Leaders' Committee

Leaders’ Committee

14 October 2014 : 12:00 midday or on the rise of a preceding private meeting

At London Councils offices, 59½ Southwark St., London SE1 0AL Refreshments will be provided London Councils offices are wheelchair accessible

Labour Group: Rooms 2 & 3 10:00 (Political Adviser: 07977 401955) Conservative Group: Room 5 10:00 (Political Adviser: Contact Officer: Derek Gadd

Telephone and email: 020 7934 9505 [email protected]

Lunch will be provided in Room 4 for members after the meeting

Agenda item Page

1 Declarations of Interest*

2 Minutes of the Leaders’ Committee AGM and Minutes of the Leaders’ Committee held on 15 July 2014

3 London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 – London Councils Consultation Response

4 Housing: Recent Activity

5 Health & Care

6 Sustainable Communities Act – Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

7 Annual Audit Report 2013-14

8 Remuneration of London Councils’ Members 9 Minutes and summaries:- • Audit Committee – 15 July 2014 • Grants – 16 July 2014 (AGM) • TEC – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • Capital Ambition Board – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • GLEF – 23 July 2014 (AGM) • TEC Executive – 11 September 2014

*Declarations of Interests If you are present at a meeting of London Councils’ or any of its associated joint committees or their sub-committees and you have a disclosable pecuniary interest* relating to any business that is or will be considered at the meeting you must not:

• participate in any discussion of the business at the meeting, or if you become aware of your disclosable pecuniary interest during the meeting, participate further in any discussion of the business, or • participate in any vote taken on the matter at the meeting.

These prohibitions apply to any form of participation, including speaking as a member of the public.

It is a matter for each member to decide whether they should leave the room while an item that they have an interest in is being discussed. In arriving at a decision as to whether to leave the room they may wish to have regard to their home authority’s code of conduct and/or the Seven (Nolan) Principles of Public Life.

*as defined by the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012

London Councils

Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee held on 15 July 2014 Mayor Jules Pipe chaired the meeting from item 3

Present: BARKING AND DAGENHAM Cllr D. J. Rodwell BARNET Cllr Richard Cornelius BEXLEY Cllr Teresa O’Neill BRENT Cllr M. A. Butt BROMLEY Cllr Stephen Carr CAMDEN Cllr Sarah Hayward CROYDON Cllr Tony Newman EALING Cllr Julian Bell ENFIELD Cllr Doug Taylor GREENWICH Cllr Denise Hyland HACKNEY Mayor Jules Pipe HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Cllr Stephen Cowan HARINGEY Cllr Claire Kober HARROW Cllr David Perry HAVERING Cllr Roger Ramsey HILLINGDON Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE HOUNSLOW Cllr Amrit Mann ISLINGTON Cllr Richard Watts KENSINGTON & CHELSEA Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown KINGSTON Cllr Kevin Davis LAMBETH Cllr Lib Peck LEWISHAM Cllr Alan Smith MERTON Cllr Stephen Alambritis NEWHAM - REDBRIDGE Cllr Jas Athwal RICHMOND UPON THAMES Cllr Lord True SOUTHWARK Cllr Peter John SUTTON Cllr Ruth Dombey TOWER HAMLETS - WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Clyde Loakes WANDSWORTH Cllr Ravi Govindia WESTMINSTER Cllr Melvyn Caplan CITY OF LONDON Mr Mark Boleat LFEPA - CO-PRESIDENT Lord Andrew Adonis

Apologies:

CO-PRESIDENT Baroness Joan Hanham CO-PRESIDENT Baroness Sally Hamwee LEWISHAM Mayor Sir Steve Bullock HOUNSLOW Cllr Steve Curran NEWHAM Mayor Sir Robin Wales TOWER HAMLETS Mayor Lutfur Rahman WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Chris Robbins WESTMINSTER Cllr Philippa Roe EQUALITIES Cllr Marie Pye

Ex officio (under the provisions of Standing Order 2.2)

CAPITAL AMBITION Mr Edward Lord JP OBE CC GRANTS Cllr Paul McGlone

Officers of London Councils were in attendance.

The Chief Executive opened the meeting by reporting the apologies for absence from the London Councils Co-Presidents - Lord Graham of Edmonton and the Lord Jenkin of Roding who, he reported, were standing down in that role. The Chief Executive placed on record his thanks for all the work of the co-presidents on behalf of London local Government and London Councils.

1. Declarations of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

2. Apologies for absence and notification of deputies

Apologies are listed above.

3. Election of Chair

The Chief Executive called for nominations for the position of Chair of London Councils and Mayor Jules Pipe was nominated by Cllr Teresa O’Neill and seconded by Cllr Claire Kober. In the absence of any other nominations he was elected Chair and took over chairing the meeting.

Mayor Jules Pipe asked for his thanks to be added to the Chief Executive’s to the Co-Presidents and, in particular the two who were standing down - the Lords Graham and Jenkin - for their efforts on behalf of London Councils.

4. Election of Deputy Chair and up to three Vice-Chairs

The Chair then invited nominations for the Deputy Chair and up to three Vice-chairs and the following were nominated and were returned unopposed:

Deputy Chair Cllr Claire Kober (Haringey, Lab) nominated by Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest, Labour), seconded by Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth, Conservative)

Vice-Chair Cllr Teresa O’Neill (Bexley, Con) nominated by Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest, Labour), seconded by Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth, Conservative)

Vice-Chair Cllr Ruth Dombey (Sutton, Lib Dem) nominated by Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest, Labour), seconded by Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth, Conservative)

Vice-Chair Mr Mark Boleat (City of London, Ind) nominated by Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest, Labour), seconded by Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth, Conservative)

5. Minutes of the meeting of the AGM Leaders’ Committee on 11 June 2013

Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the minutes of the meeting of the AGM of Leaders’ Committee on 11 June 2013 already agreed by Leaders’ Committee on 9 July 2013.

6. Appointment of London Councils Co-Presidents for 2014/15

Leaders’ Committee agreed to reappoint Baroness Sally Hamwee and to appoint Baroness Joan Hanham and Lord Andrew Adonis as London Councils’ Co-Presidents.

The Chair invited the Co-President who was in attendance to address the AGM.

Lord Adonis said:

• He and the other two Co-Presidents, the Baronesses Hamwee and Hanham were colleagues in the House of Lords and he was confident that they would be able to work together in the best interests of London Councils • The single biggest current policy issue, whichever party was in power at Westminster, was fiscal devolution • He had been involved in advising Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, the Labour Party leader in formulating that party’s position on devolution, launched a couple of weeks before, but it was similar to the approach Lord Heseltine advocated for the Conservative Party and was in line with Liberal Democrat thinking as well • Labour was committed to the principle of devolution in exchange for Growth Plans • There was a need to prioritise major infrastructure projects • Central Government of all stripes had chronically under-invested in infrastructure but London had done a good job in trying to reverse that trend especially since the Mayorality and Greater London Authority had come into existence in 2000 • It was not possible to grow a city like London to 10,000,000 people by the early 2030s without agreed infrastructure plans • A new fiscal settlement was needed between Central Government and the Cities

The Chair proposed to take items 7-13 en bloc; items 7-9(a) were the noting of the members of Leaders’ Committee, the Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) and the Grants Committee and the employers side of the Greater London Employment Forum on the nomination of boroughs and items 9(b) – 13 were proposed and seconded by the party group whips, Cllr Clyde Loakes (Labour, Waltham Forest), Cllr Ravi Govindia (Conservative, Wandsworth) for the appointment of the employers side of the Greater London Provincial Council, London Councils Executive (including Portfolios), the appointment of party group lead members, the lead member for Equalities, the Group Whips, the appointment of the Audit Committee and election of its Chair and the appointment of the Capital Ambition Board and the election of its Chair and Deputy Chair. All were agreed by Leaders’ Committee.

7. Leaders’ Committee

Borough Rep Party Deputy 1 Party Barking & Dagenham Darren Rodwell Lab Dominic Twoney Lab Barnet Richard Cornelius Con Daniel Thomas Con Bexley Teresa O'Neill Con Gareth Bacon Con Brent Muhammed Butt Lab Michael Pavey Lab Bromley Stephen Carr Con Colin Smith Con Camden Sarah Hayward Lab Pat Callaghan Lab Croydon Tony Newman Lab Alison Butler Lab Ealing Julian Bell Lab Ranjit Dheer Lab Enfield Doug Taylor Lab Bambos Charalambous Lab Greenwich Denise Hyland Lab John Fahy Lab Hackney Mayor Jules Pipe Lab Sophie Linden Lab Hammersmith & Fulham Stephen Cowan Lab Michael Cartwright Lab Haringey Claire Kober Lab Bernice Vanier Lab Harrow David Perry Lab Keith Ferry Lab Havering Roger Ramsey Con Damian White Con Hillingdon Ray Puddifoot Con David Simmonds Con Hounslow Steve Curran Lab Amrit Mann Lab Islington Richard Watts Lab Janet Burgess Lab Kensington & Chelsea Nicholas Paget-Brown Con Rock Feilding-Mellen Con Kingston upon Thames Kevin Davis Con Gaj Wallooppillai Con Lambeth Lib Peck Lab Imogen Walker Lab Lewisham Mayor Sir Steve Bullock Lab Alan Smith Lab Merton Stephen Alambritis Lab Mark Allison Lab Newham Mayor Sir Robin Wales Lab Lester Hudson Lab Redbridge Jas Athwal Lab Wes Streeting Lab Richmond upon Thames Nicholas True Con Tony Arbour Con Southwark Peter John Lab Fiona Colley Lab Sutton Ruth Dombey LD Colin Hall LD Tower Hamlets Mayor Lutfur Rahman THF Ohid Ahmed THF Waltham Forest Chris Robbins Lab Clyde Loakes Lab Wandsworth Ravi Govindia Con Jonathan Cook Con Westminster Phillipa Roe Con Robert Davis Con City of London Mark Boleat Ind Catherine McGuiness Ind LFEPA James Cleverly Con

Lab = Labour Con = Conservative LD = Liberal Democrat Ind = Independent THF = Tower Hamlets First 8. Note of borough nominations to the Transport and Environment Committee and Grants Committee

Transport and Environment Committee:

Borough Rep Party Deputy 1 Party Barking & Dagenham Cameron Geddes Lab Barnet Dean Cohen Con Richard Cornelius Con Bexley Don Massey Con Melvin Seymour Con Brent Keith Perrin Lab Michael Pavey Lab Bromley Colin Smith Con William Huntingdon-Thresher Con Camden Phil Jones Lab Sally Gimson Lab Croydon Kathy Bee Lab Paul Scott Lab Ealing Julian Bell Lab Bassam Mahfouz Enfield Christopher Bond Lab Derek Levy Lab Greenwich Danny Thorpe Lab Harry (Harpinder) Singh Lab Hackney Feryal Demirci Lab Sophie Linden Lab Hammersmith & Fulham Wesley Harcourt Lab Haringey Stuart McNamara Lab Joe Goldberg Lab Harrow Varsha Parmar Lab Philip O'Dell Lab Havering Robert Benham Con Osman Dervish Con Hillingdon Keith Burrows Con Jonathan Bianco Con Hounslow Amrit Mann Lab Manjit Buttar Lab Islington Claudia Webbe Lab Paul Convery Lab Kensington & Chelsea Tim Coleridge Con Marie-Therese Rossi Con Kingston upon Thames David Cunningham Con Kevin Davis Con Lambeth Jennifer Braithwaite Lab Jack Hopkins Lab Lewisham Alan Smith Lab Rachael Onikosi Lab Merton Nick Draper Lab Andrew Judge Lab Newham Ian Corbett Lab Unmesh Desai Lab Redbridge Baldesh Kaur Nijjar Lab Sheila Bain Lab Richmond upon Thames Steven Speak Con Southwark Mark Williams Lab Barri e Hargrove Lab Sutton Colin Hall LD Jill Whitehead LD Tower Hamlets Shahed Ali THF Waltham Forest Clyde Loakes Lab Marie Pye Lab Wandsworth Caroline Usher Con Jonathan Cook Con Westminster Heather Acton Con Ed Argar Con City of London Michael Welbank Ind Wendy Mead Ind TfL Michèle Dix Alex Williams

Grants Committee:

Borough Rep Party Deputy 1 Party Barking & Dagenham Darren Rodwell Lab Barnet Daniel Thomas Con Richard Cornelius Con Bexley Gareth Bacon Con Brent Muhammed Butt Lab Michael Pavey Lab Bromley Stephen Carr Con Roberts Evans Con Camden Abdul Hai Lab Jonathan Simpson Lab Croydon Timothy Godfrey Lab Louisa Woodley Lab Ealing Ranjit Dheer Lab Julian Bell Lab Enfield Yasemin Brett Lab Andrew Stafford Lab Greenwich Maureen O'Mara Lab Hackney Jonathan McShane Lab Feryal Demirci Lab Hammersmith & Fulham Sue Fennimore Lab Vivienne Lukey Lab Haringey Peter Morton Lab Bernice Vanier Lab Harrow Sue Anderson Lab Havering Melvin Wallace Con Osman Dervish Con Hillingdon Douglas Mills Con J Bianco Con Hounslow Sue Sampson Lab Ajmer Grewal Lab Islington Rakhia Ismail Lab Andy Hull Lab Kensington & Chelsea Gerard Hargreaves Con Elizabeth Campbell Con Kingston upon Thames Julie Pickering Con Kevin Davis Con Lambeth Paul McGlone Lab Lewisham Joan Millbank Lab Chris Best Lab Merton Edith Macauley Lab Maxi Martin Lab Newham Forhad Hussain Lab Unmesh Desai Lab Redbridge Dev Sharma Lab Wes Streeting Lab Richmond upon Thames Meena Bond Con Southwark Ian Wingfield Lab Fiona Colley Lab Sutton Simon Wales LD Ruth Dombey LD Tower Hamlets Gulam Robbani THF Waltham Forest Liaquat Ali Lab Clyde Loakes Lab Wandsworth James Maddan Con Cllr. Senior Con Westminster Steve Summers Con Heather Acton Con City of London Jeremy Mayhew Alison Gowman

Note of borough nominations to the employers side of the Greater London Employment Forum 9(a) Greater London Employment Forum

Borough Rep Party Deputy Party Barking & Dagenham James Ogungbose Lab Irma Freeborn Lab Barnet Richard Cornelius Con Daniel Thomas Con Bexley Colin Tandy Con Linda Bailey Con Brent Roxanne Mashari Lab Michael Pavey Lab Bromley Tony Owen Con Colin Smith Con Camden Theo Blackwell Lab Cllr Peter Brayshaw Lab Croydon Tony Newman Lab Toni Letts Lab Ealing Yvonne Johnson Lab Enfield Doug Taylor Lab Greenwich Chris Kirby Lab Hackney Sophie Linden Lab Jules Pipe Lab Hammersmith & Fulham Andrew Jones Lab Haringey Joe Goldberg Lab Claire Kober Lab Harrow Graham Henson Lab Keith Ferry Lab Havering Osman Dervish Con Melvin Wallace Con Hillingdon Scott Seaman-Digby Con Hounslow Ajmer Grewal Lab Islington Andy Hull Lab Kensington & Chelsea Joanna Gardner Con Kingston upon Thames Eric Humphrey Con Julie Pickering Con Lambeth Paul Mcglone Lab Jack Hopkins Lab Lewisham Kevin Bonavia Lab Joe Dromey Lab Merton Mark Allison Lab Newham Lester Hudson Lab Ken Clark Lab Redbridge Neil Zammett Lab Richmond upon Thames Tony Arbour Con Southwark Ian Wingfield Lab Fiona Colley Lab Sutton Richard Clifton LD Colin Hall LD Tower Hamlets Oliur Rahman THF Waltham Forest Peter Barnett Lab Gerry Lyons Lab Wandsworth Peter Dawson Con Cllr. Peterkin Lab Westminster Angela Harvey Con

The appointments made under items 9b – 13 were proposed by Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest) and seconded by Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth)

9(b) Appointment of Greater London Provincial Council Employers Side

Borough Party • Cllr James Ogungbose Barking & Dagenham Labour • Cllr Colin Tandy Bexley Conservative • Cllr Tony Owen Bromley Conservative • Cllr Theo Blackwell Camden Labour • Cllr Tony Newman Croydon Labour • Cllr Doug Taylor Enfield Labour • Cllr Sophie Linden Hackney Labour • Cllr Ajmer Grewal Hounslow Labour • Cllr Joanna Gardner RBK&C Conservative • Cllr Eric Humphrey Kingston Conservative • Cllr Paul McGlone Lambeth Labour • Cllr Kevin Bonavia Lewisham Labour • Cllr Richard Clifton Sutton Liberal Democrat • Cllr Peter Barnett Waltham Forest Labour • Cllr Angela Harvey Westminster Conservative

10. Appointment of London Councils Executive (including Portfolios)

• Cllr Jules Pipe (Lab, Hackney) Chair • Cllr Claire Kober (Lab, Haringey) Deputy Chair and Infrastructure and Regeneration • Cllr Teresa O’Neill (Con, Bexley) Vice-Chair and Health • Cllr Ruth Dombey (LD, Sutton) Vice-Chair • Mr Mark Boleat (Ind, City) Vice-Chair • Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE (Con, Hillingdon) Adult Social Care • Cllr Peter John (Lab, Southwark) Children, Skills and Employment • Cllr Lib Peck (Lab, Lambeth) Crime and Public Protection • Cllr Philippa Roe (Con, Westminster) Conservative Group lead on Devolution and Public Service Reform • Mayor Sir Steve Bullock (Lab, Lewisham) Housing • Cllr Julian Bell (Lab, Ealing) TEC

11. Appointment of party group lead members

Policy area Portfolio holder Party lead Party lead Other (Labour) (Conservative) *Chair including: Mayor Jules Pipe Cllr Teresa • Finance and O’Neill Resources • Devolution and See also below Public Service for separate Reform (Labour Conservative Group Lead) Group Lead • Overall Strategy for Devolution and Public The Chair’s portfolio Service Reform also includes Welfare Reform, Arts and Culture and Improvement

Health Cllr Teresa Cllr Muhammed Cllr Ruth Dombey O’Neill Butt (Liberal Democrat) Adult Social Care Cllr Ray Puddifoot Cllr Richard Watts MBE Housing Mayor Sir Steve Cllr Ravi Bullock Govindia Children, Employment Cllr Peter John Cllr David and Skills Simmonds

Devolution and Public Cllr Philippa Roe See above for Services Reform Chair’s portfolio (Conservative Group Lead)

Crime and Public Cllr Lib Peck Cllr Richard Protection Cornelius Infrastructure and Cllr Claire Kober Cllr Philippa Roe Regeneration

Associated Joint Nominee for Chair Nominee for Vice- Nominee for Nominee for Vice- Committees chair (Labour) Vice-chair chair (Liberal (Conservative) Democrat) Transport and Cllr Julian Bell Cllr Feryal Demirci Cllr Colin Smith Cllr Colin Hall Environment Grants Cllr Paul McGlone Cllr Forhad Hussain Cllr Stephen Carr Cllr Simon Wales

Equalities:

• Cllr Marie Pye (Waltham Forest, Labour)

Group whips

• Labour Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest) • Conservative Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth)

12. Appointment of Audit Committee and election of its Chair and Deputy Chair

• Cllr Roger Ramsey (Havering, Con) Chair • Cllr Stephen Alambritis (Merton, Lab) • Mr Roger Chadwick (City, Ind) • Cllr Jas Athwal (Redbridge, Lab) • Cllr Simon Wales (Sutton, LD)

13. Appointment of Capital Ambition Board and election of its Chair and Deputy Chair

• Mr Edward Lord OBE JP (City, Chair) • Cllr Stephen Alambritis (Merton, Lab, Deputy chair) • Cllr Jas Athwal (Redbridge, Lab) • Cllr David Simmonds (Hillingdon, Con) • Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown (Kensington & Chelsea Con)

14. Constitutional matters

Leaders Committee agreed to:

• Approve the proposed minor variations to the London Councils Leaders’ Committee Governing Agreement set out in an appendix to the report • Subject to the Grants Committee’s agreement at their meeting on 16 July 2014, approve the changes to the London Grants Scheme set out in an appendix to the report • Note the proposed changes to the London Councils Transport and Environment Committee (LCTEC) Governing Agreement which would be considered by that Committee (as provided for in the LCTEC Agreement) • The proposed amendments to London Councils Standing Orders. • To approve the proposed inclusion to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers • To approve the terms of reference for the following committees:

o The Executive, with one amendment to make clear that the annual appraisal of the Chief Executive is conducted by Group Leaders o Audit Committee o Capital Ambition o Pensions CIV Joint Sectoral Committee

15. London Councils meeting dates 2014/15

Leaders’ Committee agreed the meeting dates for 2014/15. 16. Annual Review

Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the annual review.

