Agenda item

MOTION F (2005/06):

 

Councillor Hoban has given notice that he will move in the following terms:

“This Council notes:

·                    Haringey residents' public health concerns about mobile phone masts, with particular concern about the siting of masts near to schools, hospitals and residential properties.

·                    Legislation is weighted in favour of mobile phone companies and Haringey Council currently has little power to act on our residents' concerns

·                    Masts below 15m are exempt from planning permission

This Council believes:

·                    More national research is required into the potential health risks of mobile phone masts

·                    The 'precautionary principle' should apply and Councils like Haringey should be able to reject mast applications on health grounds

·                    Mobile phone companies should be required to make a full planning application for masts of any size and should always be required to provide a statement of the intensity and direction of the signal

This Council resolves:

·                    To write to Haringey's two Members of Parliament requesting they lobby Ministers for a moratorium on mast sites near to schools, hospitals and residential properties

·                    To ask our Members of Parliament to support any Bills in Parliament which would mean safer siting of phone masts, including giving Councils clear authority to reject mast applications on local public health grounds

·                    To write to all other London Boroughs to ask for their support in using the 'precautionary principle'”

 

MOTION G (2005/06):

 

Councillor Meehan has given notice that he will move in the following terms:

 

“This Council welcomes the government’s determination to further improve the quality of education for children in England, set out in the Government’s recently-published Education White Paper.

 

Like the Government, this Council believes in education as one of the most important means through which we lessen and eradicate the injustices which still disfigure our society, and with which we create a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few.

 

This Council takes immense pride in the ever-improving educational attainment of the Borough’s children, supported by their teachers, parents, headteachers, and governors.

 

This Council welcomes several aspects of the Education White Paper, in particular

 

·         the extension of school/parent contracts;

·         tough new nutritional standards for school food ;

·         the abolition of the Schools Organization Committee;

·         the power to act as a champion for the interests of children and parents in schools across the borough;

·         the introduction of new measures to assist in maintaining school discipline and to manage exclusions;

·         more funding for bilingual learners and other minority groups subject to underachievement;

·         better provision for Looked After Children.

 

However, this Council is also concerned about a number of the proposals in the White Paper.

 

In particular, this Council is concerned by:

 

·         the market-based model of provision that runs through the White Paper, and the rigid split between purchaser and provider, which characterized so many of the last Tory government’s unsuccessful reforms of public services, in particular the GP fundholder and railway privatization schemes;

·         the difficulties of delivering a fair admissions policy across the Borough if schools need only consider, not abide by, local admissions’ policy, and the difficulty of planning effectively, over any period of time, the provision of school places across the borough when “successful”  schools are encouraged to expand and new providers  are being encouraged to enter the market;

·         the implications for our agenda of tackling, lessening, and eradicating inequality when inner city schools with little or no valuable disposable land, like most schools in Haringey, will suffer financially relative to suburban schools, which are more likely to have surplus land and thus the potential to make capital gains for themselves out of assets originally accrued by public funding;

·         the implications for the pay and conditions for school staff and for their unions if individual schools have greater freedom to set pay terms and conditions;

·         the particular difficulties likely to be encountered in ethnically diverse inner city areas, like Haringey, without a strong tradition of civic involvement in education, in finding sufficient and sufficiently experienced governors to make an effective reality of parent-led governance, particularly given the number of parents for whom English is not a first language;

·         the fact that special schools are not yet included in these provisions.

 

This Council is aware that many of these concerns are shared by other local authorities across London and across England, aware also that a White Paper is an intention to legislate and not legislation itself, and further aware that there is accordingly an opportunity for us to work with others towards fruitful discussion and consultation with a government that shares our values and our commitments to educational excellence and to equality.

 

This Council therefore instructs the Executive Member for Children & Young People to prepare a full response to the White Paper, reflecting our concerns, to be agreed by the Executive”.

 

MOTION H (2005/06):

 

Councillor Hillman has given notice that he will move in the following terms:

 

“This Council recognizes the importance of recycling as part of its commitment to green and sustainable future for the borough and its people.

