AGENDA Meeting: GLA Oversight Committee Date: Tuesday 25 May 2021 Time: 10.00 am Place: Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, , SE1 2AA

Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found on our website at www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-committees. Most meetings of the and its Committees are webcast live on www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/youtube and www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/london-assembly where you can also view past meetings.

Members of the Committee MBE AM (Chair) Dr AM AM (Deputy Chairman) AM AM AM AM AM Joanne McCartney AM AM AM A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chair of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. Mary Harpley, Chief Officer & Proper Officer, Monday 17 May 2021 Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, Telephone: 0208 039 1285; Email: [email protected]. For media enquiries please contact: Aoife Nolan, External Communications Officer, Telephone: 07849 303 897; Email: [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact the author whose details are at the end of the report. This meeting will be open to the public, except for where exempt information is being discussed as noted on the agenda. The meeting will comply with applicable Government guidance and Regulations in relation to Covid-19. It is suggested that any member of the press or public wishing to attend the meeting in-person contacts the clerk (listed above) in advance.

v1 2021 A guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government bodies, including the use of film, photography, social media and other means is available online at Openness in Meetings.pdf. There is access for disabled people, and induction loops are available. There is limited underground parking for orange and blue badge holders, which will be allocated on a first- come first-served basis. Please contact Facilities Management on 020 7983 4750 in advance if you require a parking space or further information.

If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected].

Certificate Number: FS 80233

Agenda GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 25 May 2021

1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements

To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair.

2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Davena Toyinbo, [email protected], 020 8039 1285

The Committee is recommended to:

(a) Note the offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;

(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and

(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).

4

3 Membership of the Committee

The Committee is recommended to note the membership and chairing arrangements for the Committee, which was agreed by the Assembly at its Annual Meeting on 14 May 2021, as follows:

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM (Chair) Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman) Len Duvall AM Unmesh Desai AM Joanne McCartney AM Keith Prince AM Dr Onkar Sahota AM Marina Ahmad AM Emma Best AM Peter Fortune AM Caroline Russell AM

4 Terms of Reference and Standing Delegations

The Committee is recommended to note:

(a) The terms of reference as agreed by the London Assembly at its Annual Meeting on 14 May 2021:

A. Staffing

1. To receive reports from the Head of Paid Service and respond on behalf of the London Assembly to formal consultation from the Head of Paid Service concerning staff appointments and terms and conditions for section 67 (2) employees under the GLA Acts 1999 and 2007.

2. Noting that it is a joint decision with the Mayor, to make recommendations to the London Assembly on appointments to the posts of the three statutory officers (Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and the Chief Finance Officer) and on the terms and conditions of employment for those posts.

3. Noting that it is a joint decision with the Mayor, to make recommendations to the London Assembly relating to any disciplinary procedures against the Authority’s statutory officers in accordance with relevant procedures.

5

4. In accordance with agreed protocols and at the request of the Head of paid Service, to appoint as necessary Members to attend appointment panels as non-voting members for relevant staff posts.

B. Scrutiny

1. To approve all scrutiny-related Assembly expenditure and proposals for use of rapporteurs, in conformity with the Assembly’s decision-making framework procedure.

2. To scrutinse issues relating to civil contingency arrangements in London.

3. To scrutinse issues relating to the provision of services to the public (other than those falling within the remit of other committees of the Assembly) and the performance of utilities in London.

4. To scrutinise any actions or decisions taken by the Mayor on matters relating to education and childcare (other than those relating to Adult Education and Skills).

C. General

1. To oversee the programming of the Assembly’s business.

2. To provide a response from the Assembly on consultation in respect of electoral issues, arrangements for major events such as People’s Question Time and the State of London Debate, consultation on its behalf concerning Parliamentary bills and all forms of secondary legislation or guidance and any other issue not falling within another committee or sub-committee’s subject area and terms of reference.

3. To deal with and determine any question, issue or other matter not falling within the approved subject area and terms of reference of any other committee.

4. To vary the approved subject area and terms of reference of the Assembly’s other committees and sub-committees, so as to include for future an issue or matter not otherwise provided for, in order to facilitate the efficient and effective discharge of the Assembly’s business.

5. To consider and approve a programme of Assembly receptions and events.

6. To make recommendations to the London Assembly on any other matter requiring a joint decision with the Mayor, where time permits.

6

D. Budget

1. To recommend to the Mayor a budget proposal for the London Assembly for the following financial year.

2. To allocate the Assembly’s budget and to monitor expenditure on scrutiny throughout the year.

3. To approve, in accordance with GLA policy, all proposed Assembly-related budget virements in excess of £25,000 (noting that virements in excess of £50,000 will be notified to the Mayor once a decision is taken) and to approve all proposed virements between staff and non-staff budgets within the overall Secretariat budget (in consultation with the Mayor for relevant proposed virements in excess of £50,000).

(b) The following delegations to the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee:

(i) The Assembly, on 21 July 2004, resolved:

“That the Chair of the Business Management and Administration Committee, in consultation with the Deputy Chair and Group Leaders, be given delegated authority to approve the calling of additional meetings of Committees outside the agreed timetable of meetings.”

(ii) The then Business Management and Administration Committee agreed the following delegations on 13 December 2007 to the Chair, in consultation with the Deputy Chair and party group spokespeople:

“To respond on behalf of the London Assembly to formal consultation from the Head of Paid Service (HoPS) concerning staff terms and conditions and changes to the establishment where there is not sufficient time to do so at a full Committee meeting.”

“With the Mayor and on behalf of the London Assembly, to agree arrangements for any required disciplinary procedures against the Authority’s statutory officers in accordance with relevant procedures where there is not sufficient time to do so at a full Committee meeting.”

“In accordance with agreed protocols and at the request of the Head of Paid Service appoint as necessary Members to attend appointment panels as non-voting members for relevant staff posts where there is not sufficient time to do so at a full Committee meeting.”

7

“In accordance with agreed protocols and to appoint as necessary Members to attend appointment panels as voting members for the three statutory officers where there is not sufficient time to do so at a full Committee meeting.”

(iii) The then Business Management and Administration Committee agreed the following delegation to the Chair, at its meeting on 23 September 2010:

“That authority be delegated to the Chair of the Assembly to hold one event of their choice each year, having regard to the event selection criteria, as part of the Assembly’s events programme.”

(iv) The Assembly, on 19 July 2018, resolved:

“That authority be delegated to the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee to approve, following consultation with the Deputy Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee and, where appropriate, the relevant Assembly Committee Chair (and any other member as deemed necessary), any non-routine expenditure in relation to the Assembly’s scrutiny functions, with the exception of expenditure for polling, which is subject to separate procedures, as outlined in the Assembly’s Decision- Making Framework.”

That authority be delegated to the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee to approve, following consultation with the Deputy Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee and, where appropriate, the relevant Assembly Committee Chair (and any other member as deemed necessary), any urgent requests for expenditure for consultancy, including research services and polling, noting that, where there is no case for urgency, the usual procedures set out in the Assembly’s Decision-Making Framework will apply.”

(v) The London Assembly on 15 May 2020 resolved:

“That authority be delegated to the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman of the GLA Oversight Committee, to agree any outputs of the Secretariat Research Unit which are produced for the purposes of publication.”

8

5 Re-Establishment of Working Groups and Panels (Pages 5 - 8)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Davena Toyinbo, [email protected], 020 8039 1285

The Committee is recommended to:

(a) Consider whether to re-establish the Standing Orders Working Group for the 2021/22 year, and agree its term of reference, size, membership and chairing arrangements;

(b) Consider whether to re-establish the Chief Officer Performance Review Panel for the 2021/22 year, as a working group, and agree its term of reference, size, membership and chairing arrangements; and

(c) Consider whether to establish an Election Review Working Group for the 2021/22 year and agree its terms of reference, size, membership and chairing arrangements.

6 Minutes (Pages 9 - 88)

The Committee is recommended to:

(a) Confirm the minutes of the meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee held on 9 March 2021 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record;

(b) Confirm the minutes of the Garden Bridge Working Group meeting held on 13 May 2019 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record; and

(c) Confirm the minutes of the Education Panel meeting held on 10 March 2021.

7 Summary List of Actions (Pages 89 - 108)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Davena Toyinbo, [email protected], 020 8039 1285

The Committee is recommended to note the completed and ongoing actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee and additional correspondence sent and received.

9

8 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Pages 109 - 120)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Davena Toyinbo, [email protected], 020 8039 1285

The Committee is recommended to:

(a) Note the recent action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with Members of the EU Exit Working Group, namely to agree the Working Group’s letter to the Mayor on the key issues for London, as attached at Appendix 1.

(b) Note the recent action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman, party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and any relevant committee Chair(s), namely:

(i) To authorise the Chief Officer, or the person they delegate authority to, to:

a. Engage an external recruitment agency to support the Assembly with the forthcoming London TravelWatch Board recruitment exercise, up to a maximum value of £20,000; and

b. Make necessary arrangements and associated decisions up to the final stage of recruitment, where shortlisted candidates will be interviewed and appointment decisions made, in liaison with the lead Members of the Transport Committee.

(ii) To agree letters to the GLA’s external and internal auditors, from the Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee and Audit Panel regarding the GLA Group Budget Setting Process for 2021-22.