17. Any other business

There was no other business.

London Councils

Minutes of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee held on 15 July 2014 Mayor Jules Pipe chaired the meeting

Apologies:

Ex officio (under the provisions of Standing Order 2.2)

CAPITAL AMBITION Mr Edward Lord JP OBE CC GRANTS Cllr Paul McGlone

In attendance:

Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor Transport, GLA Jeremy Skinner, Head of Strategic Projects and Policy Evaluation, GLA Jeff Jacobs, Head of Paid Service, Executive Director, Communities and Intelligence, GLA Fiona Fletcher-Smith, Executive Director for Development, Enterprise and Environment, GLA Professor Tony Travers, LSE and London Councils officers

1. Declarations of interest

Cllr. Sarah Hayward (Camden, Labour) declared an interest in item one as a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. No other interests were declared.

2. Minutes of Leaders’ Committee held on the 11 March 2014

Leaders’ Committee agreed the minutes of Leaders’ Committee held on the 11 March 2014.

3. Welcome to new members

The Chair welcomed the new and returning borough leaders attending the meeting.

4. London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050

The Chair invited Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor Transport and Jeremy Skinner, Head of Strategic Projects and Policy Evaluation at the GLA to address the meeting.

Ms Dedring began by pointing out that Mr Skinner was the lead officer and then explained that: • In the London Infrastructure Development Plan the Mayor was creating a long-term plan for Housing, Transport, Waste and Energy • It followed the publication of the London 2020 Vision and London Finance Commission (LFC) reports • It was not party political and would go forward whatever the outcome of the general election in 2015 and the Mayoral election in 2016 • A draft version of the infrastructure report would be published at the end of July to inform further discussion and she would be happy to attend a further meeting of Leaders’ Committee to that end and it was envisaged that the final report would be published at the end of the year.

Mr Skinner then made a presentation:

• The GLA hoped to hold sessions with groups of councils during the consultation period and further discussions with London Councils. • He was grateful for the support of London Councils’ officers and members in helping with the development of the plan, including assessing the overall needs and costs in schools and housing.

There were three critical messages to be got across:

• The overall magnitude of London’s growth that was anticipated • The need to overcome the fractured delivery of infrastructure so that it worked better for London • How much the plan might cost and how it might be paid for.

Growth

• The work on the infrastructure plan was timely in that London was about to enter an unprecedented era of growth. It was thought London would exceed its population peak of 1939 as early as next year. During the nineteen-eighties manufacturing industry had declined in London and although there had been an expansion in the ‘knowledge economy’ particularly financial services, population had fallen. However, most predictions now envisaged a period of sustained economic growth in London with population reaching 11,000,000 by 2050. While there would continue to be debate about whether growth was good, it reflected the success of London’s economy in generating jobs. Jobs attracted people and in a global marketplace, there was little to stop London from growing. Preparation was vital. Infrastructure underpinned everything • Combined with the relative backlog in infrastructure investment, increasing expectations, and the need to improve quality of life, even as the city grew, London’s growth translated into significant demand for new infrastructure • While London was relatively dense, it still had significant reservoirs of brownfield land that could be developed with the appropriate remediation, transport and other infrastructure. While the question of the Green Belt would eventually have to be confronted, not until 2025 under current projections at the very earliest - as sites for growth had been identified within London’s boundaries - and possibly much later.

Delivery

• The delivery of London’s infrastructure was faltering under various systems of infrastructure provision, with a mixture of competitive markets in mobile telephone services, monopolies like BT Open Reach and Thames Water, duopolies like BT and Virgin for NGA fibre broadband, and public services including TfL and the local road network in London. Three ways of bringing greater integration, forward planning and efficiencies were being proposed:

o In the absence of any statutory power, the Mayor’s soft power would be used to convene the leaders of these organisations. The initial purpose would be to achieve common understanding regarding London’s growth in more detail – its pace, opportunity areas within the capital, the demographic profile and so on; thereafter to develop more integrated approaches to London’s growth and to deliver projects more efficiently.

o Secondly, to tackle the lack of any statutory requirements to deliver infrastructure in a more co-ordinated way. There were various options here, but one would be to lobby for a statutory duty on infrastructure providers and their regulators to have regard for the London Plan and other strategic planning documents.

o Third, some of the regulations that prevent the delivery of infrastructure ahead of demand, particularly in energy were being tackling with national Government.

Cost

• To give a flavour of the content of the infrastructure programmes within the plan, the following was being proposed:

o A series of transport investments to support London’s economy, expand the transport network to enable new areas of housing to emerge and improve quality of life. Schemes included, for instance, a significant transformation of the south London rail network so that it resembled more a true Metro service, with higher frequency services

o An approach to public realm and green space that considered it in terms of a potential network of green infrastructure providing multiple benefits – recreation, space for walking and cycling, wildlife, shade, flood protection and a generally more attractive environment, which would become increasingly valued as the city continued otherwise to get more crowded and busy.

o Relatively modest investment in fibre broadband, 4g, wifi and future ICT technologies such as 5G, on which R&D was underway, to deliver superfast connectivity from mobile and fixed devices wherever you were in London.

o Significant investment in our electricity sub-station network, enabled by better regulation, and greater incentives for more local energy production to provide both more energy and greater resilience.

• All these and more resulted in a significant bill. The headline was a potential doubling of the overall capital costs, but this was before savings and contributions from fiscal devolution (which would be discussed further in the Governance of Fiscal Devolution report later on the agenda), more integration, the higher economic growth that would be expected from investment, technological advances, efficiencies from having a transparent pipeline of projects and much better leverage of publicly owned assets. Fiscal devolution was vital. Just as the Victorians went through a massive period of infrastructure investment during a similar period of growth, so can we.

The Chair called for questions and comments and the following came from members of the committee:

Cllr Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth, Conservative) commented:

• That he did not see any reference to Primary Care • In the case of electricity substations it was important to safeguard land where the need for infrastructure was predicted

• There was a danger that the report would be too top-down and the role of local authorities with their detailed local knowledge should not be forgotten

Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE (Hillingdon, Conservative) asked whether the intention was to seek to build on Green Belt land after 2025?

Cllr Alan Smith (Lewisham, Labour) argued that attention not only needed to be paid to electricity sub-stations, in addition:

• Integrated thinking was needed on the micro-generation of energy through waste recovery

• Ninety-eight per cent of processed water was not used for what it was supplied for and the storage of rain water and use of ‘grey water’ needed to be considered.

Cllr Denise Hyland (Greenwich, Labour) expressed her support at hearing of the advocacy of a metro-type train system in south London and urged that better public transport should accompany river crossings.

Cllr Stephen Carr (Bromley, Conservative) supported the approach to tackling London’s housing shortage on a regional, not solely London, basis.

Cllr Richard Watts (Islington, Labour) asked of the status of the plan and at what stage would it be possible to engage with it on a project-by-project basis?

Cllr Ruth Dombey (Sutton, Liberal Democrat) supported the adoption of a long-term view but asked how the projects would be paid for?

Cllr Tony Newman (Croydon, Labour) asked what would be considered to be ‘short-term’ and cited the case of taking forward the tram scheme in his borough as an example of delays that could occur.

Cllr Lib Peck (Lambeth, Labour) mentioned the cost of tackling population pressure on schools.

Ms Dedring, Mr Skinner and Ms Fletcher-Smith responded as follows: • They agreed on the point about the absence of any reference to Primary Care but it had been excluded because the scope of the project was becoming too great and, in addition, the Mayor had instigated the London Health Commission to consider a range of related issues in that area.

• The point about the detailed knowledge of local authorities was accepted which was why the sessions with groups of boroughs were being set up during the consultation

• It was not being said that the Green Belt would need to be built on after 2025 merely that brownfield sites would be exhausted by that date

• The analysis of opportunity areas had suggested that there was enough land available, but that it needed a lot of remediation and transport infrastructure to free it up

• They accepted the points about the water supply system. Modernisation of the gas supply system was far ahead of water supply but costs per kilometre would come down dramatically as innovation in making and reinforcing pipes continued

• In response to the question about status, it was not a formal planning document

• On costs there had been an extensive bottom-up cost assessment. The doubling of costs mentioned in the study meant that it would be unlikely to come to fruition in the current financial climate but it was included in the hope that new revenue streams would be identified

• On the ‘short-term’ point officers were actively pursuing the tram project in Croydon but could not guarantee its delivery. If there were concerns over specific projects, a member of the GLA team should be contacted

• A rudimentary costs assessment had been made for schools but no view has been taken beyond the current London Plan timescale.

The Chair thanked the speakers and summed up by saying that the proposals were all logical but the issue would be how they would be paid for.

5. Governance of Fiscal Devolution

The Chair invited Professor Tony Travers of the LSE to introduce the item and he did as follows:

• It was just over one year on from the publication of the findings of the London Finance Commission (LFC) in May 2013

• There had been several previous reviews of regional and local government finance in England

o Layfield, Raynsford, Lyons

• Powers had been devolved to Scotland, Wales (up to a point) and Northern Ireland

o Calman, Holtham, Silk

• The Greater London Authority Act, 1999 was the nearest England had got to a ‘devolution’ but:

o Few financial powers were devolved o Boroughs were not given new devolved powers

• The UK was a highly centralized democracy with a very low ratio of tax raised at local/national level, only 1.7% compared to 4.6% in France, 9.1% in the US and 10.4% in Germany

London within the UK

• London was very unusual by international standards in having such a small tax-base

• There was little powerful evidence (either way) that devolution impacted on growth

• Scotland and Wales had managed since 1999 without apparent mishap

• London’s tax ‘export’ was likely to grow in the years ahead: growth in tax paid was likely to exceed growth in public expenditure A wider tax base was needed

• Council tax was too small and was also capped

• There was a need for a wider tax base

o • Property taxes appeared well-suited to operation by London government

o Council tax, business rates, Stamp Duty land tax o The government itself originally proposed 100% business rate retention • Back to the pre-1990 system…

o Council tax needed improvement • It would depend on decisions to be made post-reform • Any reforms under LFC proposals would see revenues kept in London

o Stamp Duty land tax was awkward and may, potentially, undermine investment • London could reform it and operate it more sensibly

The tax proposal

• Was that the full suite of property taxes would be devolved to London government

o Council tax and business rates would be linked o Rates then set locally • There would be protections for businesses • To include the power to hold revaluations and to determine banding etc • Taxes devolved to London would be offset by £-for-£ cut in Whitehall grants

Other taxes and charges

• LFC also proposed that Government should pass legislation which would allow London government to introduce new, smaller, taxes, e.g.:

o Tourist tax • Also, to allow greater freedom in relation to charges for services • Any new revenues would be available to London but need not be used • 100% of revenues would be retained in London

Advantages of reform

• London government would be more autonomous

o Over 50% of London government spending would be locally-funded o It would be good for pluralism and democracy • It would be easier to fund capital investments from this wider tax base • The Mayor and the boroughs would have a bigger incentive to stimulate growth

Other cities in England

• LFC had considered London only • But, no reason why Greater Manchester, Leeds city region or Birmingham should not see similar reforms • Since May 2013, London (GLA and London Councils) had worked with Core Cities to promote devolution to city regions

What had happened since May 2013 – nationally

• There had been a debate about ‘Devo-max’ for Scotland • And continuing responses to Lord Heseltine’s ‘No Stone Unturned’ report • Lord Adonis and Labour leader, Ed Miliband had also suggested greater financial autonomy for city regions • In the previous week, a CLG Committee had published a report which proposed devolution of financial powers to city regions

What had happened since May 2013 - London Councils and GLA

• London Councils and GLA officials had worked on the details of how taxes might be devolved to London government

o Some taxes were more appropriate for the GLA o Others, more appropriate for boroughs • There was a need for machinery to decide whether boroughs or the GLA (or both) would operate which taxes • And for on-going operation of the taxes • There would be a ‘One Year On’ event in the following week at the House of Commons Conclusions

• London had a large economy and robust city government system

o Its population and GDP were both bigger than Scotland and Wales combined • Increasing local fiscal autonomy would strengthen accountability and democracy

o In the longer term, more radical options might be considered • London needed to be ready for reform

The Chair asked for questions or comments

Cllr Ravi Govindia asked, with devolution of money and powers, how would boroughs be able to control a more rapacious Mayor?

Cllr Richard Cornelius (Barnet, Conservative) pointed to the taxes raised in London being spent in the Home Counties.

Professor Travers responded by saying:

• Governance machinery would have to include safeguards so that the Mayor could not override the boroughs and vice versa, through a complex (but not over-complex) voting system • The ‘greater south-east’ had not been looked at but he had been in contact with local authority leaders in the south-east who were interested in an analogous devolution to their region. The reason a property tax was favoured was that it was immobile, its boundaries were clear while an income tax would potentially have caused greater difficulties • He concluded on a separate subject, by alerting Leaders to work he was doing with London Councils to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the London boroughs in their present form. Chief Executives had been contacted and Professor Travis hoped that there would be a high level of responses to the request for information from each borough

6. Growth Deal, Devolution and Wider Public Sector Reform

The Chair introduced the report saying:

• The details of the London Growth Deal were announced on 7 July 2014 and included approval for a series of ‘pilots’ which would give London local government the opportunity to demonstrate its ability to deliver on agreed aspects of the growth agenda. The pilots included a particular focus on help for those furthest from work to move into the labour market.

• London’s Growth Deal also included a commitment to opening discussions with London government on the commissioning and design of the next phase of employment support programmes and a commitment that success in the pilots would unlock progressive steps towards further local service integration across London.

Leaders’ Committee agreed to:

• Note the progress with the London Growth Deal, including the pilots and an agreed approach to New Homes Bonus. Note the progress of related work, which sought to advance London’s aspirations within the wider sphere of devolution & public service reform.

7. Proposed Changes to the Governance of the Fire Service

The Chair introduced the report saying:

• The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was consulting on proposed reforms of fire service decision making in London, following a request made by the Mayor of London • His proposition was to invoke an order using the power provided by the GLA Act, amending the composition of LFEPA so that:

o the number of Assembly members be reduced from eight to six; o the number of London Borough councillors be reduced from seven to five and o the number of Mayoral appointees be increased from two to six.

• The closing date for the consultation was 29 July 2014.

• The report set out the lines a response to the consultation by London Councils could take. Cllr Teresa O’Neill (Bexley, Conservative) informed the Committee that her party would be unable to support a response on the lines set out in the report and instead, suggested that the party groups should either make separate responses or that any London Councils’ response should make clear that it did not carry the support of the Conservative group.

Cllr Sarah Hayward (Camden, Labour) said she thought that her fellow-members of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) would be disappointed that London Councils response was not on a cross-party basis. She thought that the current Mayoral proposal was not based on any existing model and that, while it may be possible to be confident that the present Mayor would make fair and impartial appointments, there could be no guarantee that future Mayors would.

Cllr Ray Puddifoot argued that the proposal was akin to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and that any Mayor should have greater control over the Fire Authority.

Cllr Clyde Loakes (Waltham Forest, Labour) said that he had been under the impression that Executive members had already adopted a position opposing the Mayor’s proposals, as an acceptance of them would represent a ‘rolling-over’ in the face of the Mayor’s proposals, allowing random names to be put forward to the Fire Authority with no accountability.

Cllr Peter John (Southwark, Labour) argued that ‘rolling-over’ did not set a good precedent for other issues, such as fiscal devolution.

Cllr Govindia responded by saying that his party’s approach did not represent a ‘rolling-over’ but merely the acceptance of a proposal for a system that worked.

The Chair concluded by saying:

• The draft response contained in the report represented valid questions to put to the Mayor • There were historic reasons why the original system had been put in place • The proposed change would move London away from the system that operated in the rest of the country • He could not see how acquiescing in the Mayor taking on the proposed powers was anything but a retrograde step for the boroughs.

Cllr Ruth Dombey (Sutton, Liberal Democrat) expressed her party’s support for the response as drafted in the report and Cllr Stephen Carr (Bromley, Conservative) his wish to abstain from any vote on the matter.

Leaders’ Committee agreed that a formal London Councils response be developed, drawing on the draft lines set out in the report and that it should be made clear that that response did not enjoy the support of the Conservative group.

8. Pensions Working Group: Progress report and proposed next steps towards a London LGPS CIV

The Chair introduced the report by giving some background on it, including that 28 boroughs had now given notification to London Councils Chief Executive that they had passed resolutions in support of the recommendations made by the 11 February Leaders’ Committee.

Leaders’ Committee agreed the draft consultation response attached as an appendix to the report.

9. Minutes and Summaries

Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the minutes and summaries

• Capital Ambition board meeting held on 6 March 2014 • Transport and Environment committee meeting held on 13 March 2014 • Audit committee meeting held on 20 March 2014 • Grants Committee meeting held on 26 march 2014 • Greater London Provincial Council meeting held on 31 March 2014

Action Points

Item Action Progress

7. Proposed Changes to the Governance of the PAPA/Strategic Response Fire Service Policy submitted

• A formal London Councils response be developed, drawing on the draft lines set out in the report that made clear that that response did not enjoy the support of the Conservative group.

8. Pensions Working Group: Progress report and PAPA/Fair Response proposed next steps towards a London LGPS Funding submitted CIV

• Submit the response

Leaders’ Committee

London Infrastructure Item no: 3 Investment Plan 2050 – London Councils Consultation Response

Report by: Katharina Winbeck Job title: Head of Transport and Environment

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Katharina Winbeck Officer:

Telephone: 020 7934 9945 Email: [email protected]

Summary This paper provides some background information on the London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 and sets out the consultation response drafted by London Councils officers.

Recommendations That Leaders’ Committee discusses and approves London Councils consultation response.

London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 - London Councils Consultation Response

Background

1. The Mayor has launched the Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 on 30 July 2014 for public consultation until 31 October 2014. Members will recall that this has been discussed at Leaders Committee in July. London Councils has drafted a response to the draft plan, which is attached as Appendix I.

2. The Plan sets out: • The expected population growth, anticipated at 37 per cent, leading to 11.3m people living in London by 2050 • London’s infrastructure requirements to 2050, where it could be delivered, how much it will cost and how it could be paid for • How technological advances and innovations could support infrastructure development • It outlines more detail on;

o Transport o Green infrastructure o Digital connectivity o Energy supply o Water infrastructure and o Waste infrastructure

3. Housing and schools are included in the costs of London’s infrastructure to 2050 but there is no detail on how this or other health and social infrastructure will be delivered.

4. The GLA propose to set up a London Infrastructure Delivery Board (LIDB), formed of a range of key stakeholders including, senior regulators, Infrastructure UK, land owners, developers, utility providers, TfL, Network Rail and representatives of London local government. In accordance with relevant lead and shadow portfolio responsibilities, London Councils has nominated Cllr Kober, Cllr Roe and Mayor Pipe to the Board.

London Councils Response

5. The GLA specified that consultation responses should keep within a 2,000 word limit, which we have attempted to do. The London Councils response focuses on three main areas: a. Governance: It is essential to understand how the LIDB will fit alongside current and proposed forums. b. Finance: fiscal devolution has an important role in financing London’s infrastructure requirements, but is not the complete answer. Further work is needed to develop a diverse range of funding options. c. London’s Infrastructure Requirements: any long term infrastructure plan must take proper account of social infrastructure such as housing, schools and health. There should be much greater emphasis on demand management within transport, energy, water and waste.

