dance, Easy English, Sports Achievers, 'Adrenaline Buzz Plus', 'Brainpower', Easy Language (French), Success builders and a three day residential course.” Supplementary question “Is the Cabinet member not concerned that the aim of schools reorganisation was to improve standards. How, by shortening the academic year for students sitting their GCSE's next summer, how will this increase their standards of achievement? Although I am pleased by the extra courses promoted by the council, the majority of these do not cover all curricular subjects offered to students of High Schools.” Reply “The schools reorganisation is, of course, to raise standards and it will. But, as has been said before, this is a huge project, it can’t be undertaken in a few weeks or a few months or even a few years. This is the long-term solution to a problem that was
196
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 caused, might I say, by the Tory Council many years ago and who would never turn round and address the problems of the three tier system and the problems it was causing. It took a Labour administration to address those problems and we are addressing them now. The time that students are going to lose is a miniscule time in comparison with their whole school career and their whole school career and future. So I think you are being a little bit nitpicking about the amount of time that students are going to miss out when you look at the big picture and look at the improvements overall that are going to come about at the end of this project.” 7. By Councillor Deborah Shears of the Cabinet Member for Education and Lifelong Learning "The Education Scrutiny Panel was told recently of the greatly exaggerated costs of forthcoming staff redundancies under the schools reorganisation scheme. The Council has set a budget of £400,000 to meet these costs, but recent officer explanations suggest costs could be almost as high as £1million. How much will these redundancies cost the Council? And how are these costs going to be met?” Reply “The cost of redundancy is a revenue cost. However it is possible to capitalise redundancy lump sum payments subject to approval of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which is normally given, subject to an overall limit. There is a provision within the Capital Programme to meet up to £400,000 of lump sum payments. It is standard personnel practice to issue redundancy notices to displaced teachers, however it is anticipated that many of the teachers displaced will be redeployed into other teaching posts within Merton schools and the final number of redundancies will be a lot lower than 100. It is not possible to identify the final cost at this stage as we are currently arranging redeployments and it is therefore a moving target, however we will have a better idea in the next 2-3 months and I will be able to let you know by the end August/early September.” 8. By Councillor Samantha George of the Cabinet Member for Education and Lifelong Learning “Can the Cabinet member please advise the number of schools currently allowed to run budget deficits in the year 2002/03, by sector; and also advise on the total number of schools expected to be running budget deficits during the year 2002/03, and the range of deficits expected, again by sector? Can the Cabinet member also explain to the Council why, one third of the way through the school year, this information has not previously been available?” Reply “As at 31st March 2002, 3 schools were showing a deficit budget: First 1 Middle 0 High 2 or
197
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 PRIMARY 1 Secondary 2 One of the secondary schools will clear this balance this financial year One additional primary/middle school will require a deficit budget for the financial year 2002/2003. As part of the Local Management of Schools Team Service Level Agreement each school receives a personal visit from a member of the team to confirm that closing procedures have been followed correctly, the accounts are closed and forwarded to the LEA for consolidation in the LEA's accounts. This process is normally finalised in the first week of July. Financial services have been aware of the 2002/3 financial position of the majority of schools since early to mid may but has had to wait for outturn information to confirm the budget position for a few schools - only then can the financial position of all schools be commented on.” 9. By Councillor Samantha George of the Cabinet Member for Education and Lifelong Learning "At the Cabinet meeting on 17 June 2002, Cabinet member Councillor Mark Allinson was heard to ask why pupils who are temporarily excluded from Merton's schools could not just be permanently excluded instead. Does his comment reflect Labour Council policy on social inclusion?” Reply “In answer to the Elected Members' question, concerning whether a pupil who is temporarily excluded could not be permanently excluded, reflects the current legislation concerning exclusion from school and not Labour Council policy on social inclusion. A child can be either fixed period (that is temporarily) excluded or permanently excluded from school depending on the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the child. This has always been law regardless of central political administration. The decision to exclude a child from school either permanently or for a fixed period of time is taken by the head of the school. That decision is then reviewed by the Governing Body Discipline Committee.” 10. By Councillor Samantha George of the Leader of the Council “Mr. Casale's recent comments to the press on the over-subscription in some Wimbledon schools accuses you of going against Labour Government policy. Would the Leader like to tell the Council whether he or Mr. Casale reflects local Labour party policy here? What comfort can the Leader offer those children who have not been able to get into the school of their choice, and whose parents are taking their child out of Merton schools or into private education as a result?” Reply “This Council does follow Government policy. The reported comments of Mr Casale MP on the Education Bill have no relevance to the current issue. The Bill’s proposals have yet to be subject to consultation by the DfES. We are disappointed that Roger Casale MP who worked closely with the LEA last year and didn’t support those who wanted a bulge year for 2001/2002 at Pelham
198