(c) Notes the recent action taken by the Chair of the Education Panel under delegated authority, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, namely to agree the Panel’s letter to the Secretary of State for Education, The Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP, as an output to the Q&A on ‘Adult Education Budget’. The letter is attached as Appendix 2.

9 Mayor's Responses to EU Exit Working Group Outputs (Pages 121 - 140)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383

The Committee is recommended to note the responses from the Mayor to EU Exit Working Group letters, as attached at Appendices 1 and 2.

10

10 Allocation of 2021-22 Assembly Member Services Budget (Pages 141 - 146)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Joanna Davidson, [email protected], 07813 796 175

The Committee is recommended to agree the proposed budget allocation, as set out in section 4 of the report, for the Assembly’s party Groups for the 2021-22 year.

11 The Mayor's Office - Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment (Pages 147 - 172)

Report of the Chief Officer Contact: Laura Heywood, [email protected], 020 7983 5557

The Committee is recommended to respond to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Mayor’s Office directorate.

12 GLA Environment and Energy Unit - Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment (Pages 173 - 206)

Report of the Chief Officer Contact: Elliot Treharne/Peter Daw, [email protected]/ [email protected]

The Committee is recommended to respond to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Environment and Energy Unit.

13 GLA Skills and Employment Unit - Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment (Pages 207 - 214)

Report of the Chief Officer Contact: Michelle Cuomo-Boorer, [email protected], 020 7983 6547

The Committee is recommended to respond to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Skills and Employment Unit.

11

14 GLA Culture and Creative Industries Unit - Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment (Pages 215 - 242)

Report of the Chief Officer Contact: Shonagh Manson, [email protected], 020 7983 4832

The Committee is recommended to respond to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Culture and Creative Industries Unit.

15 Changes to the GLA Establishment (Pages 243 - 262)

Report of the Chief Officer Contact: Chairmaine DeSouza, [email protected], 020 7983 4194

The Committee is recommended to respond to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment.

16 Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to be held on 16 June 2021 at 10am in the Chamber.

17 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent

12 Agenda Item 2

Subject: Declarations of Interest

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests; 2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and 2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 1 V1/2021 3. Issues for Consideration

3.1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X.

3.2 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table below:

Assembly Member Interests

Member Interest Marina Ahmad AM Shaun Bailey AM AM Siân Berry AM Member, London Borough of Camden Emma Best AM Member, London Borough of Waltham Forest AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) AM Member, AM Member, London Borough of Barnet Léonie Cooper AM Member, London Borough of Wandsworth Unmesh Desai AM AM Member, City of Westminster Len Duvall AM Peter Fortune AM Member, London Borough of Bromley AM Member, London Borough of Sutton Susan Hall AM Member, London Borough of Harrow AM Member, Joanne McCartney AM AM Member, London Borough of Hackney Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM AM Keith Prince AM Nicholas Rogers AM Caroline Russell AM Member, London Borough of Islington

Page 2 Member Interest Dr Onkar Sahota AM AM Member, London Borough of Lewisham

3.3 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that:

 where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at

(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or

(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions

 they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and

 must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting

UNLESS

 they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code).

3.4 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.

3.5 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.

3.6 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.

3.7 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £50 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered.

3.8 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The gifts and hospitality database may be viewed online.

Page 3 3.9 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the online database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £50, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.

3.10 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.

4. Legal Implications

4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

List of appendices to this report:

None

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers: None

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager

Telephone: 020 8039 1285

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 4 Agenda Item 5

Subject: Re-Establishment of Working Groups and Panels

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 This report requests the GLA Oversight Committee considers establishing working groups for the 2021/22 year.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the Committee considers whether to re-establish the Standing Orders Working Group for the 2021/22 year, and agrees its term of reference, size, membership and chairing arrangements.

2.2 That the Committee considers whether to re-establish the Chief Officer Performance Review Panel for the 2021/22 year, as a working group, and agrees its term of reference, size, membership and chairing arrangements.

2.3 That the Committee considers whether to establish an Election Review Working Group for the 2021/22 year and agrees its terms of reference, size, membership and chairing arrangements.

3. Background

3.1 The Annual Meeting of the Assembly on 14 May 2021 established the GLA Oversight Committee as an ordinary committee for the period until the next Annual Meeting of the Assembly in May 2022.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 5 v1/2021

4. Issues for Consideration

Standing Orders Working Group

4.1 At its meeting on 25 May 2011, the Committee (formerly known as the Business Management and Administration Committee) agreed to establish a Standing Orders Working Group, which would only meet when necessary. As from time to time it is necessary to consider revisions to Standing Orders where Assembly Members and the Mayor consider that changes to procedure would make meetings more effective, the Committee is requested to consider re-establishing the Standing Orders Working Group for the 2021/22 Assembly year with the term of reference, as set out below:

To consider changes to the GLA’s Standing Orders as required and to make recommendations to the GLA Oversight Committee.

4.2 If the Committee agrees to re-establish the Standing Orders Working Group, it is requested to agree the size, appoint Members and the Chair of the Working Group.

Chief Officer Performance Review Panel

4.3 The Head of Paid Service Performance Review Panel (renamed the Chief Officer Review Panel in 2018) was established by the GLA Oversight Committee as a working group in May 2012 with the following term of reference:

To conduct, in conjunction with the Mayor, the performance review process for the Authority’s Head of Paid Service, reporting relevant matters requiring formal decision and/or for consideration as necessary to the GLA Oversight Committee.

4.4 If it is agreed to re-establish this Panel as a working group, it is proposed that the Panel comprise one GLA Conservative Assembly Member, one City Hall Greens Assembly Member, one Labour Assembly Member, and one Liberal Democrat Member; and that the Committee appoints Members; and appoints the Chair of the Panel.

Election Review Working Group

4.5 The Committee is asked to consider whether to establish an Election Review Working Group with the following terms of reference, mirroring the similar working group established by the Assembly in 2016 following the 2016 GLA elections:

To review the planning, conduct and costs of the 2021 GLA elections across London and identify improvements for future years;

To identify and collate from London Elects and other stakeholders, participants and external experts, views, accounts and explanations for any other issues that arose during the 2021 GLA election process; and

That the Election Review Working Group completes its work at the earliest opportunity and automatically be disestablished at the conclusion of its work.

4.6 If it is agreed to establish the Election Review Working Group, it is proposed that the Committee agrees the size, appoints Members and the Chair of the Working Group.

Page 6

5. Legal Implications

5.1 Section 55(4) of the GLA Act provides the Assembly may: “appoint one or more committees (“advisory committees”) to advise it on any matter relating to the discharge of its functions”. The Assembly may delegate its functions (except powers that are exercised jointly with the Mayor) to a committee, sub-committee or individual Member of the Assembly (sections 54(1) and 55(1)), but not to an advisory committee, which may only advise in accordance with section 55(4).

5.2 The political balance requirements of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 apply to any committees and sub committees established by the Assembly. This means that the allocation of seats on committees must be proportionate to the number of Members each party Group has on the Assembly as a whole.

5.3 Political proportionality must be applied to every ordinary and advisory committee or sub-committee established by the Assembly. The political balance requirements do not apply to the Standing Orders Working Group, the Chief Officer Performance Review Panel and Election Review Working Group since it is not proposed that they are established as ordinary subcommittees, but as working groups under Standing Order 8.5, and in accordance with the principles established by R v Warwickshire District Council ex parte Bailey [1999] COD 184.

5.4 As it is proposed that the Standing Orders Working Group, the Chief Officer Performance Review Panel, and Election Review Working Group are established as working groups they are not subject to access to information rules.

5.5 A working group or panel established under Standing Order 8.5 cannot exercise any function of the Assembly or determine any matter, other than to make a recommendation. Standing Order 8.5 also stipulates that a member of a working group or panel unable to attend a meeting may request any Assembly or co-opted member to attend in their stead.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no financial implications arising from the report.

List of appendices to this report:

An appendix setting out the nominations to the Panels and Working Groups will be tabled at the meeting.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Page 7

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager

Telephone: 020 8039 1285

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 8 Agenda Item 6

MINUTES

Meeting: GLA Oversight Committee Date: Tuesday 9 March 2021 Time: 10.00 am Place: Virtual Meeting

Copies of the minutes may be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london- assembly/oversight

Present:

Len Duvall AM (Chair) Susan Hall AM (Deputy Chairman) Siân Berry AM Andrew Boff AM Unmesh Desai AM Joanne McCartney AM Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM Dr Onkar Sahota AM AM

1 Apol ogies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)

1.1 The Chair explained that in accordance with Government regulations, the meeting was being held on a virtual basis, with Assembly Members participating remotely.

1.2 The Clerk read the roll-call of Assembly Members who were participating in the meeting. Apologies for absence were received from Peter Whittle AM.

2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2)

2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v1 2015 Page 9 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021

2.2 Resolved:

That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.

3 Minutes (Item 3)

Resolved: (a) That the minutes of the meeting of the GLA Oversight Committee held on 2 February 2021 be signed by the Chair as a correct record; and (b) That the minutes of the meeting of the EU Exit Working Group held on 26 January 2021 be signed by the Chair as a correct record.