Recommendations 6. That Leaders’ Committee discusses and approves London Councils consultation response.

Financial Implications for London Councils

There are no financial implications for London Councils.

Legal Implications for London Councils

There are no legal implications for London Councils.

Equalities Implications for London Councils

There are no equalities implications for London Councils

Appendices – London Councils consultation response to the London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050

Background Papers

Mayor’s London Infrastructure Plan 2050 – Consultation Document

Mayors London Infrastructure Plan 2050 – Supporting Documents

Appendix I – London Councils response to the Mayors London Infrastructure 2050 Plan

London Infrastructure Plan 2050 Consultation – London Councils’ Response

London Councils represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. London Councils is committed to fighting for more resources for London and getting the best possible deal for London’s 33 councils. We develop policy, lobby government and others, and run a range of services designed to make life better for Londoners.

Introduction 1. The London Infrastructure Plan 2050 Consultation is both ambitious and timely. London Councils and the London boroughs look forward to working with the Mayor, the London Enterprise Panel and wider stakeholders from business, the regulated industries, experts and representatives from across London’s diverse communities, to secure the infrastructure vital to London’s continued reputation as a global destination for people wishing to work, live and visit.

2. As a draft for consultation, understandably, the degree of detail varies and some can only be developed in partnership. Our response reflects this and revolves around the three main areas: • Governance: It is essential to understand how the London Infrastructure Delivery Board (LIDB) will fit alongside current and proposed forums. • Finance: fiscal devolution has an important role in financing London’s infrastructure requirements, but is not the complete answer. Further work is needed to develop a diverse range of funding options. • London’s Infrastructure Requirements: any long term infrastructure plan must take proper account of social infrastructure such as housing, schools and health. There should be much greater emphasis on demand management within transport, energy, water and waste.

3. We agree with the population projections and the challenges and opportunities this poses for London.

4. We understand that technology and innovation has the potential to play a significant role in how and what infrastructure is delivered and will not comment on this much further in our response.

5. We broadly agree with the assessment to increase densities in areas with good transport links, but are also aware of the challenges this poses in particular around creating sustainable, successful communities. This requires careful planning both at the strategic and at the local level.

Governance 6. While we accept that much of the detail regarding the LIDB activities and constitution has yet to be finalised, there are a number of points that require consideration in advance of its creation:

a) A Board designed to include all key stakeholders is likely to be too large for detailed decision making. For this reason it will be important to ensure mechanisms are in place to link insights and guidance from the LIDB with delivery partnerships such as the Homes for London Board, the London Enterprise Panel, the London Waste and Recycling Board the Green Infrastructure Task Force and Connectivity Advisory Group. b) It will also be important that the LIDB is able to take account of sub-regional issues and to influence action within sub regions. The LIDB should put in place mechanisms to ensure that its work can be informed by sub-regional borough partnerships In addition we would welcome further discussion regarding our proposal for delegating transport commissioning capacity from the Mayor to groups of boroughs under s38 of the GLA Act 1999.

Finance 7. London Councils fully supports the recommendations of the London Finance Commission and believes fiscal devolution has an important role to play in financing London’s infrastructure requirements. However, although fiscal devolution will bring a degree of certainty to the funding available to London, it will not bridge the estimated funding gap of £1.3 trillion over the next 40 years.

8. We need to look at the role the continuing rising land values in London can play in raising additional finance and make the most of our assets and explore different ways of borrowing that are fiscally safe.

London’s Infrastructure Requirements 9. The Infrastructure Plan omits a detailed analysis of London’s social infrastructure requirements, namely housing, school and health provision. This is a fundamental weakness, not only because they play a critical role in supporting London’s continued growth and sustainability but also given the close inter-relationships between them.

10. Housing sites often become viable only as a result of infrastructure investment, and conversely new housing schemes can help make the case for the additional infrastructure that is needed.

11. Recent challenges arising from the misalignment between bus routes and primary health care following hospital reconfiguration underline the necessity of dialogue between public sector partners, such as the London Health Board and Transport for London, in order to ensure planning and provision of London’s infrastructure remain coherent.

12. Within housing, our assessment shows that simply clearing the backlog of house building would cost more than £50 billion. We have long argued for reform of the rules governing local authority housing revenue accounts to allow greater prudential borrowing and support calls for London to be given a greater share of the national affordable housing programme.

13. London Councils’ modelling for school places has indicated a requirement of 133,000 by 2018, with forecasts showing that the pupil growth rate in London, over the six years from 2012 is twice that of any other region. The critical nature of this challenge requires recognition across London government and formal consideration as part of London’s infrastructure planning.

14. Recent work by the London Health Board and London Health Commission has highlighted the scale of underused or unused NHS land and buildings in London. The London Health Commission is likely to be making recommendations about changes to the capital receipts regime to incentivise the release of un/under-used NHS estate. As well as potentially releasing funding that could be used to reinvest in new NHS estate, this opens up the potential for development of current sites for other uses, including housing. Making any new regime work will require close working between the NHS, GLA and local authorities.

15. The Plan should give formal consideration for cultural infrastructure, which, alongside wider social infrastructure is an essential part of making a city a good place to live.

16. The next paragraphs go into more detail to those infrastructure requirements outlined in the Plan.

Transport

17. The prominence of transport infrastructure within the consultation document chimes with its critical role in sustaining growth and connecting communities. We have the following, specific comments;

a) Rather than spending around £30bn on an inner, orbital road tunnel, we would emphasise demand management activities, including the potential for electronic road pricing, which will not only discourage travel at certain times of day but also contribute to raising some of the required finance for re-investment into transport infrastructure b) The Plan should have a greater emphasis on walking and cycling in addressing demand pressures on both the road and public transport infrastructure. This could be supported by a real push for and increased accessibility to smartphone technology that encourages healthier lifestyles, including more active travel. c) Whilst we support transforming the rail network, we will only support devolution to TfL in a way that does not lead to significant rises in the cost of the Freedom Pass to boroughs. d) We welcome the ambition for transport infrastructure in the capital to be universally accessible, as well as introduction of the 24 hour tube network. We want to work with the relevant agencies, such as TfL and MOPaC, to address any potential issues around Anti- Social-Behaviour and Local Environmental Quality as a result of this change. e) We welcome the intention of the Plan to achieve minimal freight impact, but would note that boroughs have a great interest in ‘out of hours’ deliveries and must be consulted appropriately. f) River crossing in East London have proven to be contentious in the past. We are prepared to work with you to ensure the evidence is robust and of such quality, that schemes can be supported by our member organisations.

Green Infrastructure and Water

18. The inclusion of Green Infrastructure in the Consultation Document is encouraging and offers the prospect of a future London that remains healthy, desirable and sustainable.

a) Any changes to the governance arrangements of London’s green infrastructure should be led by those who currently have responsibility in managing them. Imposing new arrangements would be counter-productive. b) We support and have been involved in the drafting of the sustainable drainage action plan for London. c) We note the proposal for developing innovative tariffs and smart metering as a means of incentivising sustainable water usage, but are concerned about the potential impact these proposals might have on vulnerable residents. We therefore recommend any such change is carefully monitored.

Digital Technology

19. We support the priority given to digital connectivity within the Infrastructure Plan. Boroughs have and will continue to play a significant role in planning for and supporting the roll-out of this infrastructure.

a) We oppose any proposal to bring planning applications for communications infrastructure within the Mayor’s strategic responsibility or any new ability for the Mayor to determine these applications. b) We are conscious that the push for ‘super-fast’ connectivity must be balanced with accessibility. In championing London as a city at the forefront of digital change we would therefore look to support infrastructure that reduced the prevalence of digital exclusion rather than prioritising more exclusive, higher-cost, higher-speed technologies. c) We recognise the potential for open data to play a role in the development of a ‘smarter city’ and would highlight the work of boroughs such as Redbridge in leading the way in this area. We support the concept of a London Datastore, but would advise that local data often requires local expertise and context to be effective and relevant. d) There may be an opportunity to better integrate London’s public Closed Circuit Television network and to make use of the enabling infrastructure for wider data transmission. However, it should be noted that local authority CCTV is a non-statutory service funded by a variety of sources, facing significant financial pressure.

Energy

20. More emphasis is required on demand management, including energy efficiency measures for current buildings and planning standards for new builds.

a) We welcome support for local combined heat and power projects and for the potential for London government to play a greater role in influencing regulated energy companies. b) The potential for London boroughs to play a role in contributing to the balance of unrecovered cost of upfront electricity provision is interesting, but we would require further details on how this would work in practice.

Waste and Recycling

21. Waste minimisation should form the emphasis of this section. London government should collectively use its influence to Government and industry to reduce the amount of waste that is produced at source.

a) Operationally, it is important to recognise that there are not 33 different collection arrangements in London, but rather a limited number of boroughs with slight differences in service and cost models. Twelve boroughs operate their own waste collection services and the North London Waste Authority owns a waste disposal company. Boroughs should therefore be recognised as key delivery partners in any proposals regarding opportunities to improve satisfaction and efficiency through more uniformity in waste collection and recycling arrangements. b) In particular, any process of rationalising contractual or service arrangements across the capital is likely to require a thorough acknowledgment of local contractual obligations, recognition of the challenging fiscal climate boroughs face and an understanding of the factors that have driven local decisions, not least of which is a borough’s housing stock. We are also unaware of any hard evidence that supports the assertion that a single system for waste services in London would achieve greater levels of recycling. c) Also, while the concept of a ‘circular economy’ is one that has the potential to play a significant part in addressing London’s waste challenge, it has not yet gained currency amongst the wider public and relies on viable markets for recycled materials that in many cases have yet to materialise.

Conclusion 22. The London Infrastructure Plan 2050 Consultation provides a firm base for future discussion and presents the opportunity to develop a fully integrated infrastructure investment proposal for the Capital.

23. Turning this plan into reality will require more than technical detail or additional sources of funding, although both are crucial in their own right. It will require partnership throughout its development and delivery, to identify gaps and bring new perspectives to the table and to make sure that the integrated solutions London needs are properly established.

24. London Councils believes that local communities and leaders make an essential contribution to sustainable delivery within a complex city like London. We look forward to discussing how this might be achieved and working with partners right across London to make sure this happens.

Leaders Committee Housing: Recent Activity Item no: 4

Report by: Lizzie Clifford Job title: Head of Housing and Planning Policy

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Lizzie Clifford

Telephone: 020 7934 9813 Email: [email protected]

Summary Housing is the subject of considerable debate within London and nationally. The reputation of London local government is tied to our ability to generate successful solutions and help deliver homes on the scale that is needed. This report sets out some of the current pressures and opportunities, as well as bringing leaders up to date with London Councils’ housing activity in this context.

Leaders’ Committee is asked to note and endorse London Councils’ Recommendations current housing policy and lobbying activity.

Housing recent activity Introduction

1. The affordability and availability of housing is an urgent concern for residents and businesses in London. London Councils modelling estimated 526,000 homes would need to be built between 2011 and 2021 just to keep pace with London’s booming population.

2. The current shortage is creating additional burdens for many boroughs in the form of managing the impacts and costs of homelessness, overcrowding and housing-related poverty. As these pressures are mounting, the role and performance of boroughs is also coming under increasing scrutiny as the shortage of housing in London moves up the political and public agenda. This report highlights some of the current pressures and opportunities and brings leaders up to date with some specific areas of activity that require action.

Enhancing boroughs’ housing role

3. Since HRA reform there has been a renewed interest in the contribution that councils can make and are making in housing supply, which brings with it both risks and opportunities. Boroughs already do play a critical role in supporting housing delivery, but may be susceptible to competing voices suggesting that housing supply is best improved by bringing in tougher penalties in relation to the use of existing powers, or indeed aggregating power to a pan-London level.

4. The recent progress report of the government’s Review of the Local Authority Role in Housing Supply argued that ‘there is a pressing need for a step change in the role that local authorities can play in supporting housing activity and housing supply, which includes renewing and refreshing housing in line with local need, and being more pro-active in using existing powers, levers and opportunities to lead housing growth.’ The review is looking at: • how local authorities can take more responsibility for ‘whole of market’ housing delivery • boosting local authority skills and capacity • delivering on smaller sites • simplified access to private finance • better land transparency.

5. The need to build more homes, and local authorities’ role in that, is likely to be a topic of keen debate in the run up to the 2015 General Election. The Conservative Party has already announced proposals to build 100,000 starter homes on brownfield land, aimed at younger first-time buyers at 20% less than market levels. Recent announcements from the Labour Party have included a new tax on properties worth more than £2m and a proposal for New Homes Corporations. It is anticipated that Labour’s Lyons Housing Review – which is expected to be published within the first half of October - may suggest: • ‘opening up’ HRA borrowing and scrutinising whether councils are using existing borrowing capacity in the most effective way • policies to get more land into development system • proposals for better resourcing of planning departments and revisions to the ‘duty to cooperate’ • improving and simplifying the CPO process for site assembly • incentives for local authorities to bring forward schemes for new towns and garden cities • potential reform of the Community Infrastructure Levy on major developments.

Housing investment

6. Since 2012 local authorities have had new financial freedoms within their Housing Revenue Account, albeit with a cap imposed to limit potential borrowing. London Councils is actively promoting boroughs’ successes and innovations in supporting and increasing development, and has led a campaign to urge government to lift the HRA borrowing cap to increase the scope for boroughs to invest.

7. Self-financing gives boroughs welcome opportunities to take a stronger strategic role in new supply, but it also has led to increased scrutiny of how local investment capacity and powers are being used. In particular there has been some speculation over whether councils are currently using their borrowing headroom in the most effective way, alongside longstanding questions of whether some boroughs’ planning powers are being exercised to support or hinder development.

8. The lifting of the cap was explicitly out of scope of the Government’s review, and it is now expected that the Lyons Review will also not recommend a wholesale lifting of the cap, although it may call for headroom trading or other flexibilities. In this context, London Councils is also developing work to explore alternative investment options for boroughs with a view to promoting new models and delivery vehicles where appropriate. This is likely to include the publication of a report in early 2015 promoting the active work of London boroughs to support new supply.

9. Meanwhile there is also considerable scope to make tangible progress by demonstrating the effectiveness of locally-led approaches. Leaders have had a chance to discuss the current progress on financial devolution to London; some progress has already been made through the Growth Deal negotiations which involved coming together with a clear set of proposals for housing and planning reform. To take this work forward, London Councils is now exploring the potential of borough collaboration to enable an increase in supply and demonstrate a strong capability within local government to drive progress in housing without the need for top-down intervention. Successful collaboration where appropriate could enable a more efficient and effective planning and development process, potentially generate significant cost-savings, and crucially demonstrate a commitment to increasing delivery.

Addressing homelessness pressures

10. Meeting homelessness responsibilities is another area of significant and increasing pressure for London local government. In particular, there are concerns about the rising costs and difficulty of securing temporary accommodation for homeless households. One apparent symptom of the current market pressures is the rising costs of nightly paid accommodation, which is more lucrative for providers than longer-term temporary accommodation contracts. Research undertaken in May 2014 revealed that there were significant variations in costs being paid by boroughs on nightly paid temporary accommodation. There is a clear need to respond if we are to prevent costs continuing to increase further.

11. With the support of London Housing Directors, London Councils has therefore been facilitating collaboration between borough officers to help ensure that individual boroughs aren’t unreasonably charged for nightly paid accommodation. In the longer term, the intention is that the improved collaboration and information-sharing will help deliver savings for councils and encourage a return to sustainable leasing agreements. Action of this sort is likely to be challenging, and officers are looking to mitigate any risks and challenges that may arise. This work has received pan-London officer support and we are keeping DCLG officials informed of our progress.

Out of London placements

12. London Councils continues to monitor out of London homelessness placements. This is a subject of ongoing scrutiny from the media and from some local authorities outside London, however the overall numbers remain low in the context of total London homelessness placements.

13. In February 2014 a high level meeting took place between Mayor Jules Pipe, Mayor Sir Steve Bullock and representatives from South East Strategic Leaders (SESL) and South East of England Counties members (SEEC) to discuss the placement of homeless households by London boroughs. SESL raised the current challenges that a housing overspill poses for the south east region. London Councils highlighted the Advice Note developed to facilitate greater transparency and information sharing on out-of-London placements, and shared data on the numbers of households boroughs had placed in the South East and areas receiving significant numbers of placements. The SE leaders’ group has now requested a follow-up meeting.

Allocations and mobility

Mayor’s Pan London allocations top-slice 14. While there are significant pressures on housing supply for meeting local housing need, there is also pressure to consider the capital’s housing need as a whole, given the geographical mismatch between the supply of new affordable rented homes and the demand for those homes across London.

15. In an attempt to address this and with the stated aim of increasing mobility for existing social tenants, the Mayor has developed proposals to top-slice between 5-10% of allocations for new developments in the 2015-18 programme for pan-London allocations. The intention is for this to replace the current sub-regional system of nominations. The Mayor’s proposal affects all developments delivered under his 2015-18 programme, including nil-grant and S106 units. Tenants in work and training will be prioritised, as will under-occupiers.

16. While recognising the challenge facing London as a whole, London Councils has strongly expressed significant reservations about the Mayor’s proposals and the impact on boroughs’ abilities to meet their own local housing needs. We have been engaged in discussions with GLA to negotiate improvements to the current proposals. The final proposals will be debated at the Homes for London Board in the new year.

Right to Move consultation 17. In order to facilitate mobility on a national scale, the DCLG has issued a consultation setting out their own proposals to implement a national ‘right to move’ for social tenants to help them access work and training. This would formally incorporate the right to move for work or training purposes in regulations, with an expectation that a minimum 1% of lettings would be given for this purpose. The paper suggests removing the residency requirement for LA and HA tenants who are seeking to move closer to work or to take up an offer of work or training. It also sets out options either to strengthen guidance to include the need to move for work/training as ‘hardship’ for the purposes of reasonable preference, or to create a new reasonable preference category for transferring tenants who need to move for work. London Councils is gathering views from boroughs and will respond accordingly.

Planning

18. Borough planning powers are also the subject of proposed reforms. A recent government consultation sets out plans to make permanent permitted development rights to allow conversions of offices to residential premises without the need for full planning permission. The stated intention is to increase housing supply, but the reforms will mean that councils cannot collect S106 or require affordable housing or specific space and quality standards on such schemes.

19. In addition, as the Deregulation Bill entered the House of Lords, the government inserted a new clause allowing it to remove the requirement for London homeowners to seek planning permission if they wish to use a residential dwelling for the purpose of short term letting (defined as tenancies of fewer than 90 days). This followed an earlier consultation on the proposal, to which London Councils responded with strong concerns. The proposals enable the Secretary of State to remove the requirement for planning permission subject to particular safeguards, which may include exemptions for specific premises or areas.

20. London Councils is concerned about the loss of the boroughs’ ability to manage short- term lets, particularly in central London: the loss of enforcement powers may introduce a risk of losing long-term residential housing to short-term lettings, as well as potential disruption to existing communities. We are lobbying to encourage the Lords to delete the clause from the bill.

Conclusion

21. The housing shortage in London needs addressing urgently and boroughs can play a key role in that. However perceptions from some quarters that a localised approach to housing and planning is hindering housing delivery has led to many of the recent challenging policy interventions from the mayor and government as described above. In order to demonstrate the value of locally-led approaches it will be critical for boroughs to promote their achievements on local housing delivery, to work together to share options and mechanisms for doing more, and to achieve efficiencies and an increase in scale through collaboration where appropriate.