 

This Council congratulates the officers responsible for the success of our recycling projects and emphasizes its achievement so far and its continuing vision, as a Labour council committed to improving and sustaining our environment, of increasing the scope, volume, availability, quality and level of participation in recycling schemes in the borough.

 

Not only are the volumes recycled increasing, but the number of households participating is rising month by month as availability of the schemes is increased. Over half of all households in Haringey are now participating regularly in the borough’s recycling scheme, up sharply from figures of approximately 30% for the previous year.

 

The weekly frequency of recycling collections in Haringey is especially marked, by contrast with many other London Boroughs where recycling collections are often only fortnightly or alternate with refuse collections.  The scope of our scheme is also impressive, with not just paper and metals but glass, plastics, cloth, green waste and now kitchen waste collected.  Approximately one third of households have kerbside plastics recycling, and the current expansion of the recycling service to cover the composting of green waste and uncooked kitchen waste substantially increases the proportion of people’s waste that the borough can recycle.  The composting initiative now reaches some 50,000 households, more than half the households in the borough.

 

These figures are of course important and significant, but it is especially praiseworthy that they have been achieved alongside improving the quality of our service to residents, with the proportion of residents rating the recycling service as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ soaring to 58% in the most recent survey”.

 

 

 

 

It was moved by Councillor Hoban and seconded by Councillor Williams that:

 

“This Council notes:

·      Haringey residents' public health concerns about mobile phone masts, with particular concern about the siting of masts near to schools, hospitals and residential properties.

·      Legislation is weighted in favour of mobile phone companies and Haringey Council currently has little power to act on our residents' concerns

·           Masts below 15m are exempt from planning permission

This Council believes:

·           More national research is required into the potential health risks of mobile phone masts

·           The 'precautionary principle' should apply and Councils like Haringey should be able to reject mast applications on health grounds

·           Mobile phone companies should be required to make a full planning application for masts of any size and should always be required to provide a statement of the intensity and direction of the signal

This Council resolves:

·           To write to Haringey's two Members of Parliament requesting they lobby Ministers for a moratorium on mast sites near to schools, hospitals and residential properties

·           To ask our Members of Parliament to support any Bills in Parliament which would mean safer siting of phone masts, including giving Councils clear authority to reject mast applications on local public health grounds

·           To write to all other London Boroughs to ask for their support in using the 'precautionary principle'”

An amendment to the motion was MOVED by Councillor Bull, and seconded by Councillor Lister proposing :

 

To delete all after the third bullet point “Masts below 15m are exempt from planning permission” and insert the following:

·       “The Council has established a Scrutiny Review on Mobile Phone masts to identify residents’ concerns and produce recommendations designed to address them at the earliest possible opportunity and looks forward to its full report.

This Council believes:

·           More national research is required into the potential health risks of mobile phone masts.

·           Councils like Haringey should be able to take health concerns into account when considering grounds for rejecting mobile phone mast applications.

·           Mobile phone companies should be required to make a full planning application for masts of any size and should always be required to provide a statement of the intensity and direction of the signal.

This Council resolves:

·           To write to Haringey's two Members of Parliament requesting they lobby Ministers for a moratorium on mast sites near to schools, hospitals and residential properties

·           To ask our Members of Parliament to support any Bills in Parliament which would mean safer siting of phone masts, including giving Councils clear authority to reject mast applications on local public health grounds

·           To write to all other London boroughs to ask for their support in pushing for health concerns to be relevant”.

 

The Amendment was then put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.

 

The substantive Motion was then put to the meeting and unanimously declared CARRIED.

 

69.             MOTION G (2005/06):

 

It was moved by Councillor Meehan and seconded by Councillor Jean Brown that:

 

“This Council welcomes the government’s determination to further improve the quality of education for children in England, set out in the Government’s recently-published Education White Paper.

 

Like the Government, this Council believes in education as one of the most important means through which we lessen and eradicate the injustices which still disfigure our society, and with which we create a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few.

 

This Council takes immense pride in the ever-improving educational attainment of the Borough’s children, supported by their teachers, parents, headteachers, and governors.