4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4)

4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

4.2 The Committee raised that despite being told that there would be motorcycle parking provision at The Crystal building, it had since been reported that there was to be no motorcycle parking. The Chief Officer explained that it had been her initial assumption that there would be motorcycle parking and apologised for advising as such, when it was the contrary.

4.3 The Chief Officer confirmed that she would provide a written response to Assembly Member Prince explaining why parking was not being provided for motorcycles.

4.4 Resolved:

That the completed, closed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee, and additional correspondence received, be noted.

5 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Item 5)

5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

Page 10 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021

5.2 Resolved: (a) That the recent action taken by the Chair of the London Assembly under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman of the London Assembly, party Group Leaders, and Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to agree the London Assembly’s Joint Letter with the Mayor of London, London Legacy Development Corporation, and Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, as attached at Appendix 1 of the report, be noted; and (b) That the recent action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with Members of the EU Exit Working Group, to agree the Working Group’s letter to the Mayor on EU citizens living in London, as attached at Appendix 2 of the report, be noted.

6 Mayor's Response to EU Exit Working Group Output (Item 6)

6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

6.2 Resolved:

That the response from the Mayor to the EU Exit Working Group’s output from March 2020, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted.

7 Secretariat Quarterly Monitoring Report Q3-Q4 2020-21 (Item 7)

7.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

7.2 Resolved:

That the core Secretariat quarterly review for the third and fourth quarters of 2020-21 (November to January 2020-21 and February to April 2021), be noted.

8 Allocation of Assembly Budget 2021-22 (Item 8)

8.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

8.2 The Committee asked whether the Chief Officer was sorry for the pain caused to Secretariat staff subjected to the cancelled restructure process, whereby jobs were put at risk, and whether the situation could have been handled better.

Page 11 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021

8.3 The Chief Officer conveyed apologies for the cancelled restructure process Secretariat staff experienced, and that she would like to think the situation could have been handled better, but all the facts were not yet known.

8.4 Resolved: (a) That the proposed allocation of the Assembly & Secretariat budget from 2021-22 as set out in the report, be agreed; (b) That the general use of the Assembly’s budget, as allocated to the relevant teams within the Secretariat by the Committee in the 2021-22 year, as set out in paragraph 5.4 of the report, be approved; and (c) That it be noted that a report on the allocation of the Assembly & Secretariat budget for the 2021-22 year would be presented to the first meeting of the Committee, or its successor body, following the GLA elections in May 2021, in order either to confirm the allocation or to deal with any consequential changes to the allocations that are necessary at that time.

9 Changes to the GLA Establishment (Item 9)

9.1 The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer.

9.2 The Assistant Director for Human Resources (HR) and Organisational Development (OD) introduced the report highlighting that:  The report provided certainty to staff employed on fixed-term contracts due to expire;  The posts were fully funded as part of the 2021/22 budget; and  Just over half the posts detailed in the report would be externally funded.

9.3 The Committee noted that a considerable amount of HR posts were proposed to be extended, and given the financial constraints on the Greater London Authority, queried whether all the posts were required. The Assistant Director for HR and OD explained that the posts were required to continue work on reviewing HR policies and systems.

9.4 The Committee questioned what the permanent role of Executive Director of Strategy and Communications delivered, noting it was highly paid and many Londoners are struggling financially. The Chief Officer explained that the post provided leadership for a range of key functions, coordinated the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) response to COVID-19 and developed the recovery programme.

9.5 In response to concerns about the justification other posts, the Chief Officer said that the report only showed the posts proposed for extension, and that the Mayor’s budget due for publication tomorrow contained details of other posts to expire.

Page 12 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021

9.6 It was noted that the Budget and Performance Committee would be addressing the concerns raised at its next meeting. The Chair requested that the changes to the GLA establishment report be shared with Members of the Budget and Performance Committee.

9.7 Resolved:

That the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment be noted, subject to the queries and comments outlined above.

10 Expansion of the GLA Building Safety Team to deliver the new Waking Watch Relief Fund (Item 10)

10.1 The Committee received the report of the Chief Officer.

10.2 The Head of Building Safety introduced the report highlighting that:  The GLA was taking on new responsibilities different to the delivery of the cladding remediation programme;  Within the existing building safety team there was not the capacity to run an additional programme; and  The programme was estimated to last nine months and to be shorter than the cladding remediation programme.

10.3 The Committee queried why the report was not presented at an earlier meeting given the fund was launched by the Government on the 22 December 2020. The Head of Building Safety explained that the GLA was not approached to deliver the programme until early January 2021 and that the GLA’s approach to delivery would be different to other areas of the country. It was said further that the GLA needed a much bigger team and they would be opening for applications on the 18 March 2021.

10.4 It was asked if the fund would be open for applications from other organisations in the GLA family. The Head of Building Safety clarified that the fund was open to private building owners in London, but should public sector buildings wish to apply they would need to do so via the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

10.5 The Committee enquired as to whether applications from within the GLA family could be made to the cladding remediation funds. The Head of Building Safety said that the Team had considered measures for conflicts of interest and how to administer the fund with, so it could be possible for GLA family organisations to make an application.

Page 13 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021

10.6 Resolved: That the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed expansion and associated changes to the GLA’s Building Safety team be noted, subject to the queries and comments outlined above.

11 State of London Debate 2021 (Item 11)

11.1 The Committee received the report of the Assistant Director – External Relations.

11.2 The Chair of the Committee indicated that other Assembly Members may have views on the event and depending on consultation with the Chair of the London Assembly, those Members would be asked to contact the Assistant Director – External Relations directly with any comments.

11.3 Resolved: (a) That the proposals for the State of London Debate as a digital hybrid event, from City Hall in June 2021, contained in the report be noted, also noting that an exact date was yet to be determined; and (b) That the Committee provide any views, ideas or suggestions on further ways to improve the State of London Debate as a consultative event.

12 Date of Next Meeting (Item 12)

12.1 It was noted that the London Assembly’s Annual Meeting, due to take place on 14 May 2021, would decide which committees to establish for the 2021/22 Assembly Year and a timetable of meetings for those committees.

Page 14 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021

13 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 13)

Shar ed Service Proposal by the Greater London Authority for the Management of the GLA's Forthcoming Duty to Provide Support to Victims of Domestic Abuse and their Children in Safe Accommodation (Item 13a)

13.1 In accordance with section 100(B)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), the Chair accepted Agenda Item 13a as an urgent item of business.

13.2 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Housing and Land.

13.3 The Head of Housing Programmes and Services introduced the report highlighting that:  The Domestic Abuse Bill was still going through Parliament, of which part four declares a new duty for the GLA to ensure support and safe accommodation for domestic abuse victims;  There was also a duty for the GLA to coordinate a multi-agency partnership board;  London had been allocated £20.6 million from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government for 2021-22 to implement the duties; and  It was proposed for the GLA to enter a shared services arrangement with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) to deliver the duty.

13.4 The Committee questioned whether the GLA and MOPAC would be able to undertake the new functions immediately following the enactment of the Bill, whilst ensuring minimal disruption for survivors. The Head of Housing Programmes and Services explained that MHCLG were grant funding some services, and an agreement had been reached with MHCLG for that funding to be automatically continued in the next financial year. It was said that a consultant had already been employed to assist with preparation work for the programme.

13.5 The Committee raised concerns around the governance arrangements and scrutiny of the delivery of duties, given that decision making would ultimately sit with the Mayor and operations would be shared across the GLA Housing Team and MOPAC. The Chair commented that this was an important issue raised and requested that the Housing Programmes and Services team reported to MOPAC and housing scrutiny officers, to ensure the Assembly could scrutinise the programme via the Police and Crime Committee.

Page 15 Greater London Authority GLA Oversight Committee Tuesday 9 March 2021

13.6 The Committee queried what arrangements would be in place to ensure there is an objective to reduce risk and reoffending in relation to domestic abuse; whether victims placed in safe accommodation would have access to free school meals; whether support would be provided for victims with substance abuse issues; and whether specialist separate provision was to be provided for male victims of domestic abuse. The Head of Housing Programmes and Services said in response that the majority of the queries raised would be addressed by the needs assessment due to be carried out.

13.7 The Chair acknowledged that some of the questions raised fell outside the remit of the Housing Programmes and Services team, and it was agreed that the Chief Officer would coordinate a full response to the queries raised above.

13.8 Resolved:

That the Mayor’s proposed exercise of the GLA’s power, under section 401A of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to enter into shared service arrangements from 1 April 2021 under which MOPAC will assist the GLA to discharge its forthcoming proposed new duty set out in the Domestic Abuse Bill (whether under a Memorandum of Understanding or by way of statutory compliance, as described in this report) to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in safe accommodation be noted, subject to the queries and comments outlined above.

14 Close of Meeting

14.1 The meeting finished at 10.55am.

Chair Date

Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, Telephone: 0208 039 1285; Email: [email protected]

Page 16

MINUTES

Meeting: Garden Bridge Working Group Date: Monday 13 May 2019 Time: 10.00 am Place: Committee Room 5, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA

Copies of the minutes may be found at: https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-committees/garden-bridge- working-group

Present: AM (Chair) Sian Berry AM Len Duvall AM Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Peter Whittle AM

1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)

1.1 No apologies for absence were received.

2 Declarations of Interest (Item 2)

2.1 The Working Group received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

2.2 Resolved:

That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 17 Greater London Authority Garden Bridge Working Group Monday 13 May 2019

3 Minutes (Item 3)

3.1 Resolved:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 April 2019 be noted as a correct record.

4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4)

4.1 The Working Group received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

4.2 Resolved:

That the outstanding actions and additional correspondence from the Working Group’s previous meeting be noted.

