Two motions were submitted for debate in accordance with Council Procedure Rules as follows:
1. Motion for Debate
Proposed by Councillor Ian Parker
Seconded by Councillor Tim Pollard
"This Authority welcomes the improvement in the standard of attainment by pupils in Croydon's schools; an improvement driven by the commitment of this Council and the Government to raising standards."
Councillor Parker opened the debate saying that there was no subject more important than the education of our children; a shared responsibility for parents, politicians and teachers. Parents for ensuring that children are well behaved, well mannered, do their homework and turn up to school on time treat others as they would want to be treated themselves. Politicians also have responsibly for providing the resource for children's education and making sure that it is relevant to the child's abilities. He went on to say that it cost nothing to show respect to teachers, other pupils and the rules of the school. Councillor Parker said that children need to know what they are learning is relevant to their abilities and to the work place, and from their teachers and parents learn a work ethic that will stand them in good stead for the rest of their lives and mean they are able to complete in the global economy when they leave school.
An Amendment was moved by Councillor Kathy Bee and Seconded by Councillor John Wentworth as follows:
Delete everything after Croydon's schools, and insert "an improvement driven by the commitment of school leaders and teachers, governors, parents and officers, building upon the educational investment of the last Labour Government".
Amended motion read
"This Authority welcomes the improvements in the standard of attainment by pupils in Croydon's schools. An improvement driven by the commitment of school leaders and teachers, governors, parents and officers, building upon the educational investment of the last Labour Government".
Councillor Kathy Bee in moving the amendment said that the improving education results in Croydon are welcomed and this should continue until Croydon children get best results in the country. Councillor Bee questioned the wording of the original motion saying it ignored the contribution of parents, teachers, carers and governors. She went on to say that pupils attaining GCSE results in August would have been in the education system for 12 years, 10 of which would have been under a Labour Government. She spoke about the investments made under Labour including Sure Start and Building Schools for the Future. She went on to question the current government polices of downgrading GCSE and questioned the promotion of EBAC as a return to the 1950's, EBAC for instance excluded IT.
Councillor Marshall in supporting the original motion spoke of the commitment to improving the standards and attainment of Looked after Children (LAC). All Members are Corporate Parents and with over 700 LAC was a large family' to share. She thanked the many foster carers and spoke about the Council's virtual' school whose primary focus was to track the attainment and progress of each LAC. She went on the say that she had attended the recent award ceremony for LAC and thanked the Mayor for inviting four of the young people to this Council meeting. Councillor Marshall said that the Council adhered to the 1989 Children's Act, that the needs of the child are paramount. She said that every child looked after must have opportunity to achieve their full potential and by the commitment to this all Members would continue to welcome the improvement in standards of attainment by pupils in Croydon schools.
Council Hall, speaking to support the amended motion, opened by saying that he celebrated the rise in standards that have been seen over a number of years and congratulated the pupils. He went on to say that the proposed amendment to the motion recognised the work of all the different stakeholders and the investment put into education by a Labour government. He expressed concern over proposed government targets, cuts to building school funds, youth service cuts and cuts to other community services all of which would have an adverse effect on schools and pupils.
Councillor Gray, speaking to support the amended motion, said that this council is happy to see the hard work invested by Croydon children and their family has been borne out. She went on to say that previous government investment in education was justified by the results. She spoke of Labour lead initiatives such as academies, investment in school infrastructure and teaching staff. Councillor gray questioned why Free schools where being set up across county with not enough children to fill whilst Croydon where having school places squeezed. Councillor Gray also questioned the cuts to school funding for rebuilding and supplementary grants.
Councillor Tim Pollard in supporting the original motion said that the motion did recognise the achievement of everyone involved in education. He went on to say that Croydon had no empty schools and the Boroughs expanding population meant that schools of all types were welcome in Croydon. He questioned the investment by the previous Labour administration being aimed at mainly secondary schools whilst ignoring primary school requirements. Councillor Pollard said that he was proud of the achievements in terms of GCSE results where Croydon had been 2-3% below average in 2006 to 4-5% above national average now meaning that the Council policies were working.
The amended motion was put and lost.
The original motion was put and carried.
2. Motion for Debate
Proposed by Councillor Timothy Godfrey
Seconded by Councillor Tony Newman
"This Council opposes the privatisation of Croydon Libraries."
Councillor Godfrey opened the debate saying that the Labour group were proud to put forward this straightforward motion because it set the battle lines for the next election. Labour standing up for quality public services delivered effectively and efficiently, the Tories privatising core public services to second rate providers and private companies. He questioned the Council's record on privatisation and spoke about the street cleaning contract. Councillor Godfrey went on to say that should Labour be successful in the next local election they would cancel the libraries contract and that contracts would be published including the contract for the Corporate Hub.
Councillor Bashford in opposing the motion said that she was proud that Croydon had kept open all of its branch libraries and assumed that the Labour group in Croydon wanted to close libraries and follow in the footsteps of Labour run Newcastle who are closing 10 of 18 libraries and Labour run Brent closing 6 of 12 libraries. Councillor Bashford said that following the Comprehensive Spending Review in December 2010 a Cabinet report was presented saying that there would be consultation on closing 6 libraries across the borough. She spoke of the responses from residents at public meetings, through petitions and face to face meetings indicating that hey wanted the libraries to remain open. She went on to say that government monies were being reduced and the Council still had as many statutory services to provide, meaning that other options needed to be considered to keep the libraries open and still make the saving required. Following market testing options were considered to keep the libraries open and it was felt that finding an alternative provider to run the libraries would be the best solution. Councillor Bashford said it was not about privatisation per se but what residents wanted, to keep their libraries. The process has been a long one, but Councillor Bashford said that residents don't mind who runs their library as long as it offers what they have now or more.
Councillor Mansell, in supporting the motion said that successful decision making requires good information expertise on the service and good process. She questioned why the council ignored this and rejected its own in house expertise. She went on to question the outsourcing to another Borough, the tender process and the final choice of provider for Croydon.
Councillor Kellett in opposing the motion said that the subject of library provision in Croydon should be a consensual one. Whilst all members would accept the budgetary restraints being faced by the Council they should also accept the common goal of keeping all libraries open and the need to be imaginative and open minded to find alternative ways of service provision. To do anything less would fail the hardworking library staff and let down library users. Councillor Kellett said that this contract would keep all the libraries open, the Council would retain the freeholds, there would be no reduction in opening hours, a complete refresh of IT services and wi fi, an increase in book fund and expansion of e books, in short something for everyone.
Cllr T Pollard, in opposing the motion questioned the arguments put forward by the Labour speakers saying that to publish all contractual details could be unlawful and companies may not come forward with tenders if they believed that commercially sensitive information was made available to their competitors. He went on to say that services had already been rearranged in house but the Council had now reached the point where that was no longer an option. Councillor Pollard went on to say that if the library service was retained in house there may be no alternative other than to close branches. With this contract residents will find the excellent branches they have always had offered more efficiently
Councillor Newman in seconding and supporting the motion questioned the decision to privatise the libraries and said that the Administration had failed to listen to the residents. He went on to say that the consultation on the library service future had not mentioned a possible sell off' of the service. He also questioned the procurement process results. Councillor Newman said that Labour believed libraries should be at the centre of local communities and be free to reflect local needs and priorities, and that the proposed contract would not do this. Councillor Newman also raised questions on other subjects such as the proposed incinerator, the new Council HQ and street cleaning.
Following the debate a show of hands was requested. The motion was put and lost.
For 31, against 36.