 

This Council welcomes several aspects of the Education White Paper, in particular:

 

·         the extension of school/parent contracts;

·         tough new nutritional standards for school food ;

·         the abolition of the Schools Organization Committee;

·         the power to act as a champion for the interests of children and parents in schools across the borough;

·         the introduction of new measures to assist in maintaining school discipline and to manage exclusions;

·         more funding for bilingual learners and other minority groups subject to underachievement;

·         better provision for Looked After Children.

 

However, this Council is also concerned about a number of the proposals in the White Paper.

 

In particular, this Council is concerned by:

 

·         the market-based model of provision that runs through the White Paper, and the rigid split between purchaser and provider, which characterized so many of the last Tory government’s unsuccessful reforms of public services, in particular the GP fundholder and railway privatization schemes;

·         the difficulties of delivering a fair admissions policy across the Borough if schools need only consider, not abide by, local admissions’ policy, and the difficulty of planning effectively, over any period of time, the provision of school places across the borough when “successful”  schools are encouraged to expand and new providers  are being encouraged to enter the market;

·         the implications for our agenda of tackling, lessening, and eradicating inequality when inner city schools with little or no valuable disposable land, like most schools in Haringey, will suffer financially relative to suburban schools, which are more likely to have surplus land and thus the potential to make capital gains for themselves out of assets originally accrued by public funding;

·         the implications for the pay and conditions for school staff and for their unions if individual schools have greater freedom to set pay terms and conditions;

·         the particular difficulties likely to be encountered in ethnically diverse inner city areas, like Haringey, without a strong tradition of civic involvement in education, in finding sufficient and sufficiently experienced governors to make an effective reality of parent-led governance, particularly given the number of parents for whom English is not a first language;

·         the fact that special schools are not yet included in these provisions.

 

This Council is aware that many of these concerns are shared by other local authorities across London and across England, aware also that a White Paper is an intention to legislate and not legislation itself, and further aware that there is accordingly an opportunity for us to work with others towards fruitful discussion and consultation with a government that shares our values and our commitments to educational excellence and to equality.

 

This Council therefore instructs the Executive Member for Children & Young People to prepare a full response to the White Paper, reflecting our concerns, to be agreed by the Executive”.

 

An amendment to the motion was MOVED by Councillor Engert, and seconded by Councillor Aitken proposing :

 

Delete all after "This Council” and replace with:

 

"recognises the disappointment of key stakeholders over the government's recent white paper on education.

This Council believes in education as one of the most important means through which we lessen and eradicate the injustices which still disfigure our society, and with which we create a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few. This Council believes this White Paper would do little to contribute to these objectives.

The Council accepts the need for the government to address the failings within the education system. However the Council is concerned that this white paper shows little understanding of the issues that concern teachers, parents and local authorities and creates many more problems than it solves.

In particular, this Council is concerned by:

·        the market-based model of provision that runs through the White Paper, and the rigid split between purchaser and provider, which characterized so many of the last Tory government's unsuccessful reforms of public services, in particular the GP fundholder and railway privatization schemes;

·        the difficulties of delivering a fair admissions policy across the Borough if schools need only consider, not abide by, local admissions’ policy, and the difficulty of planning effectively, over any period of time, the provision of school places across the borough when "successful" schools are encouraged to expand and new providers are being encouraged to enter the market;

·        that giving autonomy to schools over their assets could lead to the disposal for commercial development of land originally accrued by public funding for use as playing fields, leading to the irrevocable loss of such important facilities. This would also have implications for our agenda in Haringey of tackling, lessening, and eradicating inequality as most of our inner city schools have little or no valuable disposable land, so are put at a funding disadvantage;

·        the implications for the pay and conditions for school staff and for their unions if individual schools have greater freedom to set pay terms and conditions;

·        the particular difficulties likely to be encountered in ethnically diverse inner city areas, like Haringey, without a strong tradition of civic involvement in education, in finding sufficient and sufficiently experienced governors to make an effective reality of parent-led governance, particularly given the number of parents for whom English is not a first language;

·        the fact that special schools are not yet included in these provisions.