5 Transport for London's Role (Item 5)

5.1 The Working Group received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions to the following invitet guests:  Mike Brown MVO, Commissioner, Transport for London (TfL);  Alex Williams, Director of City Planning, TfL;  Andy Brown, Head of Corporate Affairs, TfL.

5.2 A transcript of the discussion is attached as Appendix 1.

5.3 During the course of the discussion, Members requested the following information from TfL officers:  An update on the changes made by TfL following the Dame Margret Hodges Review, including details of the review of the terms and conditions of members of staff who leave the organisation; and  Details of the commitments made by the former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to parties who agreed to donate funds to the Garden Bridge.

5.4 The Chair thanked the invited guests for their participation in the meeting.

5.5 Resolved:

(a) That the report and subsequent discussion be noted.

(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the discussion.

Page 18 Greater London Authority Garden Bridge Working Group Monday 13 May 2019

6 Garden Bridge Working Group Work Programme (Item 6)

6.1 The Working Group received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

6.2 Resolved:

(a) That the work programme for the 2019/20 Assembly year be noted.

(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree: (i) Any scrutiny arrangements before the next formal meeting; and (ii) The date of the next formal meeting.

8 Date of Next Meeting (Item 7)

8.1 The date of the next formal meeting will be agreed by the Chair, in consultation with party Group Leads.

9 Close of Meeting

9.1 The meeting ended at 11.53am.

Chair Date

Contact Officer: Clare Bryant, Committee Officer; telephone: 020 7983 4616; Email: [email protected]; minicom: 020 7983 4458

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 20

Appendix 1 London Assembly Garden Bridge Working Group – Monday, 13 May 2019

Transcript of Item 5 -Transport for London’s Role

Tom Copley AM (Chair): The main focus of this meeting will be to discuss the outstanding issues relating to the Garden Bridge project and Transport for London’s (TfL) role in it. Can I welcome our guests: Mike Brown MVO, Commissioner of TfL; Alex Williams, Director of City Planning at TfL; and Andy Brown, Head of Corporate Services at TfL? Welcome to you all.

I am going to kick off with the first set of questions to you, Mike. You became Commissioner in September 2015. From then onwards, did you receive regular or irregular updates from the TfL representatives attending project meetings for the Garden Bridge?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I should just clarify, Chair. I became interim Commissioner on 16 July [2015], just to be very clear, because [Sir] Peter Hendy [CBE, former Commissioner, TfL] left on that day. I just did not want there to be any doubt. I could perhaps refer my answer to the period from 16 July because in effect I was Commissioner from that date, there being nobody else in that role.

Yes, it is true to say that I had irregular updates - they were not standard updates or there was not a routine of updates - on the Garden Bridge project from both Richard de Cani, who was then the Managing Director of Planning, and others in the TfL team. As soon as I took over as interim Commissioner, I continued the process that my predecessor had had of a weekly meeting with my senior leadership team, which was on a Monday afternoon. As part of those updates, that was something that verbally Richard de Cani would have given me some updates on. It was not in any formal capacity. It was just as part of that informal catch-up that we had every week.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Were any of these briefings written briefings?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No, they would not have been.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): You would not have had any written briefings?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): OK. Did you ever receive briefings from TfL legal or your general counsel regarding the Garden Bridge Trust’s contract with Bouygues?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Not that I recall, no.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Did [Sir] Eddie Lister [ former Deputy Mayor for Policy and Planning] or Isabel Dedring [former Deputy Mayor for Transport] ever discuss formally, or informally, the Garden Bridge project with you?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I certainly had regular -- I had weekly meetings with Isabel Dedring, who was the Deputy Mayor [for Transport] at the time, as you will recall. As part of those meetings, the Garden Bridge would have been occasionally talked of. However, because of my

Page 21 non-prior involvement before I became Commissioner because I had really no involvement in the project prior to becoming Commissioner, I was aware that she was talking directly with the team that was responsible for it. Frankly, it was her way of operating. She tended to dive down into all parts of the organisation and hold all sorts of conversations with people.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): How about the former Mayor, Boris Johnson [MP]? Did he talk to you about the project?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): We did meet with the former Mayor every week for a regular catch-up meeting. The time that I considered particularly having discussion with the Mayor was actually much later towards the end of his time in office. I do recall, for example, a meeting on 6 April [2015] where there was some discussion around additional sums of money to underwrite the project. There was a real concern expressed by Greater London Authority (GLA) monitoring officers - and indeed my own team - about the appropriateness of that in the lead-up to the election campaign, with a degree of uncertainty as to what any future Mayor, whoever that might have been, would have had on the discussion.

That is the meeting I recall most. While there was some discussion with the Mayor on an informal basis about how it was going, it was certainly not the main topic of discussion between the Mayor and myself at our regular weekly meetings.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Peter Hendy, your predecessor, in his interview with Dame Margaret Hodge [independent reviewer of the Garden Bridge project, April 2017] said something along the lines of - I am paraphrasing - how Boris was on the phone to him constantly about it.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: That was Isabel.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): It was Isabel who was on the phone to him constantly about it. That is not your experience?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No, it really did not happen with me. As I say, I know that Isabel Dedring was talking to people within the team but certainly in my discussion with her, there were many other things that we talked about - whether or not we would produce a business plan, what was going on in terms of the lead-up to the mayoral election and all sorts of other things - but not on the Garden Bridge project, no.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Turning to the issue of the construction contract, were you aware that the Trust was about to sign the construction contract with Bouygues?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I was not aware that it was about to do so. I was aware when it had done so because that was one of the reasons that was communicated to me by the Managing Director of Planning as to why they felt that there was a confidence from the Trust of the project being able to go ahead.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Do you think it was reckless for the Trust to sign that contract without having the full funds in the bank? Even if they had had the Department for Transport (DfT) funding, that still would have left them with significant challenges.

Page 22

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): It is very good point. Can I just draw a parallel because members of this group will be well aware that in a different context I made the decision to cancel the procurement process we had underway for the Piccadilly line signalling. I know it is a totally different context, but we made that decision last year [2018] in the light of the funding reality that we found ourselves in because I was not confident. In fact, before it even went to the Board - it was not that the Board stopped it - I stopped that because I was not confident there was a steady stream of funding for that signalling procurement to happen. I am not party to the thoughts of the Garden Bridge Trust and what was in their mind. I only ever met representatives of the Garden Bridge Trust once in my entire time. Up to this moment in time I have only met them once, actually. I was not aware of what was going through their mind, but I had assumed that they must have had a degree of certainty as to the funding stream that was coming to them if they were going to venture into that construction contract with Bouygues.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Did you ever see that contract?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I know because I wrote to you about this and you did say that TfL did not hold a copy.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Yes.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I find that a bit strange. I know that the Garden Bridge Trust is an arm’s-length, as it were, organisation, but I would have thought that, given that this was a very significant milestone and that TfL was paying quite a big amount of taxpayers’ money over to them, you would have wanted to have seen that contract.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): If I may, to continue the analogy, it was not just an arm’s-length contract but an arm-severed contract. This was a contract that was beyond the reach of TfL in that regard. Therefore, we did not see the contract. We were not party to it. It was not our signature that was on it or necessary to go on it. As far as I am aware, it was a responsibility of the Garden Bridge Trust to sign that contract. It was not --

Tom Copley AM (Chair): TfL did not offer any legal advice regarding it or any other form of advice to the Trust?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Not as far as I am aware. Andy may be able to help, but not as far as I am aware, Chair, no.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): No. I talked a little bit about this at your last meeting. The Trust had extensive legal advice from both general lawyers and a specialist construction firm that it took advice from before reaching a decision on whether to enter that contract. Mike has talked about how he was not sighted on the contract itself. I do not recall ever having read the actual construction contract document, but we talked last time about how I attended a number of the meetings as an observer and Richard [de Cani] did as well. At that meeting where they decided to let that contract, they talked about some of the elements of the contract and the advice they had received from their lawyers. I was aware as our observer of that Board of some of the aspects that were in that contract and that they had taken into account in entering into that contract, but actually going through the contract itself with a fine-tooth comb or taking our own legal advice on it was not something that we did because that was a decision for the Trust to take.