22. Leaders’ Committee is asked to note and endorse the current housing policy and lobbying activity.

Financial implications for London Councils None Legal implications for London Councils None Equalities implications for London Councils There are no direct equalities implications for London Councils as a result of this paper. Attachments None

Leaders’ Committee Health & Care Item no: 5

Report by: Sarah Sturrock Job title: Interim Strategic Lead, Health and Adult Services

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Sarah Sturrock

Telephone: 020 7934 9653 Email: [email protected]

Summary Local authorities took on new responsibilities for public health and convening Health & Wellbeing Boards in April 2013. Forecast demographic and budget pressures facing both the NHS and social care are significant. The pressures for transformational change to shift the balance of health and care funding into out-of-hospital services and to strengthen the personalisation and integration of care are growing. The London Health Commission, led by Lord Darzi at the invitation of the Mayor, will be reporting on 15 October. This report updates Leaders’ Committee on a number of developments in health and care that create opportunities for local authorities to evolve their roles in transforming health and care services, improving outcomes and addressing significant social care and health funding pressures.

Recommendations Leaders are asked to consider and give initial views on: 1. the scale of ambition for local government to play a direct influencing role in health and care solutions for their area; 2. the extent to which local government partnerships and joint working/commissioning arrangements are already equipped to meet this level of ambition; 3. the ability of Health & Wellbeing Boards to lead change in the local health system and ensure improved outcomes and reduced health inequalities for citizens; and 4. the level of interest from boroughs in shaping roles for themselves in sub-regional health structures.

Health & Care Background

1. The Health & Social Care Act 2012 led to major restructuring in the NHS, including from April 2013 the devolution of over 60% of NHS commissioning to Clinical Commissioning Groups, the transfer of public health to local authorities and the creation of statutory Health & Wellbeing Boards. As these changes have settled down, attention has refocused on the growing challenges facing health and care outcomes and services.

2. Last autumn, the NHS forecast a £30 billion funding gap nationally by 2020/21, £4.65 billion of which is in London. London Councils estimates £1.14 billion funding pressures in London by 2019/20 for adult social care and more for children’s social care. As both the NHS and local government face up to these challenges, there is an increasing recognition of the interdependence of health and care.

3. There are a range of key current developments that are seeking to lay foundations for how these challenges are addressed in future. This paper highlights the most significant of these: the London Health Commission and in particular the leadership and governance issues being considered as part of this; primary care co-commissioning – the first of what is expected to be wider opportunities for devolution of NHS England functions and funding; and the ongoing development of the health and care integration agenda.

4. These all reflect the challenges of collaborative leadership to ensure that the cumulative impact of individual programmes can deliver the scale and pace of transformation required and reduce the growing funding pressures. It is clear that the focus on mechanisms for addressing these challenges will only increase as we move towards the Comprehensive Spending Review that will follow the General Election. Currently, there appear to be some positive signals that the critical role of local leadership and locally tailored solutions is being recognised. However, the local structures (including CCGs and Health & Wellbeing Boards) are still relatively new and there is scepticism in some quarters about whether they can provide strong enough foundations for the scale of transformation needed. In addition, the need to secure savings from acute and emergency hospital care to fund better prevention and joined up out-of-hospital care means

that the geography of the ‘local health economy’ (in London nearly always multi- borough) is an increasing level of focus within the NHS.

5. Local government therefore faces some key decisions about its engagement in shaping the solutions for health and care, the robustness of the existing local arrangements to provide the necessary leadership and how these might need to be further developed both locally and on health-driven multi-borough geographies.

London Health Commission

6. The Mayor’s London Health Commission, chaired by Professor Lord Ara Darzi, is due to report on 15 October. London Councils Members have had some opportunity to discuss the outlines of his work with the Commission as it neared completion. In addition, we have facilitated a range of engagement opportunities for borough colleagues as part of the Commission’s progress. However, at the time of writing, we have not seen the final text of or recommendations from his report.

7. The Commission’s report is expected to set out some high level aspirations and vision for health in London and make a wide range of recommendations addressed at the Mayor, different parts of the NHS in London and boroughs, covering: • improving population health and reducing health inequalities, mostly focused on where pan-London or joint work can add value (eg air quality) and a series of measures targeted at children and young people; • health services - with a focus on integrated, personalised models of care and particular proposals for transforming primary care; • enablers for changes in health services – including estates, payments, allocations and funding for change (including a London Transformation Fund), workforce and information; • promoting growth in the London health and life sciences economy; • strengthening citizen engagement in the NHS; and • strengthening leadership and governance arrangements.

8. London Councils will provide a high level response to the report on publication. Thereafter, we will consider further with boroughs and other partners how to respond to individual recommendations.

Leadership and governance of health and care

9. While leadership and governance are one of the main areas of focus of the London Health Commission, there are other developments that raise issues of a similar nature. In particular, NHS England nationally is considering the potential for devolution and/or delegation of some of its functions to regional, sub-regional and local levels. How far this will go will be dependent on the strength of leadership and governance arrangements at those levels and the mechanisms that can be put in place for NHS England to be able to meet its accountabilities to Parliament for its voted public funding. In late October, Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, will publish his Five Year Forward View setting out the vision for the future of the NHS and the transformation required to meet changing and future needs, including the models of care, priorities for action and what can be done nationally to create the conditions for local action. This is likely to signal more clearly the opportunities and requirements for devolution.

10. In the meantime, multi-borough working is already gaining some impetus within health - the 5 year plans that CCGs have been developing together in 6 Strategic Planning Groups in London are intended to provide the framework for transformational change to secure the sustainability of local health economies. While local authorities are already playing significant roles in joint strategic leadership on health and care at the local level, there is a choice to be faced about how actively they wish to be engaged in shaping the future evolution of these local, sub-regional and regional roles.

11. The London Health Commission appears to be considering the following as part of its work on leadership and governance: i. arrangements to support increased local joint commissioning and integration of services to improve outcomes and efficiency across health and care; ii. the potential for greater local leadership and ownership of health and care transformation;

iii. the need for collaboration at ‘local health economy’ geographies based around hospital footprints, to enable a shift of focus and funding to prevention and out-of-hospital services that maximise wellbeing and independence; iv. the governance and accountability requirements to enable NHS England to devolve or delegate functions, funding and freedoms from national programmes to regional, sub-regional and local levels; v. the need for pan-London strategic leadership to make the case for London and support local health and care transformation; vi. the case for a London-level role to speak out and galvanise action on health outcomes and inequalities in the capital, potentially in the form of a London Health Commissioner; and vii. potential roles for the Mayor in convening, galvanising and leading action to improve health outcomes and inequalities across the capital.

12. The principles underpinning our engagement in these discussions have been: • no top-down restructuring and existing statutory responsibilities must be respected; • the local level is the main level for health and care commissioning; • arrangements for multi-area working should be developed from the bottom up, with potential for different degrees of delegation subject to the nature of the multi-area governance and accountability arrangements, and must still be translated into clear local plans, subject to local Health & Wellbeing Board agreement; • there is a need for a meaningful mechanism for political engagement, oversight and challenge at a London level, involving the Mayor and some borough Leaders. The London Health Board already exists to do this, though there may be a case for key partners to consider how it could be refreshed and adapted in the light of other developments.

13. There is a prize to win in the devolution of further NHS England functions and funding, if it genuinely brings greater ability for locally determined and jointly developed and owned solutions. Leaders are invited to discuss: • the appetite for strengthening local collaboration on health and care as a basis for securing devolution of NHS England functions and funding; • the strength of local governance and joint commissioning arrangements locally, including the critical role of the Health & Wellbeing Board, to enable this; and

• the extent to which local authorities want to and are able to shape multi- borough arrangements.

Primary Care Co-Commissioning

14. NHS England is responsible for commissioning primary care. In May, Simon Stevens, the new chief executive of NHS England, announced plans to enable CCGs to become involved in this, to increase local influence in investment in services that are key to wider integration and service transformation goals. Thirty of London’s 32 CCGs have submitted expressions of interest (some of them jointly we understand), on which decisions are expected in the next month.

15. The Chair of London Councils recently wrote to Simon Stevens to highlight local authorities’ interests in this agenda – citing the key importance of primary care in health and care integration, the knock-on implications of decisions in primary care on local authority services including social care, and the critical importance of the accessibility and quality of primary care to citizens. He called for the development of co-commissioning models in London to be opened up to involve local authorities.

16. If there is a positive response to this letter, discussion will be needed in boroughs and with local CCGs to clarify potential roles that local authorities might play. The approach taken by NHS England so far has been to invite individual areas to develop their own approaches, rather than imposing a single model. Should this continue there is therefore a real potential for locally tailored solutions that could become important contributions to wider planning and oversight of health and care transformation locally.

17. Leaders are invited to support the exploration of local government roles in co- commissioning primary care and the roles of Health and Wellbeing Boards too.

Integration

18. There is widespread commitment across the NHS and local government for the integration of health and care services to make care more personally tailored, improve outcomes, make more efficient use of funding and seek to shift spend out of hospitals into community- and home-based care by reducing the need for unnecessary acute and emergency interventions. Some London boroughs have

been working on this agenda with their local health partners for many years. Four parts of London were selected among the government’s 11 integration pioneers.

19. The Better Care Fund, based around a pooled £3.8 billion budget nationally in 2015/16, was intended to increase the pace and scale of health and care integration in all areas. Process changes and a fundamental change in policy in the summer, shifting the focus more strongly onto managing pressures in hospital services, have led to significant bureaucracy and increased risks for local authorities around the protection of social care and coverage of new burdens from the Care Act. Nonetheless, London boroughs have remained committed to integration and for many the Better Care Fund has been a catalyst for strengthening local partnerships and increasing ambition. National decisions on the plan assurance are due at the end of October. The goal is then for the focus to shift to delivery.

20. The need for integration will not abate and it will be important to learn from the experiences of the Better Care Fund to influence the future approaches. Key areas for consideration as part of this will be: • the scale and scope of budget pooling and joint planning required to deliver integration and wider transformation; • the arrangements necessary to enable this locally – including the role of Health & Wellbeing Boards and different partners - and the need for more extensive or new models of joint commissioning and commissioning innovations such as ‘capitated budgets’ (where providers are given a budget to meet the health and care needs of a specified population, incentivising them to invest in prevention and other measures to reduce more expensive care costs); and • how the cumulative impact of individual area integration plans can be considered in a co-ordinated way for providers who may cover multiple areas.

21. London Councils officers will be developing proposals to influence government and NHS England thinking for the future. To inform this, Leaders are invited to discuss their appetite for much greater integration of health and care commissioning and how the ‘local health economy’ focus can best be developed alongside the strengthening of the role of local Health & Wellbeing Boards.

Conclusion

22. London Councils will continue to engage in these opportunities to shape future health and care solutions for London. Leaders are asked to consider and give initial views on: • the scale of ambition for local government to play a direct influencing role in health and care solutions for their area; • the extent to which local government partnerships and joint working/commissioning arrangements are already equipped to meet this level of ambition; • the ability of Health & Wellbeing Boards to lead change in the local health system and ensure improved outcomes and reduced health inequalities for citizens; and • the level of interest from boroughs in collaborating in sub-regional health structures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LONDON COUNCILS

Financial Implications for London Councils None

Legal Implications for London Councils None

Equalities Implications for London Councils None

Leaders’ Committee Sustainable Communities Act – Item no: 6 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Report by: Philip Clifford Job title: Policy Manager, Strategic Policy

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Philip Clifford

Telephone: 020 7934 9792 Email: [email protected]

Summary The Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, has written to request the formal support of Leaders’ Committee for a proposal to submit an application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to reduce the maximum stake on Category B2 Fixed Odd Betting Terminals from £100 to £2 in on-street betting premises.

London Councils has long argued that local authorities should be able to have a greater say on whether and how betting shops operate in their areas. We recently presented findings from a poll of Londoners carried out over the summer indicating strong backing for our position, which attracted significant media interest.

In response to concerns such as ours the Government has announced its intention to change the regulations around betting shops so as to require a planning application in order to establish a new outlet.

However, this does not address the specific concern of high-stakes machines in existing high-street premises. An application under the Act to limit these machines has therefore been proposed by Newham on the grounds of increasing the sustainability of local communities.

Following application, the Government is required to consult with the Local Government Association and respond within a year.

Recommendations Leader’s Committee is asked to: i. Consider the request from the Mayor of Newham to formally

endorse plans to submit an application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to reduce the stakes on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (Category B2) from £100 to £2 in on-street betting premises.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Introduction

1. The Mayor of Newham has written to the Chair of London Councils seeking the formal support of Leaders’ Committee for a submission to Government under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 proposing a reduction in the maximum bet per spin on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals from £100 to £2 in on-street betting premises.

2. This report sets out the background to this request, provides an overview of London Councils’ existing policy position regarding high-street gambling and asks whether Leaders’ Committee would be minded to endorse the proposition put by Newham.

Background to Newham’s Sustainable Communities Act Proposal

3. Newham currently has 86 licensed betting premises and there is evidence to suggest these shops have been established in clusters, in some of the borough’s most deprived wards.

4. Research carried out by Newham suggests that the borough’s experience is not unique, with evidence indicating over a third of betting shops (36 per cent) are in the fifth most deprived areas. Between 2012 and 2013 there were 8,599 customer incidents in England related to gambling activity that required police assistance.

5. In addition, a survey conducted for Newham in April 2014 found that 73 per cent of respondents believed a stake of £100 on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals was too high and 61 per cent supported a reduction in the maximum stake from £100 to £2.

6. The issue has therefore been identified as a serious concern by the Mayor of Newham. However, there are limited grounds for a council to refuse applications for betting shop licenses for issues such as anti-social behaviour. There is also no power under the Gambling Act to put in place a cumulative impact policy such as there is under the Licensing Act in relation to alcohol and late night entertainment venues.

7. To date, the Planning Inspectorate has overturned every planning application refusal by the Newham Council, where the Council has determined that an application would result in an excessive concentration of betting outlets on the high street or to be inappropriate in relation to the Local Plan.

8. Each betting shop can provide up to 4 Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. Each terminal is capable of providing access to ‘casino-style’ gambling games (Category B2) where up to £100 can be wagered every 20 seconds. In response to a cap on the number of terminals within each shop, bookmakers have opened multiple premises within single locations e.g. along sections of high-street.

9. Newham propose to reduce the stakes on Category B2 machines in on-street betting shops by lowering the maximum bet per spin from £100 to £2. This would bring such machines into line with other gambling machines in easily accessible locations such as bingo halls and amusement arcades.

10. Specifically, Newham propose to submit an application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to amend the Categories of Gaming Machine Regulations 2007 so that the maximum stake for Category B2 machines in betting shops would be £2 instead of £100. Non-high street gambling locations such as casinos would not be directly affected by this proposal and could continue to offer a higher maximum stake on Category B2 machines.

11. The Sustainable Communities Act 2007 creates provision for local authorities to make proposals to the Secretary of State which they consider would contribute to promoting the sustainability of their local communities.

12. Upon receiving the application Government must consult and try to reach agreement with the Local Government Association (defined as ‘the selector’ in the Act) on whether and how the proposal will be implemented. Under provisions of the Act the Government has a year to respond to any submission.

13. The Government is due to review the level of stakes for gaming machines through the Triennial Review. This review is due to conclude in 2016 and consultation with the gambling industry and local authorities will begin in November 2015.

14. In order to maximise the chance of a successful application under the Act Newham has gathered support from 82 local authorities across the country. This support includes a previous submission made by the London Borough of Hackney. The borough has now requested formal support from London Councils to further strengthen its case.

London Councils’ Current Policy Position

15. London Councils’ current policy position is to argue for London boroughs to have a greater say on whether and how betting shops and payday loan shops can operate.

16. Members have raised concerns regarding the proliferation of betting shops and their tendency towards clustering. Betting shops restrict choice on the high street, contribute to perceptions of a poor urban environment and have had a serious impact on levels on anti- social behaviour and crime.

17. Betting shops, pawnbrokers and payday loan shops are currently classified as A2 (financial services). London Councils has argued on a cross-party basis that such shops are quite different from other businesses within the A2 classification, such as accountants or solicitors. We have therefore proposed that they be moved from the A2 class to use class sui generis.

18. A poll carried out for London Councils over the summer showed widespread support for our position, with a majority (57 per cent) of Londoners indicating they believe that betting shops are having a negative impact on their neighbourhoods and two-thirds (66 per cent) wanting councils to have more power to protect their high streets.

Recent Developments

19. In April 2014, the Government announced new gambling protections and controls including: i. New betting shops, where there is a change in use class, will now require a planning application ii. Players accessing higher-stakes machines (over £50) will be required to use account- based play or load cash over the counter. iii. It will be a requirement that all players of fixed odds betting terminals are presented with a choice of limits before play commences iv. Gaming machines in betting shops will be required to present warning messages and pauses in play.

20. London Councils is pleased the Government has listened to communities and boroughs on this issue. However, as set out above, these proposals are not likely to address the specific issue of high-stakes Fixed Odds Betting Terminals already present in on-street betting shops. Further, the details of these proposals are likely to be contained in the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals Bill, which is a private members bill scheduled to have its second reading in Parliament on 27 February 2015 i.e. close enough to the General Election as to be at risk. Conclusion

21. Leader’s Committee is asked to: i. Consider the request from the Mayor of Newham to formally endorse plans to submit an application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to reduce the stakes on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (Category B2) from £100 to £2 in on-street betting premises.

Leaders’ Committee

Annual Audit Report 2013/14 Item no: 7

Report by: David Sanni Job title: Head of Financial Accounting

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact David Sanni Officer:

Telephone: 020 7934 9704 Email: [email protected]

Summary This report presents the annual audit report issued by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), London Councils’ external auditor, following the completion of its audit of London Councils accounts for the year ended 31 March 2014.

The audit report was presented to the Audit Committee at its meeting on 26 September 2014. The Audit Committee considered the contents of the report and agreed the management response to the recommendation detailed on page 12 of the report.

Recommendations The Leaders’ Committee is asked:

• To note the contents of the Annual Audit Report which can be found at Appendix A.

Annual Audit Report 2013/14

Background

1. Under the Audit Commission’s Code of Practice (the Code), PwC is required to issue an annual audit report to members in respect of the 2013/14 financial year by 30 September 2014.

2. At its meeting on 26 September 2014, the Audit Committee considered the final draft of the audit report which can be found at Appendix A. The audit report contained details of the disagreement between London Councils and PwC on the initial delegation to the Transport and Environment Committee in respect of the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service. It also sets out the process agreed with the Auditor to put this matter beyond legal doubt in his view going forward. The report also includes an internal control recommendation in relation to the end of year payroll reconciliation. The Audit Committee agreed the proposed management response to the recommendation detailed on page 12 of the audit report.

3. The audit report and responses as approved by the Audit Committee was sent to all members of the Leaders’ Committee and the Chair of the Grants Committee. A copy was also sent to all borough Chief Executives and the document is posted on London Councils’ Website (www.londoncouncils.gov.uk under the “About us” sub-category).

Financial Implications for London Councils

None

Legal Implications for London Councils

None

Equalities Implications for London Councils

None

Appendices

Appendix A – PwC Report to those charged with governance

Background Papers

Draft Annual Audit Report 2013/14 – Report to London Councils Audit Committee 26 September 2014; and Final accounts working files 2013/14.

Item 7 - Appendix A

www.pwc.co.uk

London Councils Report to those charged with governance Report to the Audit Committee on the audit for the year ended 31 March 2014 (ISA (UK&I)) 260)

Government and Public Sector

September 2014 Item 7 - Appendix A

Contents

Code of Audit Practice and Executive summary 2 Statement of Responsibilities Audit approach 3 of Auditors and of Audited Bodies Significant audit and accounting matters 6

In April 2010 the Audit Commission Internal controls 12 issued a revised version of the Risk of fraud 13 ‘Statement of responsibilities of auditors and of audited bodies’. It is Fees update 15 available from the Chief Executive of each audited body. The purpose Appendices 16 of the statement is to assist auditors and audited bodies by explaining Appendix 1: Letter of representation 17 where the responsibilities of auditors begin and end and what is to be expected of the audited body in certain areas. Our reports and management letters are prepared in the context of this Statement. Reports and letters prepared by appointed auditors and addressed to members or officers are prepared for the sole use of the audited body and no responsibility is taken by auditors to any Member or officer in their individual capacity or to any third party.