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 appears to be taking a different stance this year. Through Schools Reorganisation we will raise education standards across the Borough. Inevitably, we are in a different position to the rest of the country. With the change from 3 to 2 schooling, we are undergoing a 3-year transition period in primary school admissions. During this critical period, most schools, parents and public representatives take a realistic view of what is achievable. We are committed and required by law to implement our Schools Reorganisation Plan. I am asked what comfort I can give parents who cannot get their children in the school of their choice. The answer is that there are good schools within easy reach with places available. Across the Borough, there are adequate spaces for those requiring a school place for reception class for the school year beginning in September 2002. Within the area of Hollymount and Pelham Schools there are 75 spaces in reception classes, all within a 2-mile radius of the home address. This complies with Government guidance. Eventually, it is our aim to offer places within a mile of the home address. Merton has many top primary schools and parents should take the opportunity to visit them. It is worth examining some of the alternative proposals that are being put forward. Take Hollymount Primary School which is certainly over-subscribed. It has higher pupil numbers in the younger year groups. Many parents choose to remove their children and place them in private education at the end of Key Stage One. Many places are also taken by siblings having priority over many living closer to the school. (12 of 30 for 2002/03) This problem would be exacerbated by suggestion of having a ‘bulge’ year. The other two main suggestions are: Retain Hollymount as a two-form-entry Infant school which children would leave at the end of Key Stage 1. This would defeat the central objective of re-organisation, which is to reduce the school moves children make. Retain a two-form-entry until the end of Key Stage 1 and then reduce to one-form- entry for Key Stage 2. Quite rightly, this would not be permitted by the DFES. You cannot have a standard number for one half of the school and a different standard for the other half. This, I understand to Be Cllr George’s preferred solution which says a lot about Conservative thinking. We cannot and will not implement unworkable and unsustainable solutions. 11. By Councillor Samantha George of the Leader of the Council “Councillors have previously been told that the Council's flagship PFI project is due for signature with the NewSchools PFI Consortium on 31 July or 1st August - i.e. today or tomorrow. The project is currently running seven months late. Will this deadline be met? If not, why not? and when will it be signed?” Reply “We have now concluded some difficult negotiations with NewSchools on a range of issues. The Chief Executive and other senior officers met with NewSchools on Tuesday, 23 July to discuss time scales to close the deal. Clearly now a 31 July / 1 August close is impossible due to both the negotiations, and the fact that we are
199
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 awaiting central government approval to the business case. NewSchools’ stated position at Tuesday's meeting was that they would not be able to achieve financial close until mid-September at the earliest and more likely the end of September. This was very disappointing in view of their previous commitment to timescales for close. Officers made it quite clear that this time we must have an immovable date, not least because of our credibility and the knock on effect of the need to reschedule plans and timetables when dates keep moving further away. NewSchools were left in no doubt of our disappointment with the news they gave us on Tuesday, 23 July. Subsequently, they have agreed to work to financial close by mid-September, subject to the drafting of contract documents. Members can rest assured that officers will continue to apply pressure for the achievement of financial close. Should matters not progress as now expected, I will be seeking a meeting with senior representatives of NewSchools. Members should be reassured that the position with the PFI scheme will have no consequences for the admission of pupils to our schools in September 2002. Financial close is also dependent on central government approval, and the latest verbal position from the DfES is that this will not be forthcoming until the end of September, or mid-September if possible. Officers are pursuing this with DfES officials.” 12. By Councillor Maurice Groves of the Leader of the Council “Would the leader of the Council like to comment on the adverse comments Mitcham Residents passed at the recent Forum meeting on the availability of the Guardian News Paper as a method of communicating council policy and Cabinet members views?” Reply “The Council is aware of the decline in the distribution of the Guardian deliberately reduced by Newsquest as an economy measure. The Council has complained and distribution has been reinstated in some areas. However the Council is still concerned regarding distribution and officers are currently researching alternative ways of communicating Council information to the Merton community. Suggestions of how to move forward will form part of the Council's communication strategy to launch in September.” 13. By Councillor Judy Saunders of the Cabinet Member for Care Services “Can the Cabinet Member for Care Services inform me: a. How figures on adoption are reported to members of the council? b. How many adoptions orders were completed through the courts in 2001/2? c. How many children have been identified as suitable for adoption and for whom court proceedings are underway? d. How long does it take after placement before adoption is completed?” Reply
200
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 “ (a) A report is put before Children and Young People Advisory Committee every month which includes the numbers of children placed for adoption. In addition, the Social Services Inspectorate produces annual performance indicator information on all Social Services Departments in the country. The 2000/01 information was published in October/November 2001 and a members briefing was prepared and distributed to all elected members in January 2002, which highlighted strongest and weakest Merton indicators, and the work Merton was planning to undertake or had already undertaken to address the weaker areas. This report showed that Merton's poorest indicator for 2000/01 was of numbers of children adopted. (b) During 2001/02 there were 6 adoptions completed. (c) Currently (part way through 2002/03), there are 18 children identified as suitable for adoption for whom court proceedings are underway or about to begin. 4 adoptions have been successfully completed this year to date. (d) The length of time to complete an adoption is variable, and can take anywhere between four to five months for the quickest (where a child is placed and settles immediately, court time is immediately available and there are no disputes about the placement) through to three years where there are issues or disputes or where the court requires further work to be undertaken.”