Therefore the Council resolves:

To instruct the Executive Member for Children & Young People to prepare a full response to the white paper in full consultation with all key stakeholders including teachers, parent groups and young people to be approved by Full Council

To call on our local MPs to lobby the government to seriously reconsider the implementation of this unpopular white paper."

 

The Amendment was then put to the meeting and declared LOST.

 

The substantive Motion was then put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.

 

70.             MOTION H (2005/06):

 

It was moved by Councillor Hillman and seconded by Councillor Haley that:

 

“This Council recognizes the importance of recycling as part of its commitment to green and sustainable future for the borough and its people.

 

This Council congratulates the officers responsible for the success of our recycling projects and emphasizes its achievement so far and its continuing vision, as a Labour council committed to improving and sustaining our environment, of increasing the scope, volume, availability, quality and level of participation in recycling schemes in the borough.

 

Not only are the volumes recycled increasing, but the number of households participating is rising month by month as availability of the schemes is increased. Over half of all households in Haringey are now participating regularly in the borough’s recycling scheme, up sharply from figures of approximately 30% for the previous year.

 

The weekly frequency of recycling collections in Haringey is especially marked, by contrast with many other London Boroughs where recycling collections are often only fortnightly or alternate with refuse collections.  The scope of our scheme is also impressive, with not just paper and metals but glass, plastics, cloth, green waste and now kitchen waste collected.  Approximately one third of households have kerbside plastics recycling, and the current expansion of the recycling service to cover the composting of green waste and uncooked kitchen waste substantially increases the proportion of people’s waste that the borough can recycle.  The composting initiative now reaches some 50,000 households, more than half the households in the borough.

 

These figures are of course important and significant, but it is especially praiseworthy that they have been achieved alongside improving the quality of our service to residents, with the proportion of residents rating the recycling service as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ soaring to 58% in the most recent survey”.

 

A named vote was requested.

 

For: The Mayor (Councillor Griffith), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adamou), Councillors Adje, Basu, Bax, Bevan, J Brown, Bull, Canver, Davidson, Dawson, Diakides, Dobbie, Haley, Harris, Hillman, Khan,  Krokou, Lister, Manheim, Meehan, Millar, Patel, Peacock, E. Prescott, Q. Prescott, Reith, Reynolds, Rice, Robertson,.

 

Against: Nil

 

Abstentions: Councillors Aitken, Beacham, Davies, Edge, Engert, Floyd, Hare, Hoban, Newton, Oatway, Simpson and Williams.

 

The Motion was declared CARRIED.

 

 

It was moved by Councillor Hoban and seconded by Councillor Williams that:

 

“This Council notes:

·      Haringey residents' public health concerns about mobile phone masts, with particular concern about the siting of masts near to schools, hospitals and residential properties.

·      Legislation is weighted in favour of mobile phone companies and Haringey Council currently has little power to act on our residents' concerns

·           Masts below 15m are exempt from planning permission

This Council believes:

·           More national research is required into the potential health risks of mobile phone masts

·           The 'precautionary principle' should apply and Councils like Haringey should be able to reject mast applications on health grounds

·           Mobile phone companies should be required to make a full planning application for masts of any size and should always be required to provide a statement of the intensity and direction of the signal

This Council resolves:

·           To write to Haringey's two Members of Parliament requesting they lobby Ministers for a moratorium on mast sites near to schools, hospitals and residential properties

·           To ask our Members of Parliament to support any Bills in Parliament which would mean safer siting of phone masts, including giving Councils clear authority to reject mast applications on local public health grounds

·           To write to all other London Boroughs to ask for their support in using the 'precautionary principle'”

An amendment to the motion was MOVED by Councillor Bull, and seconded by Councillor Lister proposing :

 

To delete all after the third bullet point “Masts below 15m are exempt from planning permission” and insert the following:

·       “The Council has established a Scrutiny Review on Mobile Phone masts to identify residents’ concerns and produce recommendations designed to address them at the earliest possible opportunity and looks forward to its full report.