London Councils PwC  Contents An audit of the Statement of Item 7 - Appendix A Accounts is not designed to identify all matters that may be relevant to those charged with governance. Accordingly, the audit does not ordinarily identify Executive summary all such matters. We have issued a number of reports during the audit year, detailing the findings Background from our work and making This report tells you about the significant findings from our audit. We presented our plan to you in March 2014; we have recommendations for reviewed the plan and concluded that it remains appropriate. improvement, where appropriate.

Audit Summary  We have completed the majority of our audit work and expect to be able to issue an unqualified audit opinion on the Statement of Accounts on 26 September 2014.  The key outstanding matters, where our work has commenced but is not yet finalised, are:  approval of the Statement of Accounts and letters of representation;  receipt of outstanding bank and investment confirmations; and  completion procedures including subsequent events review.  There are two key judgments which require the Audit Committee's attention – further details are set out on pages 6-9.

Please note that this report will be sent to the Audit Commission in accordance with the requirements of its standing guidance.

We look forward to discussing our report with you on 26 September 2014. Attending the meeting from PwC will be Ciaran McLaughlin.

London Councils PwC  2 Item 7 - Appendix A

Audit approach

Our audit approach was set in our audit plan which we presented to you in March 2014.

We have summarised below the significant risks we identified in our audit plan, the audit approach we took to address each risk and the outcome of our work.

Risk Categorisation Audit approach Results of work performed

Management override Significant  As part of our assessment of your control environment Audit work performed as per the planned of controls we considered those areas where management could audit approach stated. ISA (UK&I) 240 requires use discretion outside the financial controls in place to No significant misstatements or control that we plan our audit work misstate the financial statements. deficiencies were identified as a result the to consider the risk of We performed the following procedures to: procedures performed. fraud, which is presumed  Test the appropriateness of journal entries and to be a significant risk in other adjustments to the general ledger. any audit. In every organisation, management  Test accounting judgements that affect the General may be in a position to Fund for bias, such as bad debts, accruals and override the routine day to provisions. day financial controls.  Consider if there were significant transactions Accordingly, for all of our outside the normal course of business, and if there audits, we consider this were, whether their rationale suggested fraudulent risk and adapt our audit financial reporting or asset misappropriation. procedures accordingly.  Test that expenditure was recorded in the correct financial year.  Consider whether any segregation of duties weaknesses gave rise to a significant risk of material misstatement.  Test that the reversal of items debited or credited to the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement were in accordance with statute.  Review the appropriateness of accounting policies and estimation bases, focusing on any changes not driven by amendments to reporting standards; and  Perform unpredictable procedures targeted on fraud risks. We also understood and evaluated controls relevant to management override risks identified above.

London Councils PwC  3 Item 7 - Appendix A

Risk Categorisation Audit approach Results of work performed

Risk of fraud in Significant  We obtained an understanding of revenue and Audit work performed as per the planned revenue and expenditure controls. audit approach stated. expenditure We evaluated and tested the accounting policy for No significant misstatements or control recognition income and expenditure recognition to ensure that this deficiencies were identified as a result of the Under ISA (UK&I) 240 was consistent with the requirements of the Code of procedures performed. there is a presumption that Practice on Local Authority Accounting. there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition. We We reviewed accounting estimates relating to the extend this presumption to recognition of income and expenditure (for example the recognition of deferred income and accruals). expenditure in local We performed detailed testing of revenue and government. expenditure transactions, focussing on the areas we considered to be of greatest risk. In respect of revenue, we focussed on revenue streams other than Borough subscription fees and rental income as these revenue streams are predictable in nature. In respect of expenditure, we focussed on expenditure streams other than highly predictable expenses such as payroll costs, property rental, business rates and European Social Fund grant expenditure.

London Councils PwC  4 Item 7 - Appendix A

Intelligent scoping In our audit plan presented to you in March 2014 we reported our planned overall materiality, determined using reported gross expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2013, which we used in planning the overall audit strategy. Our materiality for the performance of audit work was revised to reflect actual expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2014. This did not result in a significant change from our planned overall materiality and therefore had no effect on our testing strategy.

Our revised materiality levels are as follows:

Committee Overall materiality Clearly trivial reporting de minimis £ £

Joint Committee 1,418,000 70,000

Transport and Environment Committee 944,000 47,000

Grants Committee 181,000 9,000

Overall materiality has been set at 2% of actual expenditure for the year ended 31 March 2014.

ISA (UK&I) 450 (revised) requires that we record all misstatements identified except those which are “clearly trivial” i.e. those which we do expect not to have a material effect on the financial statements even if accumulated. We agreed the de minimis threshold with the Audit Committee at its meeting in March 2014.

London Councils PwC  5 Item 7 - Appendix A

Significant audit and accounting matters

Auditing Standards require us to tell you about relevant Accounting issues matters relating to the audit of the Statement of Accounts The following significant accounting issues requiring sufficiently promptly to enable you to take appropriate amendment to disclosures in the Statement of Accounts were action. identified: Accounts  Parking on Private Land Appeals Service A disagreement with management was identified We have completed our audit, subject to the following regarding the lawfulness of income and expenditure outstanding matters: relating to the Parking on Private Land Appeals service operated by the Authority under contract for  review and agreement of final disclosures in respect the British Parking Association. We recognise that of income and expenditure associated with Parking Management is taking action to ensure that the on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) contract; powers necessary to make the operation of the  approval of the Statement of Accounts and letters of contract lawful going forward are appropriately representation; delegated by the London local authorities. Further  identification of contingencies and commitments details of the disagreement are included in the relating to legal matters notified by the Comptroller Disagreement with management section below. and City Solicitor; and

 completion procedures including subsequent events  Related Parties – British Parking Association (BPA) review. It was identified that the British Parking Association was a related party due to a common director. The Subject to the satisfactory resolution of these matters, the related party transaction disclosure was revised to finalisation of the Statement of Accounts and their approval include all transactions with the BPA as detailed in of them we expect to issue a modified audit opinion. The the Related parties section below. opinion will draw the readers’ attention to the note about the POPLA contract and the disclosures made therein, but unless agreement cannot be reached with management, it will not Changes to IAS 19: Employee Benefits constitute a qualification. From 2013/14 there have been changes to the accounting for defined benefit schemes and termination benefits. These We will not however, be able to issue the completion changes have been appropriately reflected in the Authority’s certificate in respect of our 2013/14 audits of TEC or the financial statements. Consolidated accounts until we have completed our work into an objection relating to the 2012/13 accounts. We hope to complete our work on this objection by 31 October 2014.

London Councils PwC  6 Item 7 - Appendix A

Misstatements and significant audit London Councils engaged the actuary Barnett Waddingham LLP to estimate the value of the Pension Liability on the adjustments balance sheet at 31 March 2014. We have to tell you about all uncorrected misstatements we found during the audit, other than those which are trivial. We The calculation involves a number of complex judgements, also bring to your attention misstatements which have been including appropriate discount rates to be used, mortality corrected by management but which we consider you should rates, expected return on pension fund assets, salary changes be aware of in fulfilling your governance responsibilities. and estimates of future retirement ages. No misstatements were identified during the audit which The following chart shows the movement in the Authority’s were required to be brought your attention. net pension liability over the last few years.

Significant accounting principles and 20,000 policies 18,000 Significant accounting principles and policies are disclosed in 16,000 the notes to the Statement of Accounts. We will ask 14,000 management to represent to us that the selection of, or 12,000 changes in significant accounting policies and practices that 10,000 have, or could have, a material effect on the Statement of 8,000 Accounts have been considered. 6,000 4,000 2,000 Net Pension Liability ('000) Liability Pension Net Judgments and accounting estimates 0 The Authority is required to prepare its financial statements in accordance with the CIPFA Code. Nevertheless, there are Financial year still many areas where management need to apply judgement to the recognition and measurement of items in the financial We reviewed the reasonableness of the assumptions statements. The following significant judgements and underlying the pension liability, and we are comfortable that accounting estimates were used in the preparation of the the assumptions are within an acceptable range. We financial statements: validated the data supplied to the actuary on which to base their calculations. Valuation of Pensions Liability The most significant estimate in the Statement of Accounts is Central Recharges in the valuation of net pension liabilities for employees in the In the year ended 31 March 2014, there was a change in pension fund. Your net pension liability at 31 March 2014 accounting policy for recharging central overhead costs. was £16.2 million (2013 - £14.0 million). We have documented and evaluated the process to calculate the recharges and reviewed the accuracy of the calculation of

London Councils PwC  7 Item 7 - Appendix A the amount to be recharged for all recharges in the year Parking on Private Land Appeals Service ended 31 March 2014. In September 2013, an objection was raised on the London Councils accounts for 2012/13 by an interested person The above procedures have also been performed for all residing in London. The objection stated that the Transport material restatements of the 2012/13 comparatives resulting and Environment Committee (TEC) did not have the legal from the change in accounting policy. powers to provide an appeals service for parking on private land for the British Parking Association under contract. Payments in Advance The Consolidated Statement of Accounts include payments in Having taken our own independent legal advice, we are of the advance of £2.1 million at 31 March 2014. This balance was view that TEC did not have the legal powers to enter into the substantively tested on a sample basis, with all sampled contract. It is common ground that local authorities have a prepayments agreed directly to supporting documentation or general power of competence under section 1 of the Localism recalculated based on the details of the supporting evidence act 2011, which could provide them with the power to enter obtained. into such an arrangement and to delegate this to TEC. It is our view that such a delegation was not properly secured the Accruals income and expenditure derived from the contract and The Consolidated Statement of Accounts accrued recorded within the accounts is therefore unlawful. It is the expenditure of £2.7 million at 31 March 2014. This balance view of management that the service was and is currently was substantively tested on a sample basis, with all sampled being delivered by TEC on behalf of all the participating accruals corroborated using appropriate supporting authorities with their consent and proper authority. documentation. Income and expenditure in respect of the contract included in the Statement of Accounts was immaterial for year ended Receipts in Advance 31 March 2013. However, amounts recognised in the year The Consolidated Statement of Accounts include receipts in ended 31 March 2014 were material. advance of £5.2 million at 31 March 2014. These balances all relate to grants or contributions in excess of expenditure for We recognise that Management is taking action to ensure related expenditures. These balances are carried forward to that the powers necessary to make the operation of the be matched against expenditure in future periods. This contract lawful going forward are appropriately delegated by balance was substantively tested on a sample basis. For each the London local authorities. sampled balance, the decision to carry forward the excess income was assessed for reasonableness and the amount Appropriate disclosure of the disagreement between deferred was recalculated. management and the auditors has been made in the Statement of Accounts and a liability correctly included in Disagreement with management respect of all income recognised in respect of this contract up The following disagreement with management, could be to 31 March 2014. significant to the entity's Statement of Accounts or our audit report. This disclosure will be explicitly referred to in our audit report but this does not constitute a qualification of our opinion. London Councils PwC  8 Item 7 - Appendix A

Management representations Audit independence The final draft of the representation letter that we ask We are required to follow both the International Standard on management to sign is attached in Appendix 1. Auditing (UK and Ireland) 260 (Revised) “Communication with those charged with governance”, UK Ethical Standard 1 Related parties (Revised) “Integrity, objectivity and independence” and UK In forming an opinion on the financial statements, we are Ethical Standard 5 (Revised) “Non-audit services provided to required to evaluate: audited entities” issued by the UK Auditing Practices Board.

 whether identified related party relationships and Together these require that we tell you at least annually transactions have been appropriately accounted for about all relationships between PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in the UK and other PricewaterhouseCoopers’ firms and and disclosed; and associated entities (“PwC”) and the Authority that, in our  whether the effects of the related party relationships professional judgement, may reasonably be thought to bear and transactions cause the financial statements to be on our independence and objectivity. misleading. Relationships between PwC and the Authority We identified the following matters during the course of our We are not aware of any relationships that, in our work of which we believe the Audit Committee should be professional judgement, may reasonably be thought to bear aware: on our independence and objectivity and which represent matters that have occurred during the financial year on A related party relationship was identified between London which we are to report or up to the date of this document. Councils and the British Parking Assocaition (BPA) since London Councils’ Corporate Director of Services is a Director Relationships and Investments of the British Parking Association (BPA). London Councils We have not identified any potential issues in respect of are contracted by the BPA to deliver the Parking on Private personal relationships with the Authority or investments in Land Appeals (POPLA) service. The value of income received the Authority held by individuals. from this contract in the year ended 31 March 2014 was material to the Statement of Accounts. Adequate disclosure Employment of PricewaterhouseCoopers staff by the has been included in the Statement of the Accounts in respect Authority of these transactions. We are not aware of any former PwC partners or staff being employed, or holding discussions in respect of employment, The audit team have obtained assurance over the by the Authority as a director or in a senior management completeness of related party disclosures by searching position covering financial, accounting or control related relevant databases for details of all positions held at other areas. organisations by London Councils management. Sales and purchase ledger records were then searched for evidence of Business relationships transactions with identified related parties. We have not identified any business relationships between PwC and the Authority.

London Councils PwC  9 Item 7 - Appendix A

Services provided to the Authority Services to Directors and Senior Management The audit of the Statement of Accounts is undertaken in PwC does not provide any services e.g. personal tax services, accordance with the UK Firm’s internal policies. The audit is directly to directors, senior management. also subject to other internal PwC quality control procedures such as peer reviews by other offices. Rotation It is the Audit Commission's policy that engagement leaders In addition to the audit of the Statement of Accounts, PwC at an audited body at which a full Code audit is required to be has also undertaken the following non audit services for carried out should act for an initial period of five years. The London Councils: Commission’s view is that generally the range of regulatory safeguards it applies within its audit regime is sufficient to Agreed upon procedures - AR27 return reduce any threats to independence that may otherwise arise We provide these services in order to assist the directors of at the end of this period to an acceptable level. Therefore, to London Councils in fulfilling its obligation to report under safeguard audit quality, and in accordance with APB Ethical the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act Standard 3, it will subsequently approve engagement leaders 1992 (the “Act”). for an additional period of up to no more than two years, provided that there are no considerations that compromise, Services performed are as follows: or could be perceived to compromise, the auditor’s independence or objectivity.  agreeing that amounts in the return are accurately extracted from the annual financial statements. Gifts and hospitality We have not identified any significant gifts or hospitality  agreeing the classification of each line in the revenue provided to, or received from, a member of Authority’s account, by agreeing the mapping of the general Executive, senior management or staff. ledger transaction listing to the AR27. Conclusion These non audit services are not considered to give rise to an We hereby confirm that in our professional judgement, as at independence threat since fees in respect of the engagement the date of this document: are trivial in comparison with audit. Furthermore balances stated on the return are traced to the financial statements  we comply with UK regulatory and professional and general ledger and not substantively tested. Therefore requirements, including the Ethical Standards issued there is no threat of self review. by the Auditing Practices Board; and  our objectivity is not compromised. Fees The analysis of our audit and non-audit fees for the year We would ask the Audit Committee to consider the matters ended 31 March 2014 is included on page 15. In relation to in this document and to confirm that they agree with our the non-audit services provided, none included contingent conclusion on our independence and objectivity. fee arrangements.

London Councils PwC  10 Item 7 - Appendix A

Annual Governance Statement Local Authorities are required to produce an Annual Governance Statement (AGS), which is consistent with guidance issued by CIPFA / SOLACE: “Delivering Good Governance in Local Government”. The AGS was included in the Statement of Accounts.

We reviewed the AGS to consider whether it complied with the CIPFA / SOLACE “Delivering Good Governance in Local Government” framework and whether it is misleading or inconsistent with other information known to us from our audit work. We found no areas of concern to report in this context. Economy, efficiency and effectiveness Our value for money code responsibility requires us to carry out sufficient and relevant work in order to conclude on whether the Authority has put in place proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources.

Audit Commission guidance specifies the criteria for our value for money conclusion as:

 reviewing the annual governance statement (AGS);  reviewing the results of the work of other relevant regulatory bodies or inspectorates, to consider whether there is any impact on the auditor’s responsibilities at the audited body; and  other local risk-based work as appropriate, or any work mandated by the Commission.

We determined a local programme of audit work based on our audit risk assessment, informed by these criteria and our statutory responsibilities.

We anticipate issuing an unqualified value for money conclusion.

London Councils PwC  11 Item 7 - Appendix A

Internal controls

Accounting systems and systems of internal control Management are responsible for developing and implementing systems of internal financial control and to put in place proper arrangements to monitor their adequacy and effectiveness in practice. As auditors, we review these arrangements for the purposes of our audit of the Statement of Accounts and our review of the annual governance statement.

The significant matters that we wish to bring to your attention are set out below. In addition we have identified a small number minor control points. We will report those separately in a letter to the Corporate Director of Resources for his action. Reporting requirements We have to report to you any deficiencies in internal control that we found during the audit which we believe should be brought to your attention. Summary of significant internal control deficiencies

Deficiency Recommendation Management’s response

No year-end Regular reconciliations should be It was acknowledged by the auditors that there were no issues identified in the reconciliation performed between payroll reports and payroll to ledger audit testing. This in itself is the result of the process of performed between the the general ledger. preparing the monthly salary forecast report presented to the Corporate payroll system and All reconciling items identified should be Management Board which involves comparing the detailed analysis of general ledger. investigated and explained. Appropriate permanent and temporary staff to the amounts included in the ledger. This audit evidence should be retained in budgetary control process of predictive analysis will identify discrepancies on the order to support explanations ledger and the underlying payroll system. This process is further supported by determined. weekly HR catch-up meeting with the Director – Corporate Governance. However, London Councils officers agree to perform regular reconciliations of the payroll system reports to the general ledger and provide an end of year reconciliation for 2014/15.

London Councils PwC  12 Item 7 - Appendix A

Risk of fraud

International Standards on Auditing (UK&I) state that we, as auditors, are responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance that the financial statements taken as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. The respective responsibilities of auditors, management and those charged with governance are summarised below: Auditors’ responsibility Our objectives are:  to identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud;  to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, through designing and implementing appropriate responses; and  to respond appropriately to fraud or suspected fraud identified during the audit. Management’s responsibility Management’s responsibilities in relation to fraud are:  to design and implement programmes and controls to prevent, deter and detect fraud;  to ensure that the entity’s culture and environment promote ethical behaviour; and  to perform a risk assessment that specifically includes the risk of fraud addressing incentives and pressures, opportunities, and attitudes and rationalisation. Responsibility of the Audit Committee Your responsibility as part of your governance role is:  to evaluate management’s identification of fraud risk, implementation of anti-fraud measures and creation of appropriate “tone at the top”; and  to investigate any alleged or suspected instances of fraud brought to your attention.

Your views on fraud

In our audit plan presented to the Audit Committee in March 2014 we enquired:  Whether you have knowledge of fraud, either actual, suspected or alleged, including those involving management?  What fraud detection or prevention measures (e.g. whistle-blower lines) are in place in the entity?  What role you have in relation to fraud?

London Councils PwC  13 Item 7 - Appendix A

 What protocols / procedures have been established between those charged with governance and management to keep you informed of instances of fraud, either actual, suspected or alleged?

In presenting this report to you we ask for your confirmation that there have been no changes to your view of fraud risk and that no additional matters have arisen that should be brought to our attention. A specific confirmation from management in relation to fraud is included in the letter of representation.

Conditions under which fraud may occur

Management or other employees have an incentive or are under pressure

Incentive / pressure

Why commit fraud?

Opportunity Rationalisation/attitude

Circumstances exist that provide opportunity – Culture or environment enables management to ineffective or absent control, or management rationalise committing fraud – attitude or values ability to override controls of those involved, or pressure that enables them to rationalise committing a dishonest act

London Councils PwC  14 Item 7 - Appendix A

Fees update

Fees update for 2013/14 We reported our fee proposals in our plan.