Page 23

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Given that TfL was essentially underwriting the Trust, do you think it would have been wise for TfL to have seen the contract?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Chair, to be honest, there are lots of things, looking back on this whole sorry escapade, that I could opine on retrospect. One of them - and I am sure you may come to this later - is the whole process of Mayoral Directions and the way they were totally outwith at that time any sort of governance process within TfL. Of course, as you know, following the Margaret Hodge work and the other bits of scrutiny that the Assembly has done previously, that whole arrangement is now in a very different place. There are lots of things that with the benefit of hindsight we might have sought to do differently, but at that time it would have been considered strange to have a set of trustees set up and for us to be dabbling in the contract that was, after all, signed between them and the construction company, Bouygues in this case, not with us.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Were you aware of the meetings that Andy Brown and Richard de Cani would go to with the Garden Bridge Trust?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): There were meetings going on and, as I say, as part of the informal discussions that we had, sometimes in the Monday afternoons, those were referred to. I was not working closely with Andy [Brown] at that time. He was in a much more junior position. Richard, although he worked directly for me, would have given me an update but in the context of all sorts of other updates that were going on within his frame of responsibility as well.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Did you ever ask to see the minutes, for example, of the meetings?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No, I did not.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Were you aware that Thomas Heatherwick [designer, Heatherwick Studios] was attending the Garden Bridge Trust Board meetings and were you at any point concerned about him potentially influencing the trustees?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I was not aware that he was attending those meetings and I had no dealings with him and I had no understanding of what his role was in attending those meetings.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Finally from me, would you agree that the Garden Bridge became a political issue?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): It is evident to say, given what I have just referred to, in the 6 April [2015] meeting I was concerned and I know my colleagues were concerned and indeed the GLA scrutiny officer was concerned in the lead-up to the election that we did not fetter the views of any future Mayor. There was a range of people who could have been the Mayor at that at that time. It was before the election, which is why, instead of the request for quite a significant amount of money, we ended up just releasing a further £1.3 million at that time to keep the project going and not kill it off in a sense. That would have itself been a political decision as well, pending the election. Of course, the very nature of the project, given that it was subject to the number of Mayoral Directions it was, inevitably there was politics involved.

Page 24

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Was political pressure applied to you to make decisions in the interests of the Bridge going ahead?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Not to me personally but I certainly was aware that there was a lot of dialogue going on from the then Mayor’s office to people in my team.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): The same question to you, Andy: were you feeling political pressure?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Not particularly. Mike has described how Isabel [Dedring], the Deputy Mayor, and other members of the Mayor’s office would speak to the project team. That was through Richard and so I never had any conversations with them myself about it. My view of it was just that we were under a series of Mayoral Directions and so I would not call that political pressure. I would call that political direction to deliver this project. It was then our job to put frameworks in place around how we did that.

Len Duvall AM: Sorry, can I just interrupt? To put frameworks in around that, should a framework not be put around that for Plan B if you are getting or receiving information that says, “There is a bit of a risk here. There is a risk here long term to TfL’s finances because it is underwriting this scheme. There is a real risk I might have to take over this project because I am not sure about the people who are running it”? Tell me. Why were those frameworks that I have just described - and there are obviously more technical ones - were not put in place then? Where were the thought processes? We have received a lot of information and we are about to ask for more. Is it going to be in that bundle of paper and are we going to see some of that thinking of where you have put frameworks in about, “What if? What is the issue? What if X happens? What if Y happens?” Of course, if a bridge gets built, you are all singing and dancing until you have to pick up the costs. Tell us more about these frameworks.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): We talked at the last of these meetings about the arrangements that we as TfL had in place to monitor what the Trust was doing and particularly how it was using the money we had given it in line with - or not but it was in line with - the conditions in our funding agreement and whether it was meeting conditions for further payments. Those are the frameworks we had in place to understand the risks that the Trusts were facing in the delivery of the project and the plans that it had in place to overcome those risks.

Len Duvall AM: OK. Would you describe those frameworks as the bare minimum frameworks that you undertook with your colleagues?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): No, we had lots of rights of access to information, including attending every one of their Board meetings but also meeting with them on a very regular basis. Since our last meeting I have sent through some further information which shows some of the information that the Trust was using to manage the project, which we had visibility of. No, I would not say that at all.

Len Duvall AM: Some of that information you have provided show you attending a meeting on 9 December [2015]. Despite you telling this Committee that you thought the funding agreements were robust, you were highlighting to them. You were talking to the Board. It was your first meeting in attendance. You were talking to the trustees and were telling them that they are going to struggle to justify the conditions attached to release funds. In your own mind, you have some doubts here. That was your first meeting.

Page 25

I go back to my original question. In terms of the frameworks that you have described that you set out, why did you not do any additional frameworks in terms of protecting TfL or the public funders of the project, the public purse in terms of that? Why did you choose to take the limited view of satisfying the frameworks that TfL needed? What was going through your mind at that particular time? Did you seek any advice from superiors to say, “Should I be preparing something else? Should I be doing something else?” Or did you just decide that?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I explained at the last meeting what I meant by what --

Len Duvall AM: You did not explain it clearly. That is why I am asking. I have read the transcript.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I do not have anything more to say from what I said last time about what those comments in December [2015] meant and about why I was making clear to them in my first meeting as an observer of the Garden Bridge Trust Board that, if they were going to request the next set of payments under the funding agreement, they needed to make very clear how the conditions had been met so that we could take into account everything that we knew and inform Richard [de Cani] on what view he might reach. I was not having conversations about additional frameworks that we put in place because we felt that the frameworks that had been put in place were satisfactory. We had a full view of the risks that the Trust was facing and the plans that it was putting in place to overcome them. That was what we needed to have in place to understand whether they were meeting the conditions in the funding agreement and for us to fulfil our obligations under the Mayoral Directions that we were under.

Len Duvall AM: The information you had before you were showing that the risks were increasing, not decreasing. You changed the funding agreements and my colleagues will deal with that, but in the progression from that meeting onwards that you were attending, the risks get higher for this group of trustees, not lesser. They do not sign up the land on the landing sites. They go out and procure the construction issues. Surely sends an alarm bell to you and your colleagues that this is a bit of a risky project. Or do you not think it was a risky project?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I do not agree with that description of what was happening to the risks.

Len Duvall AM: You do not? You think they were lower?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): They were changing. They had a lot of risks on the project, as you would expect with any project of this nature, but they were also closing out risks and overcoming obstacles. New ones would arise, but that is typical in management of projects like this. We did not feel like the overall risk landscape was increasing to a point where we needed to be particularly nervous about it.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): We will be coming on to that shortly. I have seen Assembly Member Whittle wanted to come in and then I will bring in Assembly Member Pidgeon.

Peter Whittle AM: Yes. Can I just clarify one thing? Sorry, Mike. When the Chair was asking you about whether you saw the construction contact and you said no, did you ever request to see it?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No.

Page 26

Peter Whittle AM: That is strange, is not it? You said that there were many things in what you called ‘this escapade’ that you would do differently. Presumably now you would look back thing and think, “Maybe we should have had a look at that contract”?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): That is fair, yes.

Peter Whittle AM: Thank you.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Just before I bring Assembly Member Pidgeon in, had the Trust signed the construction the contract and then TfL turned around and said, “I am sorry. You have not satisfied the conditions. We are not going to give you any more funding”, what would then have happened?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I would be very hesitant on speculating on what they might have done, but I would assume that they would not then have been able to meet their liabilities having entered into that contract and would need to take a view on whether to wind up their activities because they were no longer a going concern. I would caveat that by saying I am not an expert in charity governance.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I raise this with you last time. I just find it inconceivable that they would have signed contract had they not had a nod from somewhere within TfL that that funding would have been made available. Were they ever given that nod, as far as you are aware?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): They knew what conditions they had to meet. That was clearly set out in the funding agreement. There was no discussion of the type that you are describing, no.

Sian Berry AM: Sorry. The minutes of that December [2015] meeting do say that you had said there would need to be a bigger discussion. Did that not happen?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): What I meant in that sentence as minuted is that this was my first meeting attending as an observer of the Garden Bridge Trust Board. They were asking me some questions about how certain conditions might be interpreted and what they would need to do and all around the details of that. I was saying that I would need to go back and talk to people back at TfL. That is what that means.

Sian Berry AM: Yes, but did that happen?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Yes. I was talking to Richard [De Cani] and others on a regular basis and certainly after attending a Board meeting to feedback on what had been discussed in the Board meeting. Yes, there were further discussions, and that is reflected in what then happened and what was discussed at future Garden Bridge Trust Board meetings.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Assembly Member Pidgeon now on the softening of conditions.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: I just want to pick up a couple of bits from listening to the discussion. Mike or Andy could answer this. You said that Isabel Dedring was not bothering you about this, Mike, but going

Page 27 directly, as she did on lots of issues. Who was she contacting? Was it just Richard de Cani? Was it you, Andy? Were there other people?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): She was not contacting me. I do not know who else she was talking to.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Who do you think?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): It was Richard and people in Richard’s team. That was my understanding of who she was contacting. Just to be clear, by the way, when I had the handover from the previous Commissioner, this was not something that he talked to me about in terms of all the issues that he thought I should be immediately aware of. It was quite a quick camber. If you remember, he was appointed Chair of Network Rail and within a few days he had gone to that new role. To be very clear, this was not something that he had in his top-10 list of --

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: It was not on the risk register.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No, it really was not. Just to put that into context, my understanding was that, as I say, Isabel Dedring, as was her character - and it is not a criticism; it is just the way she operated - did dive into all sorts of layers within the organisation and have detailed discussions with all sorts of people, and so I assumed it was with Richard and his team involved in this. However, as I say, if Andy says it was not him, it obviously was not him.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Andy said that there were other people from the Mayor’s office. Who else was in touch with your, or Richard, about this project other than Isabel?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): No one from the Mayor’s office was talking to me on a regular basis. We talked last time about whether I wrote regular briefing notes for the Mayor’s office. No, but as and when they were required, it is typical that a briefing note will go into that Mayor’s office and a number of people will have an interest in it, not just the Deputy Mayor for Transport but the Chief of Staff, for example.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Eddie Lister would have been one. Who else?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I do not have a list of who was calling whom because none of them were calling me ever.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: It was more than just Isabel ringing up your team, which may well have been Richard. It was more than just Isabel. There was pressure from the Mayor’s office on this project?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I do not know. You would need to ask Richard, who I assume was the person who they were talking to.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: OK, ok. You said you might be asked for stuff to go into written briefings and so from time to time there was a written update on this going to the previous Mayor?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Yes, and we have released that.

