Agenda and minutes

Please note: This meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the Committee Clerk

at the meeting.

The meeting was webcast on the Council’s website.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alexander, for whom Cllr Allison was acting as substitute.

Councillor Newton substituted for Councillor Aitken, who as chief signatory presented the call-in.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear).

There were no such items.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Canver declared an prejudicial interest in the call-in item, by nature of being involved in the initial decision taken.  She thus withdrew upon the commencement of discussion of the action to be taken.

i)                    Report of the Monitoring Officer

TO FOLLOW

ii)                  Report of the Director of Adult, Culture & Community Services

TO FOLLOW

iii)        Appendix (For information only):

a)      Copy of the ‘call in’

b)      Draft minutes of meeting of the Cabinet of 18 November 2008 (Subject to confirmation by the Cabinet)

c)      Haringey’s Parkforce – Open Space Supervisionreport from the Cabinet of 18 November 2008.

A decision on the above item was taken by the Cabinet on 18 November 2008. The decision has been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Constitution, by Councillors Aitken, Beynon, Oakes, Allisona and Whyte.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is requested to decide what further action it wishes to take regarding the Call In.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may deal with the Call-In in one of three ways:

i)                    The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide not to take any further action, in which case the decision is implemented immediately.

ii)                  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to refer the decision back to the decision taker, in which case the decision taker has 5 working days to reconsider the decision before taking a final decision.

iii)                The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to refer the decision to Full Council.

It is proposed that consideration of this item be structured as follows:

(i)         A brief outline by the above Members on the reasons for the Call In.

(ii)        Response by the Cabinet Member for Enforcement and Safer Communities (covering for Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Lifelong Learning)

(iii)       Debate by Members on action to be taken.

(iv)       Decision.

Note: Under Standing Order 32.6 no other business shall be considered at the meeting.

This special meeting of the committee had been called to discuss the Call-in of Cabinet decision CAB91, ‘Haringey’s Parkforce – Open Space Supervision’.

A decision on the item had been taken at Cabinet on 18^th November 2008 and had been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Council’s constitution, by Councillors Aitken, Beynon, Oakes, Allison and Whyte.

The committee noted that the Monitoring Officer had ruled the call-in valid for the following reasons:

(a)    it was submitted and signed by 5 Councillors

(b)    it was received by the Head of Democratic Services by 10.00 a.m. on the fifth working day following publication of the draft minute on 20^th November 2008 i.e. before 10 a.m. on Thursday 27^th November.

(c)    it specified the decision to be called in

(d)    it specified whether the decision was claimed to be outside the policy/budget framework

(e)    it gave reasons for the Call-In and outlined an alternative course of action

(f)      the original decision has not been subject to the urgency procedures required in paragraph 18 of the Rules.

The Committee was addressed by Councillor Aitken, the lead signatory, on the reasons for the call-in. Although the signatories agreed with the general principles of the park-force scheme, they believed that the specific proposal to abolish the Parks Constabulary should be re-examined.

They were also of the opinion that the disbanding of the Parks Force lay outside the Council’s Policy framework, believing that it would leave Haringey vulnerable to failing to meet several Best Value Performance Indicators.  They also stated that the Force was popular locally, with widespread public support for its retention.

The Chair allowed Officials from the GMB Union to speak, who expressed concerns over the safety implications of disbanding what was regarded as a successful force, together with issues over consultation and the effects of the changes on staff.

Following legal advice, Cllr Allison, substituting for Cllr Alexander, declared a prejudicial interest as signatory to the call-in and withdrew from the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Enforcement & Safer Communities then addressed the committee and responded to the points made.  She stated that she believed that the Parks Constabulary had been a success, and that their positive work could be built on under the new park-force scheme.  It was noted that the implementation of the new model was dependent upon the deletion of the Parks Constabulary in order to release the necessary resources to increase the number and hours worked of staff in parks.

It was noted that consultation had taken place with the Friends of Parks group, who were in favour of the new model, with support for the redirection of resources.

The Committee received a representation from John Williams of the Metropolitan Police, who stated his belief that the parkforce model would improve policing and allow focus on ‘hotspots’.  The model would allow for smarter, more ‘intelligence-based’ policing. The committee learned that the implementation and managed transition would take place over the 3-4 months.  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.