Our actual fees were in line with our proposals.

Our fees charged were therefore:

2013/14 outturn 2013/14 fee proposal

External Audit Services

Statement of Accounts and Value for Money Conclusion 54,058 54,058

Electors Questions and Objections to 01 September 2014* 25,100 TBC

Non Audit Services

Certification of AR27 return 1,500 1,500

TOTAL 80,658 TBC *The objection is ongoing at this point and the fees charged will increase depending on the amount of further work required to complete our investigations. We will update the Audit Committee with the final additional fee once the objection has been completed.

London Councils PwC  15 Item 7 - Appendix A

Appendices

London Councils PwC  16 Item 7 - Appendix A

Appendix 1: Letter of representation

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 7 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2RT

Dear Sirs

Representation letter – audit of London Councils Joint Committee (the Committee) Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2014

The Committee is responsible for preparing consolidated statement of accounts in respect of itself, the Transport and Environment Committee and the Grants Committee (together “London Councils”).

Your audit is conducted for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the Statement of Accounts of the Committee give a true and fair view of the affairs of the Committee as at 31 March 2014 and of its surplus and cash flows for the year then ended and have been properly prepared in accordance with the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2013/14 supported by the Service Reporting Code of Practice 2013/14.

I acknowledge my responsibilities as Director of Corporate Resources for preparing the Statement of Accounts as set out in the Statement of Responsibilities for the Statement of Accounts. I also acknowledge my responsibility for the administration of the financial affairs of the Committee and that I am responsible for making accurate representations to you.

I confirm that the following representations are made on the basis of enquiries of other chief officers and members of the Committee with relevant knowledge and experience and, where appropriate, of inspection of supporting documentation sufficient to satisfy myself that I can properly make each of the following representations to you.

I confirm, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and having made the appropriate enquiries, the following representations:

Statement of Accounts

 I have fulfilled my responsibilities for the preparation of the Statement of Accounts in accordance with the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2013/14 supported by the Service Reporting Code of Practice 2013/14; in particular the Statement of Accounts give a true and fair view in accordance therewith.

London Councils PwC  17 Item 7 - Appendix A

 All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the Statement of Accounts.

 Significant assumptions used by the Committee in making accounting estimates, including those surrounding measurement at fair value, are reasonable.

 All events subsequent to the date of the Statement of Accounts for which the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2013/14 requires adjustment or disclosure have been adjusted or disclosed.

 The restatement made to reflect the impact of a current year change in accounting for recharges that affects the comparative information in the Statement of Accounts has been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2013/14.

Information Provided

 I have taken all the steps that I ought to have taken in order to make myself aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that you, the Committee's auditors, are aware of that information.

 I have provided you with:

 access to all information of which I am aware that is relevant to the preparation of the Statement of Accounts such as records, documentation and other matters, including minutes of the Committee and relevant management meetings;  additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit; and  unrestricted access to persons within the Committee from whom you determined it necessary to obtain audit evidence.

 So far as I am aware, there is no relevant audit information of which you are unaware.

Accounting policies

I confirm that I have reviewed the Committee’s accounting policies and estimation techniques and, having regard to the possible alternative policies and techniques, the accounting policies and estimation techniques selected for use in the preparation of Statement of Accounts are appropriate to give a true and fair view for the Committee's particular circumstances.

London Councils PwC  18 Item 7 - Appendix A

Fraud and non-compliance with laws and regulations

I acknowledge responsibility for the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control to prevent and detect fraud.

I have disclosed to you:  the results of our assessment of the risk that the Statement of Accounts may be materially misstated as a result of fraud.

 all information in relation to fraud or suspected fraud that we are aware of and that affects the Committee and involves: – management; – employees who have significant roles in internal control; or – others where the fraud could have a material effect on the Statement of Accounts.

 all information in relation to allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting the Committee’s Statement of Accounts communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others.

 all known instances of non-compliance or suspected non-compliance with laws and regulations whose effects should be considered when preparing Statement of Accounts.

Other than the matter set out in note 4 to the Statement of Accounts around the operation of the Parking on Private Land Appeals service, I am not aware of any instances of actual or potential breaches of or non-compliance with laws and regulations which provide a legal framework within which the Committee conducts its business and which are central to the Committee’s ability to conduct its business or that could have a material effect on the Statement of Accounts.

I am not aware of any irregularities, or allegations of irregularities including fraud, involving members, management or employees who have a significant role in the accounting and internal control systems, or that could have a material effect on the Statement of Accounts.

Related party transactions

We have disclosed to you the identity of the Committee’s related parties and all the related party relationships and transactions of which we are aware.

Related party relationships and transactions have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.9 of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2013/14.

We confirm that we have identified to you all senior officers, as defined by the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2011, and included their remuneration in the disclosures of senior officer remuneration.

London Councils PwC  19 Item 7 - Appendix A

Transactions with members/officers

Except as disclosed in the statement of accounts, no transactions involving members, officers and others requiring disclosure in the Statement of Accounts under the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2013/14 have been entered into .

Employee Benefits

I confirm that we have made you aware of all employee benefit schemes in which employees of the Committee participate.

Contractual arrangements/agreements

All contractual arrangements (including side-letters to agreements) entered into by the Committee have been properly reflected in the accounting records or, where material (or potentially material) to the statement of accounts, have been disclosed to you.

Litigation and claims

I have disclosed to you all known actual or possible litigation and claims whose effects should be considered when preparing the statement of accounts and such matters have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the CIPFA/LASAAC Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom 2013/14.

I am not aware of any pending or threatened litigation, proceedings, hearings or claims negotiations which may result in significant loss to the Committee and/or London Councils.

Taxation

I have complied with UK taxation requirements and have brought to account all liabilities for taxation due to the relevant tax authorities whether in respect of any direct tax or any indirect taxes. I am not aware of any non-compliance that would give rise to additional liabilities by way of penalty or interest and I have made full disclosure regarding any Revenue Authority queries or investigations that we are aware of or that are ongoing.

In particular:  In connection with any tax accounting requirements, I am satisfied that our systems are capable of identifying all material tax liabilities and transactions subject to tax and have maintained all documents and records required to be kept by the relevant tax authorities in accordance with UK law or in accordance with any agreement reached with such authorities.

London Councils PwC  20 Item 7 - Appendix A

 I have submitted all returns and made all payments that were required to be made (within the relevant time limits) to the relevant tax authorities including any return requiring us to disclose any tax planning transactions that have been undertaken the Committee’s benefit or any other party’s benefit.  I am not aware of any taxation, penalties or interest that are yet to be assessed relating to either the Committee or any associated company for whose taxation liabilities the Committee may be responsible.

Bank accounts

I confirm that I have disclosed all bank accounts to you including those that are maintained in respect of the pension fund.

Subsequent events There have been no circumstances or events subsequent to the period end which require adjustment of or disclosure in the statement of accounts or in the notes thereto.

...... (Director of Corporate Resources) For and on behalf of London Councils Joint Committee

Date ……………………

London Councils PwC  21 Item 7 - Appendix A

In the event that, pursuant to a request which London Councils has received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it is required to disclose any information contained in this report, it will notify PwC promptly and consult with PwC prior to disclosing such report. London Councils agrees to pay due regard to any representations which PwC may make in connection with such disclosure and London Councils shall apply any relevant exemptions which may exist under the Act to such report. If, following consultation with PwC, London Councils discloses this report or any part thereof, it shall ensure that any disclaimer which PwC has included or may subsequently wish to include in the information is reproduced in full in any copies disclosed. This document has been prepared only for London Councils and solely for the purpose and on the terms agreed through our contract with the Audit Commission. We accept no liability (including for negligence) to anyone else in connection with this document, and it may not be provided to anyone else.

© 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. In this document, "PwC" refers to the UK member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. 130610-142627-JA-UK

Leaders’ Committee

Remuneration of London Councils’ Item no. 8 Members

Report by: Derek Gadd Job title: Head of Governance

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Derek Gadd

Telephone: 020 7934 9505 Email: [email protected]

Summary: This paper attaches the report of the Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Members for activities on behalf of London Councils

Recommendations: Leaders’ Committee is recommended to: • Note the report; • Consider whether to accept the Panel’s recommendations.

Remuneration of London Councils’ members

Background

1. London Councils1 first set up an Independent Panel to look into the remuneration of councillors in 1998 and a panel has remained in existence ever since. The Local Government Act 2000 gave statutory force to the practice of using independent panels to make recommendations about remuneration and made special provision for London’s Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Councillors. So, when in 2004 London Councils decided to remunerate its leading members for their work for London Councils, it requested the Panel to make recommendations on the scope and quantum of that remuneration.

2. The process by which a scheme is adopted is that the Panel makes recommendations which the recipient body can either amend or reject outright - giving its reasons - or adopt. Since 20042 and most recently in 20103 when a job description for a political lead member was drawn up, the recommendations in the Panel’s reports of making special responsibility allowances to leading members have been accepted.

The 2014 report

3. The current panel, now comprising Sir Rodney Brooke CBE, Steve Bundred and Anne Watts CBE, was asked to convene and review the current scheme and the Panel’s final report is attached as Appendix 1.

The report recommends no change in the structure of the existing London Councils scheme but does reflect the emergence of the new joint committee, the Pensions Common Investment Vehicle (CIV) (Sectoral) Joint Committee, whereby its chair and vice-chair(s) are remunerated at the same level as the officers of the associated joint committees, Grants and TEC. The Panel also seeks to remedy an anomaly in that the position of chair of the Capital Ambition Board qualifies for remuneration.

1 Formerly the Association of London Government (the ALG), which changed its name to London Councils in 2006, the name that is used throughout this report 2 Elected Officers 16 December 2004 3 Leaders’ Committee 8 June 2010

The report does however make the following recommendations:

i. That the 2013/14 settled 1% pay award is applied with the effective date of the respective July 2014 AGMs;

ii. That the 2015/16 pay award, once settled, is also applied in line with the Panel’s long standing recommendation that allowances should be updated in accordance with any local government pay settlement.

Leaders’ Committee guidance is sought on these recommendations.

Equalities Implications:

There are no direct Equalities implications.

Financial Implications:

Savings of £18,375 per annum are achieved as a consequence of the 2014 London borough election results, whereby there is no longer a formal Liberal Democrat Group on London Councils, thereby reducing the number of remunerated party group leads.

The recommendations of the review panel, back-dated to the relevant London Councils AGMs in July 2014, can be accommodated within the approved budgetary provision for 2014/15.

Legal Implications:

There are no direct legal implications.

Recommendations:

Leaders’ Committee is recommended to: • Note the report; • Consider whether to accept the Panel’s recommendations.

List of appendices London Councils, Remuneration of Members, Report of the Independent Panel on Members’ Allowances

Item 8 - Appendix 1 LONDON COUNCILS

Remuneration of Members

Report of the Independent Panel on Members’ Allowances

Introduction

1. The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (‘the Regulations’) authorise the establishment by the Association of London Government (now London Councils) of an Independent Remuneration Panel to make recommendations in respect of the members’ allowances payable by London boroughs. Such a Panel was established and reported in 2001, 2003. 2006, 2010 and 2014.

2. In 2004 the Panel, acting under Regulation 6 of the Regulations, made recommendations on the allowances to be paid to the elected officers of the Association of London Government. The Panel’s recommendations were accepted with only slight amendment. The Panel met again in 2006 and made further recommendations about changes in the scheme. In 2010 the Panel recommended further minor modifications, which were accepted. The Panel continued to recommend that the allowances should be updated annually in line with the local government staff pay settlement.

3. The Panel has been re-constituted and now comprises Sir Rodney Brooke CBE (Chair), Steve Bundred and Anne Watts CBE. We have considered whether any change in circumstances warrants a change to the remuneration scheme.

Principles

4. The Panel continues to base its conclusions on the principles enunciated in 2004:

• Those who contribute as London councillors to the work of London Councils should be remunerated along the same lines and in accordance with the same principles as members of London boroughs. • The level of special responsibility allowances should be such as will properly reflect the time commitment and expertise required to fulfil these roles. • London Councils remains an important representative body. • Financial reward is and should not be the motivation for service on London Councils, but equally its scheme of allowances must make it economically possible for the organisation to draw on a wide range of councillors across the political spectrum.

5. We are mindful of the current economic climate and the severe constraints it places on the finances of local government. Because of this climate, in the years 2009-10 and 2013-14 London Councils members did not accept the pay increase negotiated for officers. As a result, allowances are below the level which they would have reached had the increases been agreed. Recognising the financial realities, in our recommendations we wish to avoid increasing the total spend on members’ allowances for London Councils. However, because of the 2014 London borough election results, there will no longer be a formal Liberal Democrat Group on London Councils, thus saving £18,375 pa. This sum will be more than enough to permit the updating of allowances in accordance with the local government pay settlements for 2013-14 and 2014- 15 (if the latter is agreed). Recognising the long-term inadvisability of allowing members’ allowances to decline in real terms, we therefore recommend restoration of the 2013-14 1% pay increase negotiated for staff as well as incorporation of the settlement in course of negotiation for 2014-15, knowing that the overall cost of members’ allowances will not increase. The schedule to this report sets out the levels of remuneration which we recommend.

6. We are aware of the potential to establish a separate joint committee to oversee a Pensions Common Investment Vehicle. Were this to proceed as a separate Joint committee, we believe that the Chair and Vice Chair(s) should be remunerated at the same level as the associated joint committees - Grants and TEC. This recommendation should be reviewed in the light of experience of the workload of the post.

7. In the Panel’s considerations there has been informal consultation with the Labour and Conservative Groups on London Councils. Both have confirmed that they have no further issues to raise with the Panel and do not suggest any changes to the present scheme. The Panel is, however concerned at one apparent anomaly, viz that the Chair of the Capital Ambition Board is an unremunerated position yet enjoys responsibilities which are certainly no less than, say, those exercised by the Chair of the Audit Committee. Accordingly we have added the Chair of the Capital Ambition Board to the schedule of remunerated positions below.

8. Our previous recommendations remain in place – no member should receive more than one allowance and allowances should continue to be updated annually in line with the staff pay settlement.

9. We therefore recommend the allowances set out in the third column below, subject to there being agreement on the 2014-15 staff pay settlement.

1 2 3

Amount Amount if Amount if pay awards taken pay award had been accepted in 2013/14 had been 2013/14 and current offer accepted in were both, in time, 2013/14 finalised and accepted by members for 2014/15

Executive

Chair £20,997 £21,207 £21,419

Deputy Chair, Vice-Chair £10,499 £10,604 £10,710 and other Executive members with portfolios without portfolio £5,250 £5,303 £5,356

Party Group Policy Leads £2,625 £2,651 £2,678

Grants Committee

Chair £10,499 £10,604 £10,710

Grants Vice-Chair £2,625 £2,651 £2,678

Transport and Environment Committee

Chair £10,499 £10.604 £10,710

Vice-Chair £2,625 £2,651 £2,678

Greater London Employers’ Forum £10,499 £10,604 £10,710 Chair £2,625 £2,651 £2,678 Vice-Chair

Audit Committee Chair £5,250 £5,303 £5,356 Capital Ambition Chair - - £5,356

Lead member for Equalities £5,250 £5,303 £5,356

Whip £5,250 £5,303 £5,356

Column 1 represents the amount taken in 2013/14

Column 2 represents the amount members would have been entitled to if they had taken up the 1% increase (following the officers annual pay award in 2013-14) recommended by the IRP. Column 2 also represents the amount that members would be entitled to if they accept the (provisional) award of 1% for 2014/15

Column 3 represents the amount members would have been entitled to if they had accepted both pay awards in 2013/14 and 2014/15 and is the amount recommended by the Panel, subject to agreement by the staff side.

Rodney Brooke Steve Bundred Anne Watts

23 September 2014

Leaders’ Committee

Summaries of Minutes Item no: 9

Report by: Derek Gadd Job title: Head of Governance

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Derek Gadd Officer:

Telephone: 020 7934 9505 Email: [email protected]

Summary Summaries of the minutes of London Councils’ Capital Ambition Board, Transport & Environment Committee, Audit Committee, Grants Committee and Greater London Employment Forum Council meetings.

Recommendations Leader's Committee is recommended to note the attached summaries: • Audit Committee – 15 July 2014 • Grants Committee- 16 July 2014 (AGM) • Transport and Environment Committee – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • Capital Ambition Board – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • GLEF – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • TEC Executive Sub Committee – 11 September 2014

Minutes of the Meeting of the Audit Committee 15 July 2014

Cllr Roger Ramsey was in the Chair

Members Present:

Cllr Roger Ramsey (LB Havering) Cllr Stephen Alambritis (LB Merton) Mr Roger Chadwick (City of London)

In Attendance:

Paul Nagle, Head of Audit & Risk Management, City of London Berniece Sarsah, Auditor, City of London

London Councils’ officers were in attendance.

1. Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest.

Introductions were made.

2. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jas Athwal (LB Redbridge), Councillor Simon Wales (LB Sutton) and John O’Brien (Chief Executive, London Councils).

3. Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 20 March 2014

The minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 20 March 2014 were agreed as being an accurate record.

4. Risk Management – Services Directorate Risk Register

The Audit Committee received a report that presented the current Services Directorate risk register for consideration.

The Chair asked if there had been any subsequent increases to risks since the last Audit Committee meeting. Nick Lester (Corporate Director of Services, London Councils) said that, in the last ten days, the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) had received notice to vacate the premises at Angel Square. He explained that the original offer of a ten year lease, due to commence from March 2015, had now been withdrawn by the landlords. PATAS would now need to be relocated, which would incur significant costs to London Councils. Nick Lester said that a progress report on this would be brought to the next Audit Committee meeting in September 2014.

Nick Lester informed members that a process of resolution was being undertaken, with a view to identifying new premises for PATAS by the end of August 2014. A project manager would also need to be employed to oversee the relocation. Nick Lester said that negotiations had taken place

Minutes of the Audit Committee held on 15 July 2014 Audit Committee – 26 September 2014 Agenda Item 3, Page 1 with the landlord to extend the current contract. Frank Smith (Director of Corporate Resources, London Councils) confirmed that an extension to December 2015 had been offered by the landlords, with a month’s notice either way at the discretion of the landlords. He said that a “property search finder” had been initiated, which had shown that rents in the past twelve months had risen significantly. Also, there were no properties available at present that could be considered for the move. Frank Smith informed members that in 2008/09, refurbishment works had taken ten weeks to make the property at Angel Square suitable for an appeals hearing centre.

Roger Chadwick said that there was currently a shortage of property for rental in London. Frank Smith informed the Audit Committee that there were sufficient monies in TEC reserves to cover the costs to relocate PATAS. The Chair asked if anything could be served to the landlords at Angel Square under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1954). Frank Smith confirmed that Section 26 notice could not be served to the landlords regarding the current lease.

Nick Lester said that the other significant “risk” to Services at London Councils was the reissue of the Freedom Pass. He said that there were one million Freedom passes that were due to expire on 31 March 2015. A programme for renewal was agreed, at TEC in December 2013, where 50% would be renewed online, 30% by post and 20% at the Post Office. The Post Office had now said that it no longer wanted to take part in the renewal process. Nick Lester said that libraries would now be used as a “fall-back” position to the Post Office. Further costs would be incurred by the publicity that would be needed to inform pass holders of the changes, and the telephone contact centre that would need to be used to support pass holders with their applications. Nick Lester said that although this change would not be detrimental to the service; it would incur further costs.

Nick Lester informed members that the service provided by the Post Office was paid for by individual boroughs, with any additional costs being picked-up by London Councils. The Chair said that the libraries had provided a Freedom Pass service previously. Nick Lester said that this was when the passes were produced manually. He said that they were now produced by a bureau. Libraries would now be used to give guidance and to help pass holders that could not access the internet. Nick Lester confirmed that this would be the first time that London Councils would have written to every single pass holder.