Page 28

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Yes. Mike, you said at the beginning that on Monday afternoons you had your team together, going around what is going on in each department. It was only verbally updated but did the Garden Bridge come up pretty regularly?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): It certainly came up, but I cannot honestly say it was regular. It is not sticking in my mind as being something that was talked about at length or on a hugely frequent basis. There were many other things going on. We were going through in that period the whole pre- election planning and thinking about the potential for what scenarios we might face given whichever candidate might have won the election. We were talking about that and we were talking about the normal issues around the delivery of service and delivery of TfL projects.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: After April [2015] when you flagged this meeting that you had with Boris [Johnson] talking about extra money, was it them a more routine item or did you have separate briefings from the team on that?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No. All I knew on that meeting with the Mayor, which was the one meeting that I recall where it was deemed to be inappropriate for a huge additional amount of underwriting to be given, given the timing in the pre-election period, was that that was the timing that we had with a view to saying that we would then wait and see what any new Mayor decided was an appropriate thing to do. Of course, we knew there was going to be a new Mayor because the [previous] Mayor was not standing for re-election.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Exactly. Thank you.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: I want to focus on the conditions. Let us be very clear for anyone watching this online as well, as I am sure there will be people. There were six conditions. Condition 5 originally said:

“The Trust has demonstrated to TfL’s satisfaction that it has secured a satisfactory level of funding to operate and maintain the Garden Bridge once it is built for at least the first five years.”

This was then later amended, although I understand it was never formally changed in the deed of grant, in a Mayoral Direction to say:

“The Trust has demonstrated to TfL’s satisfaction that it has a satisfactory funding strategy [to get the money, not the money in the bank] to operate and maintain the Garden Bridge once it is built for at least the first five years.”

Who decided, Mike, to soften condition 5?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I do not know the answer to that question, but what I would say is that I am aware that the process for looking at this -- as I understand it, there was a benchmarking process done about how much it would cost to maintain an asset such as this. Some GLA officers and others had a look across, for example, Trafalgar Square to see how much that is to maintain. They had done some work with gardening companies to see how much the garden part of the bridge would cost to maintain. My understanding was that there was seen a difference between the cost of maintenance, which was seen for five years as being £2.5 million on average per year for the first five years, and the income stream, which was seen to be about £3 million. There was a delta between the two of those. The income stream, just to be clear, was coming from, in my understanding, a range of things such as charity galas that were going to

Page 29 be promoted, small retail facilities, coffee outlets, coffee carts and whatever else coming on board and other donations. That was my understanding but - and Andy may be able to help - I do not know exactly why and about the context of that amendment to words.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Were you aware of it at the time?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: This comes now probably in preparing for this meeting as a surprise?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Yes. There has been a lot going on and discussion on the Garden Bridge, as you know. There have been four or five looks at the Garden Bridge since I have been Commissioner. This has come to light to me since but, no, at the time this was not something I was aware of.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Andy?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I can try to answer the original question if you like?

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Yes, if you could, that would be great.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): There are two points on it. One is that the interpretation that we took of condition 5 in our funding agreement for that set of payments based on advice from legal colleagues is that having a deliverable operation and maintenance business plan that shows how on a year-by-year basis for the first five years they would have funded the running of the Bridge was sufficient. It did meet the condition and we were required to pay. There was no mention in the funding agreement about cash in the bank, as you put it, and so that was not part of the requirement.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: That is how you could interpret it. Certainly the original wording I would read as them having cash in the bank to run this for the five-plus years.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): The approach that we took and ultimately Richard took in reaching a decision on whether these conditions had been met was whether they had they met to a standard that we could not defend against paying them out. Are we legally required to make this payment? That business plan, especially in the context of what other parties such as the planning authorities were saying they wanted to see, the Port of London Authority (PLA) as well, was a credible business plan to fund this. That was the position that we took.

The second point is about the Mayoral Direction and amending the language of that condition. My recollection is that that was to amend a specific part of the GLA guarantees side. If you recall, there was a requirement for the GLA, or for some suitable party, to guarantee the operation and maintenance of the Bridge if the Trust was not able to fund that itself. That Mayoral Direction was amending that specific condition to do with the guarantees and actually nothing to do with our funding agreement. The reason why that Mayoral Direction was pursued was to bring the conditions connected with the GLA guarantees in line with what was being put into the planning side of things so that the language was fully aligned between the GLA guarantees and the planning conditions in Lambeth and Westminster and so that there was not a potential problem down the line where you were trying to meet two slightly different wordings even if the view on what they meant

Page 30 was the same. It just avoids a legal problem or conversation about why that word and not the other word. We did not amend the funding condition because that is not what the Mayoral Direction was about.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: If we focus on the changing of the wording, was it not actually Martin Clarke, Director of Resources here at City Hall, who could not execute the guarantee because he said that conditions had not been met?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I have not swotted up on what considerations Martin was making at the time and why the guarantees were not ultimately signed. From memory, it was not possible for Martin to make that decision yet because a number of other things had not fallen into place.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Martin very clearly said this in his evidence to the Margaret Hodge inquiry:

“I was the instigator of that because they came to me wanting to sign the guarantees, or getting me ready to sign the guarantees. When I reviewed all the paperwork I said, now the actual decision is you’ve got to secure the funding and I cannot sign the guarantees because they haven’t secured the funding.”

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): That is Martin. Martin is the one who had to take that decision. I have not actually read that again recently because I was not expecting to discuss that today.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Is it not likely that actually the reason the wording was slightly changed was because otherwise it was not going to get signed off by City Hall in terms of the guarantee?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): No. That Mayoral Direction was long before Martin got involved in having to make a decision or not. I do not think he ever made a decision either way about entering into the guarantees. This was a step before that where the previous Mayor needed to say what he was putting as his framework around whether the guarantees should be entered into.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): First of all, I cannot believe you were not expecting to discuss this today because this is one of the key issues and it would have been briefed to you. It even went out in our press release that this is an area that we wanted to discuss, and it came up last time, but we --

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Sorry, just the specifics of what Martin was being presented with, when and what his view was: that is the bit that I do not have fresh in my memory. There were a number of conversations I was in with Martin and with other legal advisors.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): With respect, this is not about you reading Martin Clarke’s mind. We are interested in why he came to this very clear conclusion that it simply was not possible for him to sign the guarantee with the wording as it was and that they needed to secure the funding and “secure the funding” meant having the funding in the bank, and why you at TfL came to a different conclusion.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I was answering the question about that Mayoral Direction. My recollection is that that was not brought about because of any discussion with Martin about what conditions he would or would not be happy with. It was purely - and this is described in the Mayoral Direction itself - around bringing the conditions that the Mayor at the time had imposed upon

Page 31 entering into any guarantees in line with the wording that the planning authorities were putting into their conditions.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): With respect, whatever reasons the Mayoral Direction gave, the fact is that Martin Clarke still looked at that condition and said he could not possibly sign it off in its current form. Whatever reasons were put in the Mayoral Direction, I would be very surprised if the Mayoral Direction had explicitly said, “This guarantee cannot be satisfied. Therefore, we are going to soften the conditions”. Of course they wanted to come up with a different reason. However, the fact is that Martin Clarke said that that condition had not been satisfied and yet you have claimed that from TfL’s point of view that condition had been satisfied.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I can only tell you what we took into account in February 2016 for the information to meet those conditions and then the view that we took, point one, and that is that Richard [de Cani] felt that the conditions had been met and the payment did legally need to be made. Separately, my understanding of that Mayoral Direction to amend the conditions connected to the guarantees - nothing to do with our funding conditions - was driven by a desire to align the Mayor’s conditions around the guarantees with what the planning authorities were saying.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I will go back to Caroline, but just before, you would have received legal advice presumably from TfL legal as to whether the conditions had been satisfied?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I talked a bit last time about the process we went through. It was Richard de Cani’s decision as to whether the conditions had been met. He took that decision based on information that he had available to him but also views and thoughts and commentary from people in the project team including me and including people from our legal team.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Sorry, Caroline. Back to you.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Let us get on to that. Richard de Cani was very clear on 12 February [2016] in an email to Andrew Pooley [Procurement Assistant, TfL]:

“The signing of the contract is a significant step forward. I am satisfied that there has been notable progress secured and credible plans developed for fundraising, obtaining all necessary consents and land interests and managing and funding the operations and maintenance of the bridge, and on this basis I will advise the transfer plus three months from the date of this deed of variation.”