This Council believes:

·           More national research is required into the potential health risks of mobile phone masts.

·           Councils like Haringey should be able to take health concerns into account when considering grounds for rejecting mobile phone mast applications.

·           Mobile phone companies should be required to make a full planning application for masts of any size and should always be required to provide a statement of the intensity and direction of the signal.

This Council resolves:

·           To write to Haringey's two Members of Parliament requesting they lobby Ministers for a moratorium on mast sites near to schools, hospitals and residential properties

·           To ask our Members of Parliament to support any Bills in Parliament which would mean safer siting of phone masts, including giving Councils clear authority to reject mast applications on local public health grounds

·           To write to all other London boroughs to ask for their support in pushing for health concerns to be relevant”.

 

The Amendment was then put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.

 

The substantive Motion was then put to the meeting and unanimously declared CARRIED.

 

69.             MOTION G (2005/06):

 

It was moved by Councillor Meehan and seconded by Councillor Jean Brown that:

 

“This Council welcomes the government’s determination to further improve the quality of education for children in England, set out in the Government’s recently-published Education White Paper.

 

Like the Government, this Council believes in education as one of the most important means through which we lessen and eradicate the injustices which still disfigure our society, and with which we create a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few.

 

This Council takes immense pride in the ever-improving educational attainment of the Borough’s children, supported by their teachers, parents, headteachers, and governors.

 

This Council welcomes several aspects of the Education White Paper, in particular:

 

·         the extension of school/parent contracts;

·         tough new nutritional standards for school food ;

·         the abolition of the Schools Organization Committee;

·         the power to act as a champion for the interests of children and parents in schools across the borough;

·         the introduction of new measures to assist in maintaining school discipline and to manage exclusions;

·         more funding for bilingual learners and other minority groups subject to underachievement;

·         better provision for Looked After Children.

 

However, this Council is also concerned about a number of the proposals in the White Paper.

 

In particular, this Council is concerned by:

 

·         the market-based model of provision that runs through the White Paper, and the rigid split between purchaser and provider, which characterized so many of the last Tory government’s unsuccessful reforms of public services, in particular the GP fundholder and railway privatization schemes;

·         the difficulties of delivering a fair admissions policy across the Borough if schools need only consider, not abide by, local admissions’ policy, and the difficulty of planning effectively, over any period of time, the provision of school places across the borough when “successful”  schools are encouraged to expand and new providers  are being encouraged to enter the market;

·         the implications for our agenda of tackling, lessening, and eradicating inequality when inner city schools with little or no valuable disposable land, like most schools in Haringey, will suffer financially relative to suburban schools, which are more likely to have surplus land and thus the potential to make capital gains for themselves out of assets originally accrued by public funding;

·         the implications for the pay and conditions for school staff and for their unions if individual schools have greater freedom to set pay terms and conditions;

·         the particular difficulties likely to be encountered in ethnically diverse inner city areas, like Haringey, without a strong tradition of civic involvement in education, in finding sufficient and sufficiently experienced governors to make an effective reality of parent-led governance, particularly given the number of parents for whom English is not a first language;

·         the fact that special schools are not yet included in these provisions.

 

This Council is aware that many of these concerns are shared by other local authorities across London and across England, aware also that a White Paper is an intention to legislate and not legislation itself, and further aware that there is accordingly an opportunity for us to work with others towards fruitful discussion and consultation with a government that shares our values and our commitments to educational excellence and to equality.

 

This Council therefore instructs the Executive Member for Children & Young People to prepare a full response to the White Paper, reflecting our concerns, to be agreed by the Executive”.

 

An amendment to the motion was MOVED by Councillor Engert, and seconded by Councillor Aitken proposing :

 

Delete all after "This Council” and replace with:

 

"recognises the disappointment of key stakeholders over the government's recent white paper on education.

This Council believes in education as one of the most important means through which we lessen and eradicate the injustices which still disfigure our society, and with which we create a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few. This Council believes this White Paper would do little to contribute to these objectives.