The Audit Committee:

• Noted the current Services Directorate risk register • Noted the significant risk presented by the recent withdrawal from the lease, by the landlords at Angel Square, where PATAS is located. Agreed that the Audit Committee would be updated on this situation in September 2014, and • Noted the other risk and cost implications caused by the Post Office withdrawing from the Freedom Pass renewal process taking place from 31 March 2015.

5. Review of the Annual Governance Statement

The Audit Committee received a report that: (a) reviewed each element of the Annual Governance Statement (AGS), (b) highlighted any continuing and potentially new areas for development, and (c) made recommendations for revisions that would be contained in the AGS to be included in the audited Statutory Accounts for 2013/14.

David Sanni (Head of Financial Accounting, London Councils) informed the Audit Committee that London Councils is required to publish an Annual Governance Statement (AGS) in accordance with the CIPFA/SOLACE Framework in order to comply with the Accounts and Audit Regulations. He said that Appendix A (page 29) detailed the current AGS, with recommended changes highlighted in red (most changes were in “Areas for Development” during 2014/15). A clean version of this could be found at Appendix C of the report (page 46). Appendix B of the report (page 38) provided a summary of the internal audit reviews carried out during the year ended 31 March 2014 and the Head of Audit and Risk Management’s opinion on the overall internal control environment

Minutes of the Audit Committee held on 15 July 2014 Audit Committee – 26 September 2014 Agenda Item 3, Page 2 which stated that the systems of internal control are generally robust and could be reasonably relied upon to ensure that objectives are achieved efficiently.

The Chair asked why the update of operational procedure notes for PATAS had been delayed (page 35). David Sanni explained that the delay was caused by changes to the management information system. He confirmed that a similar situation existed with regard to the update of the operational procedure notes for the Taxicard Scheme.

The Audit Committee;

• Noted the summary of the internal audit reviews undertaken during 2013/14 and the opinion of the Head of Audit and Risk Management at the City of London on the overall control environment, as detailed in Appendix B; and • Approved the recommended changes to the AGS for 2012/13, as detailed in Appendix A, to produce the AGS for 2013/14 for inclusion in London Councils’ statutory accounts for 2013/14, as detailed in Appendix C.

6. Internal Audit Reviews

The Audit Committee received a report that updated members on the internal audit reviews completed by the City of London’s Internal Audit section, since the last meeting of the Audit Committee on 20 March 2014.

David Sanni informed members that there were two main internal audit reviews, namely, (i) third party payments (at Appendix A of the report), and (ii) spotcheck - London Councils petty cash, safe, creditors (CDT) and inventory (at Appendix B). The review of third party payments focussed on controls in relation to the payment of the one-off refund to boroughs from London Councils’ reserves and the distribution of funds from the Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) child safeguarding initiative in 2013/14 (with the agreement of the Director of Resources). David Sanni said that the review established that sound controls were in place.

Roger Chadwick said that the letters from the Chamberlain’s Department (Appendices A and B) were dated 27 June 2014 and still had Chris Bilsland CPFA, as Chamberlain, on the header. He confirmed that Chris Bilsland had left in May 2014. Paul Nagle said that the letterheads had since been amended.

The Audit Committee:

• Considered and commented on the contents of the internal audit report attached at Appendix A and B, and • Noted that there were no significant control weaknesses identified in the reviews completed during the period.

7. Internal Audit Charter

The Audit Committee received a report that informed members of the new Public Sector Internal Audit Standards (PSIAS) that required government bodies to define the purpose, authority and responsibility of the internal audit activity in an internal audit charter.

David Sanni said that London Councils had to adopt the PSIAS and establish a charter in order to comply with the Accounts and Audit Regulations. He informed members that the Internal Audit Charter at Appendix A of the report (page 65) had been approved and agreed by London Councils’ Corporate Management Board (CMB). Councillor Alambritis said that he was pleased with the references to London Councils’ “whistleblowing” policy in the Internal Audit Charter.

Minutes of the Audit Committee held on 15 July 2014 Audit Committee – 26 September 2014 Agenda Item 3, Page 3 The Audit Committee approved the draft Internal Audit Charter at Appendix A of the report.

8. Any Other Business

The Chair asked when the next Audit Committee was due to convene. Alan Edwards (Governance Manager, London Councils) confirmed that the next meeting was due to take place on 25 September 2014, at 2.30pm. This has since been changed to Friday 26 September, at 10.30am. He confirmed that a finalised set of Audit Committee dates for 2014/15 would be sent to members.

Frank Smith said that the Annual Audit Letter had to be signed off at the Audit Committee meeting in September. A draft version of the Audit Letter would be sent to the Chair at the beginning of September. Frank Smith said that a meeting with the Chair would be arranged (either at London Councils or at LB Havering) before the September Audit Committee agenda was sent out. Alan Edwards would canvass for dates for this meeting with the Chair and London Councils’ officers.

The meeting closed at 13:30pm

Action Points

Item Action Progress

4. Services Directorate Risk Register An update on the relocation of PATAS to be brought to the next meeting of the Audit Committee in September 2014

8. Any Other Business Alan Edwards to send members Completed a finalised set of Audit Committee dates for 2014/15 and to canvass for a suitable date for London Councils’ officers to meet with the Chair to discuss the agenda, before the September Audit Committee meeting.

Minutes of the Audit Committee held on 15 July 2014 Audit Committee – 26 September 2014 Agenda Item 3, Page 4

Leaders’ Committee

Report from the London Councils’ Item no: Grants Committee AGM –16 July 2014

Report by: Ana Gradiska Job title: Principal Governance and Projects Officer

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Ana Gradiska

Telephone: 020 7934 9781 Email: [email protected]

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the London Councils’ Grants Committee AGM held on 16 July 2014

Recommendations: For information.

Attendees: Cllr Cameron Geddes (Dep – LB Barking and Dagenham), Cllr Gareth Bacon (LB Bexley), Cllr Muhammed Butt (LB Brent), Cllr Stephen Carr (LB Bromley), Cllr Abdul Hai (LB Camden), Jeremy Meyhew (City of London), Cllr Ranjit Dheer (LB Ealing), Cllr Jonathan McShane (LB Hackney), Cllr Sue Anderson (LB Harrow), Cllr Rakhia Ismail (LB Islington), Cllr Gerard Hargreaves (RB Kensington and Chelsea), Cllr Paul McGlone (Chair – LB Lambeth), Cllr Edith Macauley (LB Merton), Cllr Forhad Hussain (LB Newham), Cllr Dev Sharma (LB Redbridge), Cllr Meena Bond (LB Richmond upon Thames), Cllr Simon Wales (LB Sutton), Cllr Liaquat Ali (LB Waltham Forest), Cllr James Maddan (LB Wandsworth),

London Councils officers were in attendance. Kerry Starling (Head of Employment & Skills of Catalyst Gateway) and Helen Cantrell (Managing Director of Catalyst Gateway) were in attendance for item 11.

Nick Lester, Director, Services at London Councils chaired items 1-4.

1. Apologies for Absence

1.1 Apologies were received from Cllr Darren Rodwell (LB Barking and Dagenham), Cllr Daniel Thomas (LB Barnet), Cllr Maureen O’Mara (LB Greenwich), Cllr Sue Fennimore (LB Hammersmith & Fulham), Cllr Peter Morton (LB Haringey), Cllr Melvin Wallace (LB Havering), Cllr Sue Sampson (LB Hounslow), Cllr Julie Pickering (RB Kingston upon Thames), Cllr Joan Millbank (LB Lewisham) and Cllr Ian Wingfield (LB Southwark).

2. Deputies Declaration of Attendance

2.1 Cllr Cameron Geddes deputised for Cllr Daren Rodwell.

3. Acknowledgement of new members of the Grants Committee

3.1 New members were welcomed to the Grants Committee.

4. Election of Chair of the Grants Committee for the 2014/15 Municipal Year

4.1 Cllr Paul McGlone was re-elected as Chair of the Grants Committee.

5. Election of Vice-Chairs for the Grants Committee for the 2014/15 Municipal Year

5.1 Cllr Forhad Hussain was elected as the Labour Vice-Chair. 5.2 Cllr Stephen Carr was elected as the Conservative Vice-Chair. 5.3 Cllr Simon Wales was elected as the Liberal Democrat Vice-Chair.

6. Election of the Grants Executive for the 2014/2015 Municipal Year

6.1 The following members were appointed to the Grants Executive:

• Cllr Paul McGlone • Cllr Forhad Hussain • Cllr Stephen Carr • Cllr Simon Wales • Cllr James Maddan • Cllr Gerard Hargraves

6.2 The Labour group said that they would appoint two more members in due time.

7. Minutes of the Grants Committee AGM held on 10 July 2013

7.1 The minutes were agreed as the accurate record of the meeting which took place on 10 July 2013.

8. Minutes of the Grants Committee held on 26 March 2014

8.1 The minutes were agreed as the accurate record of the meeting which took place on 26 March 2014.

9. Operation of the Grants Committee

9.1 The Chair introduced this report, which informed members of the Terms of Reference for the Grants Committee and listed the members of the Grants Committee.

9.2 The report also set out the programme of London Councils Grants Committee meetings for the coming year, below. From November 2014 each Grants Committee meeting will look in detail at one of the four priorities: Homelessness, Sexual and domestic violence, ESF tackling poverty through employment, Capacity building in the voluntary and community sector.

Grants Main Meeting Date Time Main Business

26 November 2014 11.00 am 25 March 2015 11.00 am 15 July 2015 (AGM) 11.00am AGM

Grants Executive Date Time Main Business 17 September 2014 2:00 pm Grants Executive 4 March 2015 2:00 pm Grants Executive

9.3 Members noted the report.

10. Grants Programme 2013/15 – Year one update report

10.1 Simon Courage, Head of Grants and Community Services at London Councils, introduced the report. He said that all projects had been rated under the RAG (red, amber or green) system, and only one project was amber: London Training and Employment Network. Two projects had gone from amber to green: Paddington Development Trust and St Mungo Community Housing Association. There were no red-rated providers.

10.2 Mr Courage then went through all the priorities and described how the commissions within those priorities had performed relative to their profile in the last quarter.

10.3 The majority of Committee members accepted that the Report 10 ‘Grants Programme 2013- 15 – Year One Update Report’ showed sound progress against the agreed priority commissions.

11. Thematic Review – Priority Three Poverty (ESF) – Presentation

11.1 Kerry Starling (Head of Employment & Skills, Catalyst Gateway), and Helen Cantrell – Managing Director, Catalyst Gateway), gave a presentation on their project WISH

12. Review of the Grants Scheme: timetable

12.1 The Chair introduced Report 12 ‘Review of the Grants Programme: Timetable’. Accepting that there had been discussions at previous Committee meetings about the nature of the review, the June 2012 Leaders Committee decision had outlined the approach, namely, ‘…to review the programme in autumn of 2014 and, subject to that review, commissions that are delivering the agreed outcomes to continue to be funded to March 2017…’. London Councils officers therefore proposed to carry out a review of the funded projects’ performance and report back to the meeting of the Grants Committee in November 2014.

12.2 Members agreed the report with the proviso that rigorous performance monitoring would continue to be carried out in accordance with the commissioning and monitoring framework, before any additional funding beyond 2016-17 was to be released to commissions.

13. Pre-Audited Financial Accounts for 2013/14

13.1 Frank Smith, Director, London Councils, introduced this report, which detailed the provisional pre-audited final accounts for London Councils Grants Committee for 2013/14. The summary figures are detailed in the box below:

Budget Actual Variance Revenue Account £000 £000 £000 Expenditure 10,000 9,048 (952) Income (10,000) (9,271) 729 Sub-Total - (223) (223)

Net Transfer from Reserves - - - Deficit/(Surplus) for the year - (223) (223) General Reserve Unusable Reserves Total Balances and Provisions £000 £000 £000 Restated as at 1 April 2013 1,727 (871) 856 Transfer (to)/from revenue - (59) (59) Surplus/(Deficit) for the Year 223 10 233 As at 31 March 2014 1,950 (920) 1,030

13.2 Mr Smith said that there had been a slight reshuffling of all London Councils accounts, which was reflected in the report. The added that the Grants Committee had previously approved a surplus of £800,000 to go back to the boroughs, which has now been done.

13.3 Members: • Noted the provisional pre-audited outturn position and the indicative surplus of £223,000 for 2013/14; and

• Noted the provisional level of reserves and the financial outlook for the Grants scheme.

14. Minor Amendments to the Grants Scheme

14.1 The Chair introduced this report and said that minor changes recommended to the London Councils Leaders’ Committee Governing Agreement were intended to provide flexibility to conduct business in a way that meets the needs of the organisation.

14.2 Members agreed the report.

Leaders’ Committee

Report from the Transport & Item no: Environment Committee – 17 July 2014

Report by: Alan Edwards Job title: Governance Manager

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Alan Edwards

Telephone: 020 7934 9911 Email: [email protected]

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee AGM held on 17 July 2014

Recommendations: For information. (Part One: AGM)

1. Attendance: Cllr Cameron Geddes (LB Barking & Dagenham), Cllr Dean Cohen (LB Barnet), Cllr Don Massey (LB Bexley), Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley), Cllr Phil Jones (LB Camden), Cllr Kathy Bee (LB Croydon), Cllr Julian Bell (LB Ealing, Chair), Cllr Chris Bond (LB Enfield), Cllr Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney), Cllr Wesley Harcourt (LB Hammersmith & Fulham), Cllr Claudia Webbe (LB Islington), Cllr Tim Coleridge (RB Kensington & Chelsea), Cllr David Cunningham (RB Kingston-upon-Thames), Cllr Jenny Brathwaite (LB Lambeth), Cllr Alan Smith (LB Lewisham), Cllr Nick Draper (LB Newham), Cllr Ian Corbett (LB Newham), Cllr Baldesh Nijjar (LB Redbridge), Cllr Stephen Speak (LB Richmond-upon- Thames), Cllr Mark Williams (LB Southwark), Cllr Colin Hall (LB Sutton), Cllr Clyde Loakes (LB Waltham Forest), Cllr Caroline Usher (LB Wandsworth), Michael Welbank (City of London) and Alex Williams (Transport for London - Deputy).

2. Apologies for Absence: Cllr Danny Thorpe (RB Greenwich), Cllr Varsha Parmar (LB Harrow), Cllr Amritt Mann (LB Hounslow), Cllr Heather Acton (City of Westminster) and Michele Dix (Transport for London)

3. Election of Chair Councillor Julian Bell (LB Ealing) was elected as Chair of TEC for 2014/15.

4. Election of Vice Chairs of TEC for 2014/15 Councillor Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney) was elected as the Labour Vice Chair of TEC. Councillor Colin Smith was elected as the Conservative Vice Chairman of TEC and Councillor Colin Hall was elected as the Liberal Democrat Vice Chair of TEC.

5. Membership of London Councils’ TEC for 2014/15 The membership of London Councils’ TEC for 2014/15 was noted.

6. Appointment to the TEC Executive Sub Committee The Committee received a report that set out the arrangements for the TEC Executive Sub Committee for 2014/15.

The following members were appointed to be on the TEC Executive Sub Committee for 2014/15:

Labour Cllr Julian Bell (LB Ealing – Chair), Cllr Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney), Cllr Mark Williams (LB Southwark), Cllr Alan Smith (LB Lewisham), Cllr Claudia Webbe (LB Islington) and Cllr Chris Bond (LB Enfield)

Conservative Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley) X 3 Conservative representatives to follow shortly. (Confirmed after TEC as Councillor Tim Coleridge, RB Kensington and Chelsea, Cllr Don Massey, LB Bexley and Cllr Caroline Usher, LB Wandsworth)

Liberal Democrat Cllr Colin Hall (LB Sutton)

City of London Michael Welbank

7. Nominations to Outside Bodies & Appointment of TEC Committee Advisers for 2014/15 The Committee received a report that sought the Committee’s nominations to various outside bodies that related to the work of the Committee for 2014/15. The report also listed the appointment of TEC Committee advisers.

The following nominations to outside bodies were made:

Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC) Labour representative – pending. (Confirmed after TEC as Cllr Alan Smith - LB Lewisham) Cllr Tim Coleridge (RB Kensington & Chelsea) – Conservative Deputy

Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee (RFCC) West – Cllr Dean Cohen (LB Barnet) Central North – Cllr Tim Coleridge (RB Kensington & Chelsea) South West – Cllr Nick Draper (LB Merton) South East – Cllr Alan Smith (LB Lewisham) North East – Cllr Cameron Geddes (LB Barking & Dagenham) Central South – Cllr Mark Williams (LB Southwark) North – Cllr Stuart McNamara (LB Haringey)

London Sustainable Development Commission (LSDC) Cllr Danny Thorpe (RB Greenwich)

London Electric Vehicle Partnership (LEVP) Cllr Alan Smith (LB Lewisham) Cllr Phil Jones (LB Camden)

Urban Design London (UDL) Cllr Nigel Haselden (LB Lambeth) Cllr Daniel Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea)

London Waterways Commission (LWC) Cllr Nick Draper (LB Merton) Michael Welbank (City of London) Conservative vacancy

Thames River Basin District Liaison Panel (Thames LP) Cllr Danny Thorpe (RB Greenwich)

London City Airport Consultative Committee (LCACC) Cllr Baldesh Nijjar (LB Redbridge)

Flood Risk Management Committee Cllr Nick Draper (LB Merton) Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley)

London Waste & Recycling Board (LWARB) To note the membership of LWARB. No new representatives were required until 2016.

LWARB Efficiencies Committee Cllr Andrew Judge (LB Merton) Conservative vacancy

London Cycling Campaign Cllr Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney)

The Committee: (i) noted the TEC membership to outside bodies, (ii) agreed that Councillor Smith would forward to Alan Edwards the remaining Conservative nominations to outside bodies, (iii) agreed that the names be passed on to the Chief Executive of London Councils, for appointment of outside bodies, and (iv) agreed the TEC Committee advisers, subject to replacing Patrick Crowley (RB Kensington and Chelsea) with Trudi Penman (LB Havering) as the Environmental Health and Licensing adviser.

(Part Two: Main Meeting)

8. Safer Lorry Scheme The Committee received a report that set out proposals to create and promote a new London-wide Safer Lorry Scheme that would require the fitting of extended view mirrors and side guards to all Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) over 3.5 tonnes, at all times.

The Committee: (i) agreed that Spencer Palmer would send a revised delegated authority form to all TEC Members and relevant borough officers for each to sign and return by the end of September 2014, so approval could be given (at next TEC meeting in October 2014) to extend TEC powers to include the making of the pan-London traffic orders for the purpose of the London Safer Lorry Scheme, (ii) noted the progress and programme for the development of the proposed London Safer Lorry Scheme, and (iii) agreed to consult boroughs on how future decriminalised enforcement of the proposed London Safer Lorry Scheme should take place on borough roads.

9. London Lorry Control Scheme Proposed Safety Requirements – Results of Consultations The Committee received a report that detailed the results of the consultations on the proposed changes to the London Lorry Control Scheme permission conditions that would require HGVs to have safety features to help improve road safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

The Committee: (i) noted the results of the consultations as set out in the report, and (ii) agreed to suspend the work on the proposed changes to the permission conditions of the London Lorry Control Scheme, until the Committee makes a decision later in the year on how to proceed with the London Safer Lorry Scheme.

10. Freedom Pass 2015 Reissue Update The Committee received a report that provided members with an update on the progress of the project to renew just under one million Freedom passes that were due to expire on 31 March 2015.