He was releasing the money. He was satisfied that all the conditions had been met, including that condition 5. Do you accept that in some ways you had softened your interpretation of what those conditions really meant?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): No, I do not. I would also say that the 12 February [2016] was not the payment that we have been discussing. Around this period there were two payments in roughly the same time period. The £7 million construction payment that we have been discussing with those six conditions came later in February. Actually, it came in two halves. There was one decision, but it was then paid in two halves, one in February and one in March.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): If I can help, 23 February was the first of those payments of £2.5 million and then £4.5 million on 23 March, just to be clear on the dates.

Page 32

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Thanks, Mike, 12 February, and then plus three months from ... you have it in front of you. You quoted it. That was a different payment under the funding agreement. Before you even got into the world of construction-related payments the funding agreement was structured so that there were a number of payments that were timed against when the agreement was entered into. They had some conditions attached to them but smaller conditions because this was about the business of the Trust in progressing the project to the point where they could begin construction activities and so there was less of a need for them to demonstrate the same depth of progress.

Len Duvall AM: Can we just be clear? The £2.5 million was almost for their running costs.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): That is £3 million.

Len Duvall AM: And their running costs to keep them afloat to pursue --

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): To continue progression of the project, spending on specialist contractors. It was not just their office costs and information technology (IT) bills or whatever, but professional fees to people to progress the project to the point where they could begin construction work. That included the work to let the construction contract and the legal advice around that, which was a very significant piece of work, a big construction contract.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: You have this team of people led by Richard de Cani. You are a key part of it, Andy, and others in the team you consulted to release the funds, interpreting the conditions in the way that you did, because many of us would say you had not met condition 5 but also condition 2, which is very clear in terms of having all the right consents and so on. One of Westminster’s pre-commencement conditions required that lifetime operational running costs and maintenance were guaranteed and underwritten by a suitable body, but this had not been signed off. How can you say that that had been met?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Again, I talked about this a little bit last time. The condition is clear that they need to have secured, or be able to secure, all the necessary consents. At this point the Trust had planning permission in place from Westminster and Lambeth. They had discharged a very large number - actually all or almost all - of the pre-commencement conditions in Westminster and certainly very well progressed in Lambeth and with a plan in place, dates agreed and agreements in place with Lambeth to progress the remaining conditions. They had discussions well advanced with the PLA and a River Works Licence almost completely drafted. The marine management organisation was well progressed and they did ultimately secure a licence for that.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Coin Street?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): There were well-progressed discussions with Coin Street about the details of everything that needed to be in place. There was still a number of things that needed to be finalised and signed up. The specific land deal needed to be pushed over the line and signed, but they had made significant progress with all of those stakeholders and had plans in place to close out those final requirements. On a condition that says, “Has secured or is able to secure”, they had a plan in place to do that. That meant that the condition had been satisfied.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Coin Street had nowhere near having anything signed at all.

Page 33

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): My recollection is that we were, having sat in a number of the negotiations with them.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: You sat in all these meetings, as you say, virtually full-time you were on this project, by the sound of it.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): It was a large amount of my time, yes.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: You are saying you were nearer getting a deal with Coin Street?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): The discussions with Coin Street were well progressed, yes.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: At this meeting that you had with all the different people, including legal, you and others, with Richard de Cani to help him shape his thinking around this, you went through and felt you had evidence of each condition being met?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Yes.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Do you have that documented anywhere?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I do not believe that there was a single decision paper that went to Richard for him to say, “Yes, I agree”.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Or any paperwork for that meeting? It was a big decision.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I do not believe so, no.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Is that something that certainly in future around these sorts of decisions that you will have documented?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I absolutely would, yes. Again, just to emphasise, not just the previous recommendations of the Assembly but also Margaret Hodge’s recommendations, which you will be aware of, we have followed through rigorously and I have been personally leading on making sure that those recommendations are followed up.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Good. Did anyone at TfL check with the GLA - because it had had an identical issue around the conditions and the wording - if it would accept a business plan as evidence that condition 5 was satisfied?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Sorry, I did not quite follow. Could you repeat the question?

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Did you or anyone at TfL check with the GLA to see if it would accept the business plan as evidence that condition 5 was satisfied rather than money in the bank?

Page 34

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Certainly, in terms of the funding agreement and the condition in that, we did not discuss that with City Hall.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: No, but in terms of the guarantee?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): In terms of the guarantee side of things, I expect we did. I do not specifically remember conversations or correspondence about it, but I would routinely keep colleagues at the GLA updated on how things were going. As Mike said, Richard would talk to Isabel [Dedring] and others. They were aware. Certainly when it came to a Mayoral Direction about how to approach things, that was their side of things. They needed to know what they were doing and we would have discussed that with them.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Mike, what were your thoughts on this whole thing about changing the condition from being what seems very clear in black and white to slightly softening it in terms of your interpretation? What is your thinking on that - obviously the benefit of hindsight helps - and also linked then to the guarantees that Martin Clarke was refusing to sign because he said it did not meet it?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I was not aware of that. I had not even met Martin Clarke at that time, to be perfectly honest, and so I had certainly had no discussions with him on any concerns that he might have expressed, just to be very clear. My role was to ensure that if the Managing Director of Planning - in this case Richard de Cani - had said that the conditions, based on his advice from lawyers within my team and with the appropriate financial approvals from the Chief Financial Officer’s (CFO) team, were satisfactory, then it would go ahead. That was the extent of my role at that time.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Did you ever in your conversations with Richard, when he was coming to you saying, “I am going to sign this off. It is a politically sensitive project. It is a Mayoral Direction”, chat with him about it and say you agreed with his analysis?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I took his analysis because it was his decision to make. Therefore, he was reporting on the decision that he was authorised to take and I did not feel at that moment in time that there was a need for me to review his decision.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: He did come to you and you said you were happy or content with that?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I do not recall using those words or that phraseology. I just know that he made the decision and it seemed to me that it was a straightforward decision that he had made based on the criteria that he had assessed against.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: In his interview with Margaret Hodge, Richard said:

“... it wasn’t a decision that I would take on my own, I would seek the input from other people in TfL [we have just discussed how that would work] and get the Commissioner to say he was happy with it, because I knew these were decisions that were quite significant.”

Did he come to you before he had signed off the decision to say, “I have looked at it. This is where I am going. Are you happy with that approach?

Page 35

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I genuinely do not recall him doing so, but that is not to say that in one, for example, of those Monday afternoon informal meetings he would not have said, “By the way, just so you know, I am signing off the authorisation of the funding”, and if that then was acknowledged by me in that meeting and if that is a definition of being happy, then, yes, that could have been the process.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: It might have been just you nodding, not quite nodding it through, but you just went, “Fine, yes”?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Yes, it was passed on as a piece of information.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Yes, rather than coming to you and saying, “This is our interpretation. Are you happy?”

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Yes. It certainly is not my recollection that, for example, on other major projects or funding signoffs that I would have a signature trail where mostly my signature would be at the bottom of a chain of people who would have signed things off, and I do not recall that being the case in this instance, no.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: OK. That is probably it.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Why had the mayoral guarantee never been signed? Do you have that question?

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Sorry. Do you want to ask it? I cannot see it. Sorry.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): One of Westminster’s conditions was that the Mayor had to sign a guarantee of the funding. That was never signed. We know it was never signed, despite huge pressure on Martin Clarke [Director of Resources, GLA] before the mayoral election. Even on his final day in office, the former Mayor was pushing him to sign it, but it was never signed off. Therefore, that condition was never met. Would you accept, Mike, that that means that TfL should not have handed over the funding?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I cannot comment on the specifics of that because I am not aware of that situation. All I can say - at the risk of repeating myself - is that Richard de Cani was quite evidently satisfied that the conditions had been met based on the advice including from lawyers within the TfL team. He took that decision and communicated it to me and that was the nature of the decision made.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I am still not clear how he possibly could have been satisfied given that there is a number of these outstanding issues, particularly this one with this Mayoral guarantee not being signed and of course it was never signed.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): As I said, you would have to ask Richard de Cani as to the basis of his decision-making.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Andy, the same question to you. This clearly was not met and yet TfL signed it through. Do you think this lacks judgement?