The Council accepts the need for the government to address the failings within the education system. However the Council is concerned that this white paper shows little understanding of the issues that concern teachers, parents and local authorities and creates many more problems than it solves.

In particular, this Council is concerned by:

·        the market-based model of provision that runs through the White Paper, and the rigid split between purchaser and provider, which characterized so many of the last Tory government's unsuccessful reforms of public services, in particular the GP fundholder and railway privatization schemes;

·        the difficulties of delivering a fair admissions policy across the Borough if schools need only consider, not abide by, local admissions’ policy, and the difficulty of planning effectively, over any period of time, the provision of school places across the borough when "successful" schools are encouraged to expand and new providers are being encouraged to enter the market;

·        that giving autonomy to schools over their assets could lead to the disposal for commercial development of land originally accrued by public funding for use as playing fields, leading to the irrevocable loss of such important facilities. This would also have implications for our agenda in Haringey of tackling, lessening, and eradicating inequality as most of our inner city schools have little or no valuable disposable land, so are put at a funding disadvantage;

·        the implications for the pay and conditions for school staff and for their unions if individual schools have greater freedom to set pay terms and conditions;

·        the particular difficulties likely to be encountered in ethnically diverse inner city areas, like Haringey, without a strong tradition of civic involvement in education, in finding sufficient and sufficiently experienced governors to make an effective reality of parent-led governance, particularly given the number of parents for whom English is not a first language;

·        the fact that special schools are not yet included in these provisions.

Therefore the Council resolves:

To instruct the Executive Member for Children & Young People to prepare a full response to the white paper in full consultation with all key stakeholders including teachers, parent groups and young people to be approved by Full Council

To call on our local MPs to lobby the government to seriously reconsider the implementation of this unpopular white paper."

 

The Amendment was then put to the meeting and declared LOST.

 

The substantive Motion was then put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.

 

70.             MOTION H (2005/06):

 

It was moved by Councillor Hillman and seconded by Councillor Haley that:

 

“This Council recognizes the importance of recycling as part of its commitment to green and sustainable future for the borough and its people.

 

This Council congratulates the officers responsible for the success of our recycling projects and emphasizes its achievement so far and its continuing vision, as a Labour council committed to improving and sustaining our environment, of increasing the scope, volume, availability, quality and level of participation in recycling schemes in the borough.

 

Not only are the volumes recycled increasing, but the number of households participating is rising month by month as availability of the schemes is increased. Over half of all households in Haringey are now participating regularly in the borough’s recycling scheme, up sharply from figures of approximately 30% for the previous year.

 

The weekly frequency of recycling collections in Haringey is especially marked, by contrast with many other London Boroughs where recycling collections are often only fortnightly or alternate with refuse collections.  The scope of our scheme is also impressive, with not just paper and metals but glass, plastics, cloth, green waste and now kitchen waste collected.  Approximately one third of households have kerbside plastics recycling, and the current expansion of the recycling service to cover the composting of green waste and uncooked kitchen waste substantially increases the proportion of people’s waste that the borough can recycle.  The composting initiative now reaches some 50,000 households, more than half the households in the borough.

 

These figures are of course important and significant, but it is especially praiseworthy that they have been achieved alongside improving the quality of our service to residents, with the proportion of residents rating the recycling service as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ soaring to 58% in the most recent survey”.

 

A named vote was requested.

 

For: The Mayor (Councillor Griffith), the Deputy Mayor (Councillor Adamou), Councillors Adje, Basu, Bax, Bevan, J Brown, Bull, Canver, Davidson, Dawson, Diakides, Dobbie, Haley, Harris, Hillman, Khan,  Krokou, Lister, Manheim, Meehan, Millar, Patel, Peacock, E. Prescott, Q. Prescott, Reith, Reynolds, Rice, Robertson,.

 

Against: Nil

 

Abstentions: Councillors Aitken, Beacham, Davies, Edge, Engert, Floyd, Hare, Hoban, Newton, Oatway, Simpson and Williams.

 

The Motion was declared CARRIED.