The Committee: (i) noted the progress with the Freedom Pass 2015 reissue, (ii) noted the withdrawal of the Post Office from the renewal process and first application process from June 2015, (iii) endorsed the use of libraries and other appropriate council offices to support pass-holders in their renewal process, (iv) agreed that Spencer Palmer would look into the issue of boroughs that had outsourced their libraries, and how this would affect the renewal of Freedom passes, and (v) approved the revised budget estimate and use of uncommitted TEC reserves of £530,000 to cover the additional costs

11. Taxicard Scheme Update

The Committee received a report that informed members of (a) the Taxicard trip budget outturn for 2013/14, (b) the current budget projections for 2014/15, (c) plans to include the number of people in each borough who received the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to the formula used to calculate the apportionment of TfL’s Taxicard funding to boroughs, (d) plans to stop any Taxicard that had not been used in over 2 years, and (e) to explore the possibility of charging for lost and damaged Taxicards.

The Committee: (i) noted the Taxicard trip budget outturn for 2013/14 and the projected outturn for 2014/15 based on two months’ data, (ii) agreed that the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) should be included in the formula used to apportion TfL’s Taxicard S159 funding from 2015/16, (iii) noted plans to stop Taxicards which had not been used for two years, and (iv) noted that officers would investigate the charging for lost and damaged Taxicards.

12. Government Response to the Consultation on Local Authority Parking The Committee considered a report that provided members with the background and detail of the Government response to the Consultation on Local Authority Parking, which included a ban on CCTV parking enforcement.

The Committee: (i) agreed the details contained within the report and members commented on the effects of what the changes might have on borough enforcement policies, and (ii) agreed that London Councils continued to lobby strongly on CCTV enforcement and other issues during the passage of the Deregulation Bill

13. Roads Task Force Governance Update The Committee considered a report that was prepared by TfL that summarised the progress on governance and street types since the publication of the Roads Task Force report. The Committee: (i) noted the report, and (ii) agreed that Alex Williams would look into borough representation (ie not just north London boroughs) when a scheme was available

14. Fixed Penalty Notices for Unlicensed Street Trading – City of London The Committee received a report concerning temporary street trading in the City of London. The report also summarised the recent liberalisation of the City of London Corporation’s street trading regulations. It notified TEC of the City’s inclusion, as part of legislative changes in the City of London (Various Powers) Act 2013, in the fixed penalty regime that applied to other boroughs under the London Local Authorities Act 2004.

The Committee: (i) noted the inclusion of the City of London within the scope of the arrangements for issuing fixed penalty notices for unauthorised street trading that applied in other boroughs, and (ii) noted that the level of fixed penalties set previously by the Committee in respect of unauthorised street trading now applied to the City of London.

15. Fixed Penalty Levels for Anti-Social Spitting The Committee received a report regarding the London borough of Enfield’s proposal that the level of fixed penalty for breaching the spitting byelaw should be in line with the penalties currently set for other types of local nuisance behaviour. Under Section 17(6) of the London Local Authorities Act 2014, it was the duty of the Joint Committee, London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee (TEC), to set levels of fixed penalties. Past practice required London Councils to consult on the levels of the penalty.

The Committee: (i) agreed that London Councils consults on the levels of fixed penalty for breaching the byelaw for anti-social spitting, and (ii) agreed to inform officers of any other local byelaws boroughs were pursuing for which TEC has to set the level of penalties.

16. Step Out in London – Financial Summary The Committee considered and noted a report on the financial breakdown of the costs of the “Step Out in London” (SOL) project since 2008, as requested by TEC members at the Committee meeting in December 2013.

17. Transport & Environment Committee: Pre-Audited Financial Results 2013/14

The Committee received a report that detailed the provisional pre-audited final accounts for the Transport and Environment Committee for 2013/14.

The Committee: (i) noted the provisional pre-audited final accounts for 2013/14, which showed an indicative surplus of £1.369 million for the year, and (ii) noted the provisional level of reserves (after restatement), as detailed in paragraphs 43-44 and the financial outlook, as detailed in paragraphs 45-47 of the report.

18. Constitutional Matters – Minor Variations to the London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee Governing Agreement The Committee received a report that proposed minor variations to the London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee (LCTEC) Governing Agreement.

The Committee: (i) noted that the report provided the participating Councils and/or Transport for London with written notice of the proposed changes, and (ii) noted that the variation to the Transport & Environment Committee’s Governing Agreement would come into effect following 28 days, if no objection was received from any Participating Council and/or Transport for London during the notice period.

19. Chair’s Report The Committee received a report that updated members on transport and environment policy since the last TEC meeting on 13 March 2014 and provided a forward look until the next TEC meeting on 16 October 2014.

The Committee: (i) noted the report, (ii) noted that there was an Air Quality event on 29 July and a meeting with the TEC Chair and Transport Commissioner on 31 July 2014, and (iii) noted thanks to Nishma Malde for all her work and support to the Committee.

20. TEC Committee Dates for 2014/154 The Committee received and agreed a report that informed members of the proposed TEC and TEC Executive Sub Committee dates for 2014/15.

21. Minutes of the TEC Main meeting held on 13 March 2014

Item 5 – London Area Road Network, 4th paragraph, page 5: It was agreed to change the sentence that read “Councillor Smith said that boroughs had no plans to deal with population increases aside from building on green belt land”, to “Councillor Smith said that outer London Boroughs were determined not to deal with population increases by building on Green belt”

Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the TEC Main meeting held on 13 March 2014 were agreed as an accurate record.

Exclusion of the Press and Public (Exempt) To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following item(s) of business because exempt information, as defined in Paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known at the meeting

101. Future of the Appeals Hearing Centre (Confidential) The Committee received a confidential report that outlined the current position in respect of the hearing and operational centre for the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS), which was currently located at Angel Square, Islington, N1.

The Committee: (i) noted the contents of this report, (ii) agreed to express to the Angel Square landlords concern and regret about the last minute change of strategy by the landlords, (iii) agreed that new premises for PATAS was sought as a matter of urgency, and (iv) agreed that the costs of the move of premises, refurbishment and associated costs (such as the cost of employing a project manager) that could not be capitalised would be met from uncommitted TEC reserves.

Leaders’ Committee

Report from the Capital Ambition Board Item no: AGM –17 July 2014

Report by: Ana Gradiska Job title: Principal Governance and Projects Officer

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Ana Gradiska

Telephone: 020 7934 9781 Email: [email protected]

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the Capital Ambition Board AGM held on 17 July 2014

Recommendations: For information.

Attendance: Members Edward Lord OBE JP (Chair) City of London, Cllr Stephen Alambritis (LB Merton), Cllr Jas Athwal (LB Redbridge); London Councils Lisa Henry (Capital Ambition Programme Manager), Mehboob Khan (Labour Party Political Advisor), Nick Lester(Corporate Director, Services), Frank Smith (Corporate Director, Finance), Mary Vine-Morris (Director, Capital Ambition) Advisers Rita Dexter OBE( Deputy Commissioner, London Fire Brigade), Nathan Elvery (Chief Executive, LB Croydon), Mike O’Donnell (Director of Finance, LB Camden), Martin Smith (Chief Executive, LB Ealing); Board Secretariat Ana Gradiska (Principal Governance and Projects Officer); Ernst & Young (EY) Darra Singh (Partner) Leigh Streames (Senior Manager, Government & Public Services) Victoria Evans (Manager, Government & Public Services)

1. Declarations of interest

1.1 There were no declarations of interest. The new membership of the board was noted, and the Board welcomed Cllr Jas Athwal, Leader of LB Redbridge as a new member and Nathan Elvery, Chief Executive of LB Croydon as a new adviser to the Board.

2. Apologies

2.1 Apologies were received from Cllr David Simmonds (LB Hillingdon), Cllr Nicholas Paget- Brown (RB Kensington and Chelsea), and Jane West (LB Hammersmith and Fulham).

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2014

3.1 The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting held on 6 March 2014.

3.2 Matters arising:

The Director of Capital Ambition highlighted that under Item 5.3 of the minutes it said that “London Councils officers will work with the project managers on progressing the London Procurement Strategy: Category Management project and will bring the proposals back to the CA Board meeting in July”. At the request of the project manager this has been deferred to the next meeting of the Capital Ambition Board.

4. Minutes of the Capital Ambition AGM held on 20 July 2013 (for noting)

4.1 The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting held on 20 July 2013.

5. Capital Ambition AGM – Operational matters/Accounts

5.1 Members noted the election of Edward Lord OBE JP as Chair and Cllr Stephen Alambritis as Deputy Chair of the Capital Ambition Board.

5.2 Members reviewed and agreed the Terms of Reference for the Board.

5.3 Members noted that the balance at 31 March 2013 was £4,240,152. This was in excess of the balance for 31 March 2012. This is due to any underspend being reclaimed on several of the projects that had come to their natural conclusion in the last year.

6. Director’s Report

6.1 London Councils’ Corporate Director, Services reported that there were currently only three active Capital Ambition projects all of which were considered to be green in status. Many projects had closed during the past year and, as per the decision at the previous CA Board meeting, London Councils officers have now ceased carrying out formalised benefits monitoring.

Greater London Employment Forum

Report from the Greater London Item no: Employment Forum – 17 July 2014

Report by: Selena Lansley Job title: Head of London Regional Employers Organisation

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Selena Lansley

Telephone: 020 7934 9963 Email: [email protected]

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the Greater London Employment Forum held Committee held on 17 July 2014

Recommendations: For information. 1. Attendance: Cllr Irma Freeborn and Cllr James Ogungbose (Barking & Dagenham), Cllr Colin Tandy (Bexley), Cllr Tony Owen (Bromley), Cllr Toni Letts (Croydon), Cllr Yvonne Johnson (Ealing), Cllr Doug Taylor (Chair) (Enfield), Cllr Joe Goldberg (Haringey), Cllr Joanna Gardner (Kensington & Chelsea), Cllr Eric Humphrey (Kingston upon Thames), Cllr Paul McGlone (Lambeth), Cllr Kevin Bonavia (Lewisham), Cllr John Dehaney (Merton), Cllr Ken Clark (Newham), Cllr Tony Arbour (Richmond upon Thames), Cllr Fiona Colley (Southwark), Cllr Richard Clifton (Vice Chair) (Sutton), Cllr Peter Barnett (Waltham Forest), Cllr Guy Senior (Wandsworth) Cllr Angela Harvey (Vice Chair) (Westminster), Vicky Easton (Unison), Gloria Hanson (Unison), Jon Rogers (Unison), Ken Davison (Unison), Kevin Simmons (Unite), Susan Matthews (Unite), Kathy Smith (Unite), Danny Hogan (Unite), Dave Powell (GMB), Jackie Nield (GMB), Penny Robinson (GMB) and Vaughan West (GMB).

2. Apologies for Absence: Apologies were received from Cllr Cornelius (Barnet), Cllr Pavey (Brent), Cllr Kirby (Greenwich), Cllr Linden (Hackney), Cllr Jones (Hammersmith & Fulham), Cllr Henson (Harrow), Cllr Seaman-Digby (Hillingdon), Cllr Grewal (Hounslow), Cllr Hull (Islington), Cllr Allison (Merton), Cllr Zammett (Redbridge), Cllr Rahman (Tower Hamlets), Cllr Dawson (Wandsworth) and Deputy John Barker (City of London), April Ashley (Unison), Dave Clark (Unison), Jane Doolan (Unison), Sean Fox (Unison), Mary Lancaster (Unison), Gavin Mott (Unison), Sue Plain (Unison), Laurie Pocock (Unison), Helen Steel (Unison), Onay Kasab (Unite), Wendy Whittington (GMB) and Eileen Theaker (GMB).

3. Minutes of the GLEF meeting held on 28 January 2014: The minutes of the Joint meeting of the 28 January 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

4. Matters Arising: There were no matters arising from the minutes of the 28 January 2014.

5. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2014-15: Sue Plain from Unison was elected Chair of GLEF for 2014-15. It was agreed that in Sue’s absence Danny Hogan would chair the meeting. Cllr Doug Taylor (Enfield), was elected Vice Chair.

6. Confirmation of GLEF Membership 2014-15:

Borough Rep Party Barking & Dagenham James Ogungbose Lab Barnet Richard Cornelius Con Bexley Colin Tandy Con Brent Michael Pavey Lab Bromley Tony Owen Con Camden Theo Blackwell Lab Croydon Tony Newman Lab Ealing Yvonne Johnson Lab Enfield Doug Taylor - Chair Lab Greenwich Chris Kirby Lab Hackney Sophie Linden Lab Hammersmith & Fulham Andrew Jones Lab Haringey Joe Goldberg Lab Harrow Graham Henson Lab Havering Osman Dervish Con Hillingdon Scott Seaman-Digby Con Hounslow Ajmer Grewal Lab Islington Andy Hull Lab Kensington & Chelsea Joanna Gardner Con Kingston upon Thames Eric Humphrey Con Lambeth Paul McGlone Lab Lewisham Kevin Bonavia Lab Merton Mark Allison Lab Newham Ken Clark Lab Redbridge Neil Zammett Lab Richmond upon Thames Tony Arbour Con Southwark Fiona Colley Lab Sutton Richard Clifton - Vice-Chair LD Tower Hamlets Oliur Rahman Ind Waltham Forest Peter Barnett Lab Wandsworth Peter Dawson Con Westminster Angela Harvey – Vice-Chair Con City of London Deputy John Barker

UNISON : Officer – Vicky Easton , Ex Oficio – Tony Sweetman , Sean Fox, Sue Plain, Helen Steel, April Ashley, Jane Doolan, Jackie Lewis, Mary Lancaster, Ken Davison and Jon Rogers

UNITE: Officer – Onay Kasab, Danny Hoggan, Kathy Smith, Susan Matthews, Kevin Simmons, Sean Ramsden and Nick Long.

2 GMB: Ex Officio – Dave Powell, Eileen Theaker, Jackie Neild, Penny Robinson, Vaughan West, Wendy Whittington and Peter Murphy.

7. Update on National Pay Negotiations: Kevin Simmons, Unite, informed the Employers’ Side that the LB Croydon had agreed to write to the National Employers’ urging them to return to the negotiating table. The Trade Union Side would urge other London boroughs to do the same.

The Vice-Chair informed the Trade Unions that the Employers Side of the National Joint Council had not changed its position on a 1% pay award for 2014-15. The Employers’ Side of GLEF understand the issues and position that has been adopted in light of the financial situation and issues that local government faces over the next four years and their preference would be to keep as many people in jobs as possible.

8. Update on London Living Wage (LLW): Cllr Toni Letts (Croydon), informed the Trade Union Side that the LB of Croydon had recently agreed at full council to paying the LLW, which we are very proud to have achieved. This was a manifesto promise during the elections and it was important that we kept to it. Most of the borough’s low paid staff are women, who are often the main bread winners.

There is still concern over Academies paying the LLW, who we have no control over, but will face the difficulties in getting them to implement the LLW. Croydon have and are encouraging schools to pay the LLW.

9. Workplace Mediation – Presentation by Jennifer McNeill, South East Employers’: Jennifer McNeill, Regional Director, South East Employers, gave a presentation on the key purpose and benefits of workplace mediation. Attached is a copy of Jennifer’s presentation and accompanying information.

Microsoft PowerPoint Microsoft Word 97 - Microsoft Word 97 - 97-2003 Presentation 2003 Document 2003 Document

10. Any Other Business: There was no further business.

11. Date of Next Meeting: Monday 9th February 2014 at London Councils offices

Leaders’ Committee

Report from the TEC Executive Sub Item no: Committee – 11 September 2014

Report by: Alan Edwards Job title: Governance Manager

Date: 14 October 2014

Contact Officer: Alan Edwards

Telephone: 020 7934 9911 Email: [email protected]

Summary: Summary of the minutes of the London Councils’ TEC Executive Sub Committee held on 11 September 2014

Recommendations: For information.

1. Attendance: Cllr Julian Bell (LB Ealing – Chair), Cllr Colin Smith (LB Bromley), Cllr Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney), Cllr Mark Williams (LB Southwark) and Cllr Colin Hall (LB Sutton).

2. Apologies for Absence Cllr Don Massey (LB Bexley), Cllr Chris Bond (LB Enfield), Cllr Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney), Cllr Tim Coleridge (RB Kensington & Chelsea) and Cllr Caroline Usher (LB Wandsworth).

3. Transport & Mobility Services Performance Information (Quarter 4, 2013/14 & Quarter 1, 2014/15) The TEC Executive Sub Committee received and noted the report that detailed the London Councils’ Transport and Mobility Services performance for Quarter 4, 2013/14 and Quarter 1, 2014/15..

4. TEC Agreement – POPLA Amendment The TEC Executive Sub Committee received a report that sought agreement of the TEC Executive to recommend to all councils that they each formally resolved to expressly delegate the exercise of section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 to the TEC joint committee for the sole purpose of providing an appeals service for parking on private land (POPLA) for the British Parking Association under contract, confirming for the avoidance of doubt that the existing arrangements are and have been delivered on that basis to date, and that the TEC Governing Agreement be formally varied accordingly. The service has been provided on a cost recovery basis by London Councils since October 2012 and it is proposed that it should continue in this way until the end of the contract period in October 2015. An express delegation of the exercise of section 1 for this purpose by individual councils, and the variation of the TEC Governing Agreement to reflect this, would remove any legal doubt as to TEC’s authority to deliver the service and allow London Councils’ auditors, PWC, to conclude an outstanding issue in relation to an objection to the accounts.

The TEC Executive Sub Committee recommended to all 33 London local authorities that they: (i) formally confirm that the functions delegated to TEC to enter into the arrangement with the British Parking Association were and would continue to be delivered pursuant to section 1 of the Localism Act 2011, (ii) resolved to expressly delegate the exercise of section 1 of the 2011 Act to the TEC joint committee for the sole purpose of providing an appeals service for parking on private land (POPLA) for the British Parking Association under contract, and (ii) that the TEC Governing Agreement be varied to this end.

5. TEC Month 3 Revenue Forecast 2014/15 The TEC Executive Sub Committee received a report that outlined actual income and expenditure against the approved budget to the end of June 2014 for TEC and provided a forecast of the outturn position for 2014/15. At this early stage, a surplus of £278,000 was forecast over the budget figure. In addition, total expenditure in respect of Taxicard trips taken by scheme members was forecast to underspend by £1.975 million, if trip volumes in the first quarter continued for the remainder of the year. The borough proportion of this underspend was projected to be £1.714 million, with £261,000 accruing to TfL. The TEC Executive Sub Committee: (i)noted the projected surplus of £278,000 for the year, plus the forecast underspend of £1.975 million for overall Taxicard trips, as detailed in the report, (ii) noted the projected level of Committee reserves, as detailed in paragraphs 5-7 of the report and the commentary on the financial position of the Committee, included in paragraphs 8-10 of the report, and (iii) noted that officers were checking into borough consistency with regards to the eligibility for Taxicard. This information would be available soon

6. Minutes of the TEC Main Meeting held on 17 July 2014 The Chair asked how many responses had been received with regards to the delegated authority for the Safer Lorry Scheme. Spencer Palmer confirmed that 19 boroughs, to date, had returned their revised delegated authority forms to extend TEC powers to include the making of the pan-traffic orders for the purpose of the London Safer Lorry Scheme. He said that the remaining boroughs would be chased up this week.

Councillor Hall informed the TEC Executive that TfL had said that other boroughs (as well as north London boroughs) could be represented on the “Roads Performance Group”, in order to influence TRLN around town centres (item 13 of the minutes). Cllr Colin Smith queried how LB Enfield had set a byelaw that was already covered under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990, when LB Bromley was refused (Item 15 of the minutes).

Councillor Colin Smith and Councillor Alan Smith asked if further details could be forthcoming on the number of commercial establishments that had been converted into residential homes (item 101 of the minutes, last paragraph). The Chair said that, although this would be informative, it was not specifically relevant to the agenda item. Councillor Colin Smith said that he would be the Conservative representative for TEC on the “LWARB Efficiencies Board” outside body. It was agreed that Alan Edwards would write to LWARB, informing them of the nomination.

The minutes of the TEC Main meeting held on 17 July 2014 were noted by members.

7. Minutes of the TEC Executive Sub Committee held on 13 February 2014 The minutes of the TEC Executive Sub Committee held on 13 February 2014 were agreed as an accurate record.