290 MOTIONS (Agenda Item 7) The following motion was moved by Councillor Richard Harwood and seconded by Councillor Andrew Shellhorn: “The Council notes the continued under-resourcing of youth services and the failure of the Youth Committee to meet since January. It urges the Cabinet member for Regeneration to bring forward proposals for the effective delivery of services to young people.” Following debate the Mayor put the motion to the meeting and a roll call was requested with the following result: Voting for the motion 23: Councillors Tariq Ahmad, Jillian Ashton, Matt Bird, John Bowcott, Margaret Brierly, Fiona Bryce, Horst Bullinger, Angela Caldara, Corinna Edge, Samantha George, Maurice Groves, Stephen Hammond, Richard Harwood, Dot Kilsby, Christopher McLaughlin, Oonagh Moulton, Leslie Mutch, John Nelson-Jones, Deborah Shears, Andrew Shellhorn, David Simpson, Terence Sullivan and David Williams. Voting against the motion 27: Councillors Pauline Abrams, Mark Allison, Su Assinen, Stephen Austin, Horatio Cheng, David Chung, John Cole, Andrew Coles, Danny Connellan, John Dehaney, Nick Draper, Mary Dunn, Tony Giles, Philip Jones, Andrew Judge, Linda Kirby, Sheila Knight, Maxi Martin, Dennis Pearce, Amanda Ramsay, George Reynolds, Judy Saunders, Mickey Spacey, Geraldine Stanford, Mike Tilcock, Leighton Veale, and Martin Whelton. Not voting 1: The Mayor The Mayor declared the motion to be lost.
201
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002
291 MERTON’S FIRST COMMUNITY PLAN – ADOPTION OF THE TARGETS BY THE COUNCIL (Agenda Item 8) It was moved by Councillor Andrew Judge, seconded by Councillor Danny Connellan and RESOLVED: That the Community Pan and the targets that it sets be approved.
292 BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE PLAN 2002 (Agenda Item 9) It was moved by Councillor Andrew Judge, seconded by Councillor Danny Connellan and RESOLVED: That the Council endorse the Best Value Performance Plan 2002 which was published and distributed across Merton by the new statutory publication deadline of 30 June 2002.
293 HOUSING STRATEGY 2002/2005 UPDATE (Agenda Item 10) It was moved by Councillor Stephen Austin, seconded by Councillor Andrew Judge and RESOLVED: That the Housing Strategy update be approved and that the Head of Housing be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, to complete the final documents for submission to the Government Office for London.
294 FOOD ENFORCEMENT PLAN (Agenda Item 11) It was moved by Councillor Linda Kirby, seconded by Councillor Andrew Judge and RESOLVED: That the Food Enforcement Plan be approved and submitted to the Food Standards Agency.
295 SCRUTINY IN MERTON – ANNUAL REPORT 2001/02 (Agenda Item 12) During his introduction of the report Councillor Munn paid tribute to Councillor Joe Abrams for the work he has done during his time as Chair of the Scrutiny Commission. It was moved by Councillor Ian Munn, seconded by Councillor David Williams and RESOLVED: That the Council receives the Overview and Scrutiny Commission’s annual report ‘Scrutiny in Merton 2001/02’ and considers the implications of this report when reviewing its constitutional arrangements.
296 ADOPTING THE RACE EQUALITY SCHEME 2002-2005 AND THE EQUALITY STANDARD FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Agenda Item 13) It was moved by Councillor Andrew Judge, seconded by Councillor Pauline Abrams and RESOLVED: That (1), the Race Equality Scheme for 2002-2005 be adopted
202
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 and that annual monitoring reports be received to measure progress so that improvements can be made to both the Scheme and its delivery. (2) the Equality Standard for Local Government be adopted and agreement be given to the conducting of an equalities audit using the Standard, and that an equalities audit is repeated every two years until the Council is placed in the top quartile of local authorities for this performance indicator; and (3) portfolio-holders monitor progress of those aspects of the Race Equality Scheme and the Equality Standard that relate to their portfolios.
297 CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2002-2005 (Agenda Item 14) It was moved by Councillor Danny Connellan, seconded by Councillor Andrew Judge and RESOLVED: That the submitted report on the Capital Programme 2002-2005 be agreed. The Mayor announced that agenda items 15 and 16 would be taken together.
298 HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER – BACKGROUND TO BALLOTS OF TENANTS AND LEASEHOLDERS ON PROPOSALS TO TRANSFER COUNCIL HOUSING IN MERTON TO A NEW LANDLORD (Agenda Item 15) Report received.
299 HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER – RESULT OF BALLOTS (Agenda Item 16) It was moved by Councillor Stephen Austin, seconded by Councillor Andrew Judge and RESOLVED: That (1), it be noted that a majority of those who voted as tenants and leaseholders (in separate and independent ballots) have rejected proposals to transfer the Council housing stock to a new landlord; and (2) the Director of Housing and Social Services be required in 2002/2003 to set out a fresh business and service plan for the Council housing stock seeking to maximise improvements to the service and the housing stock within the current investment framework.
300 CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEES AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS (Agenda Item 17) Following a request from Councillor Stanford recommendation 3 to the submitted report was withdrawn. It was moved by Councillor Andrew Judge, seconded by Councillor Danny Connellan and RESOLVED: That (1), on a vote of 27 for, 21 against and 1 not voting, the Merton Park Residents Independent Group be allocated a place on the Planning Applications and Licensing Committee instead of a place on the Standards Committee and that, in this regard, Councillor Peter Southgate be appointed as a members of the Planning Applications and Licensing
203
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 31 JULY 2002 Committee; (2) in the context of resolution (1) above, the Standards Committee retain its current size of 6 members, with the Conservative Group being allocated an additional seat, and Councillor David Williams be appointed as a member of the Standards Committee; (3) in accordance with the nominations made by the Conservative Group, the following members be appointed to the bodies shown below in place of Councillor Horatio Cheng: Planning Applications and Licensing Committee – Councillor Leslie Mutch (Councillor Richard Harwood to be appointed as substitute member for the Conservative Group) Housing Consultative Forum – Councillor Fiona Bryce Best Value Panel 3 – Councillor Horst Bullinger (4) Councillor Peter Southgate be appointed as a member of one of the Best Value Panels, the particular Panel to be determined by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission; and (5) Councillor Tariq Ahmad be appointed to the Merton Community and Police Consultative Group; and Councillor Pauline Abrams be appointed to the Arts Consultative Forum.
301 REVIEW OF CONSTITUTION – EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING ARRANGEMENTS (Agenda Item 18) RESOLVED: That an Extraordinary Council Meeting be held on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 at 7.15pm to consider a review of the Merton Constitution and the agenda for the meeting be as detailed in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 to the submitted report.
302 SOCIAL SERVICES ANNUAL REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE AND STAR RATING (Agenda Item 19) It was moved by Councillor Ian Munn, seconded by Councillor Maxi Martin and RESOLVED: That the report be received.
303 TO DEBATE THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO RISING CRIME IN MERTON AND, IN PARTICULAR, RACIALLY MOTIVATED ROBBERIES AND DRUGS RELATED INCIDENTS’ – A TOPIC SELECTED BY THE CONSERVATIVE GROUP (Agenda Item 20) Pursuant to Paragraph 2.3 (l) of Part 4-A of the Council's Constitution, the Council entered into a discussion on the topic of 'The Council’s response to rising crime in Merton and, in particular, racially motivated robberies and drugs related incidents’. A number of Councillors contributed to the discussion and a range of views were expressed. ______
204