Page 36

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): No. If you look at what the situation was at the time in February [2016] when Richard took the decision that the conditions had been sufficiently met for the payment to need to be made, one of the many things they needed to do in the set of consents, licences, land agreements and all those things was to get those guarantees in place. What they had was a Mayoral Direction saying that the guarantees would be given subject to certain conditions, one of which was later amended to bring it in line with the drafting that the local authorities were using. At that point in time, they had what you would reasonably expect them to have by then to secure that guarantee down the line. There had been significant drafting work done on the guarantees and so things were progressing towards it. I think I am right in saying that it would not have been possible for the guarantee to have been signed at that specific point because there needed to be certain other documents in place. There was effectively one big legal signing ceremony that would have needed to have taken place to do with Section 106 Agreements and other things that were all tied together, as you would expect in a complicated legal document framework at this point.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I am not sure about that, given that the previous Mayor was basically hounding the Executive Director of Resources to get this signed and I think quite wisely, Martin Clarke decided it perhaps should wait until after the mayoral election had taken place.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Just to be clear, what the what the previous Mayor did on - I cannot remember - the last day before he left office but the letter that he sent was to say that he was satisfied because one of the conditions he had put in his Mayoral Direction was that he, the Mayor, needed to be satisfied. That then meant that it was Martin’s decision what then to do about it and for him whether to enter into those guarantees. The previous Mayor said, “Before I leave office, I am happy”. That was all he did then. I cannot comment and I do not know whether was then being applied behind the scenes to Martin or others.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: At the time it was very clear about the signing of that guarantee because a few of us were at all these debates and I regularly said that I would stop the Garden Bridge because I would not guarantee or underwrite the costs and therefore it could not go ahead because the conditions could not be met. It was out there and known that without that guarantee it could not go ahead. It was in the public debate.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Again, it comes down to “or is able to secure”. With a Mayoral election coming up, as Caroline points out, and a number of the candidates making it quite clear that they would not sign the guarantee, surely TfL should have waited until at least after the Mayoral election before authorising any further funding.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I did not take that decision. You would need to take that up with the people --

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Perhaps the language is too loose in saying “or is able to secure” and just giving a massive loophole for TfL to be able to sign off in almost any situation, but you had all these red lights and all these risks. You did not have the land, you did not have the guarantee, and all the conditions had not been met. With regards to the land, our understanding - and this is in the minutes - is that that negotiations with Coin Street were not progressing particularly well. I do not understand.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): We talked about that at the last meeting. Those minutes are a representation of what the Trust discussed in those meetings. In addition to

Page 37 that, I was part of other discussions with Coin Street. There were then discussions with Coin Street that I was not part of. My understanding of things from the conversations I was in was that there were obstacles that still needed to be overcome but that progress was being made and it was achievable. Of course there were risks. There were always risks that needed to be managed, but there was a credible path to achieving that deal.

Sian Berry AM: Just conceptually, I do not understand this concept of why your funding sign-off agreement, the guarantee agreement, needed to be softened to match the Section 106 Agreements. There is the question of whether or not it was because Martin Clarke was standing out against signing them, but there is also the rationale that has been given, which is that it matched the Section 106 planning conditions that were put on. As I understand it, Westminster and Lambeth were saying essentially that they needed to have operations and maintenance business plans in place to make sure that the thing built on their land was not going to turn into an eyesore, presumably. In addition to that, they wanted the Mayoral guarantees in place. Both of those things were required. The Mayoral guarantees condition was softened to say, “A business plan will do”, as opposed to, “We want to see secure funding in place”, but there is no rationale for doing that when we are saying we are committing ourselves to £3.5 million a year forever here. That is a funding decision. That is a much more serious decision than a planning condition to reassure planners that a new construction is going to be maintained.

What is the reasoning for changing that condition down to match the planning decision when a funding decision is more serious, if that makes sense?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I did not write that Mayoral Direction and it was a decision taken by the previous Mayor.

Sian Berry AM: You seem satisfied with that rationale.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I can only go on what the Direction said. That is what I understood to be the reason for that direction, which was to bring that condition about the Mayor’s guarantee of the maintenance in line with what the planning authorities were asking for.

Sian Berry AM: Do you agree that the conditions were about quite different things and a long-term financial commitment is different to a planning decision?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Yes.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I want to go back to this point about the deed of grant because you said that this variation was to bring it into line with Lambeth but then the deed of grant was out of step with that. Why did you never vary the deed of grant to bring it into line with this Mayoral Decision?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I do not know the answer to that.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Do you think it should have been varied? The bar has clearly been lowered.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): I know that at that point there was not a potential payment coming up because that decision that we have been discussing about the £7 million was in February [2016] and this amendment was later as the work with the planning authorities to agree the text of their agreements developed further. It was not like we approached the decision in February knowing that the situation was different to do with the guarantees. That came later. I think I am right in saying that.

Page 38

Tom Copley AM (Chair): We have a quote here - and I am now trying to find it - from Richard de Cani. It is in the Garden Bridge Trust Board meeting. He hints in the Board meeting that the conditions might be softened, but I cannot find it. I will bring in Assembly Member Duvall now because he has the next set of questions.

Len Duvall AM: Just to tidy this up, in terms of the two tranches in that period of time, just in my own head and in the narrative you have described to me of what needed to come together, the £3 million tranche was done under the old conditions, not the revised conditions?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): It is not about revision. It is in the agreement. I am just trying to find the paperwork, sorry. The funding agreement as originally negotiated between TfL, the Government and the Garden Bridge Trust and then entered into in July 2015 had two types of payment. The first were time-based to allow them to do that work that we discussed with professional advisers and the second were construction related.

Len Duvall AM: Let us just go back to that time base. They requested it of you or was it always envisaged that around this time they would receive that money? You have described earlier on to my colleagues about different things that were coming together and needed to happen, and you described to us what that £3 million was meant to achieve. What I am trying to understand is whether it was you saying, “You need this £3 million”, or the Trust saying, “I would like to have this £3 million”? Who asked who in these circumstances?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): It was always the case that the Garden Bridge Trust needed to request payment and demonstrate how it had met the conditions. It was just that the conditions for the time-based ones were different to the conditions for the constructions ones.

Len Duvall AM: That is right. Why at this particular time, then, was that £3 million needed? Did it have to be at that time? Could it have been pushed off and said, “No, you need to do some more work because we need to see X, Y and Z”?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): It is a similar description to the construction payment in that they had conditions they needed to meet, one of which was a certain amount of time has elapsed but there were other ones as well, and some of them are hinted at in the email that Assembly Member Pidgeon quoted from Richard [de Cani] to our treasury team saying, “Conditions met. Please make the payment”. The difference is just that the set of conditions was different to the construction conditions and required a less onerous set of evidence because it was about making progress with the work to get to the point where they could let the construction contract.

Len Duvall AM: It is fair to say that that £3 million was required before the £7 million could ever be agreed, regardless of what conditions had been met on the construction side of it?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): It was envisaged in the construction of the funding agreement that the £3 million would come before the construction ones just because of the amount of time we expected it would take them to do the work to get to the point where they could let the construction contract and move into that type of payment. There is a possibility that if the Trust had gone very quickly and had gone much faster than we expected, it might have managed to concertina things up. As it happens, the £3 million came closer to the £7 million than we had originally expected. We talked a bit about that last time.

Page 39

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): If I may, if you do not mind me coming in, in terms of the timing, the construction contract, as it turns out, with Bouygues was signed on 9 February [2016], as I am sure you are aware. The £3 million we are talking about happened to have been paid on 12 February, but, as Andy is saying, that was not related to the construction bit. It was then the subsequent £7 million in two tranches that was related to the construction conditions being assessed and being met by the Managing Director of Planning at the time. Sorry. That was just to try to help with the timeline.

Len Duvall AM: That helps. Mike, if we come back to you, some of this you have alluded to before, but in terms of the information you received - if you can recall - between January 2016 and 9 February 2016 that allowed you to make available this £7 million so we are concentrating on the construction but at this moment in time, what information were you receiving then?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I honestly cannot recall what information I was receiving. I certainly was not getting formal documentation because, if I had been, that would have been exposed and revealed to this Committee.

Len Duvall AM: In that sense, you did not really play a part in confirming the conditions of funding played by the Garden Bridge Trust. You referred earlier on that, if you had, you took the analysis of Richard de Cani?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): That is correct.

Len Duvall AM: The criteria to assess whether TfL was satisfied with the Trust and met the conditions would not have crossed your desk?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No.

Len Duvall AM: That would have stayed down below you in terms of pinpointing that issue?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): That is correct.

Len Duvall AM: You have said earlier, Mr [Andy] Brown, that you were contributing amongst many into that analysis that Richard was taking the final decision on?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Services, Transport for London): Yes.

Len Duvall AM: Let us go back, then. I am not sure about this question but let us ask it. This is for you, Mike. We can do it before or after. With hindsight is great or whatever. Did you think conditions of the funding agreement were robust enough and, if so, do you believe they were robustly enforced? During the real-time issue, in the interim period you took over all those issues. I do not want to put answers in your mouth, but it sounds like you were not in a position to have a view on that.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): No, I was not. That is fair. That is not putting words in my mouth. That is fair.

Len Duvall AM: Fine. With hindsight, what are your views, very clearly for this Committee?

Page 40

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): With hindsight and the way this project had turned out, I wish I had been more into the granular detail of this, that I had as part of my handover had a detailed discussion with the previous Commissioner, and that I had had a much more detailed discussion with the Deputy Mayor and the Mayor on this topic, to be perfectly honest, but that is with the benefit of hindsight as to where this project has come. That is why, as I have already said, at the risk of repeating myself, I have taken really seriously all the recommendations that have emerged as to TfL governance changes that are required to happen, in particular issues around Mayoral Directions.

Again, I would just like to remind you that it was in this context that I had one almighty falling-out with the previous Mayor and the Deputy Mayor about whether or not I would produce a business plan in the lead-up to the Mayoral election. I thought it was totally inappropriate so to do because of very stark differences in the manifesto and you can imagine that I was in quite a difficult position with some potential future mayors having views one way and the current incumbent having a view the other way. That is a very difficult place for the organisation to find itself in. To that end, the previous Mayor had to issue me with a formal Mayoral Direction to issue said business plan. I just give you a little bit of the context of the way the world was at that time.

Len Duvall AM: We have talked a lot about condition 5. You are aware, among many Members, that we have spent considerable hours now just trawling through the paperwork and the evidence you have provided us, other evidence that has been provided to us and all the rest of it.

Tell me why I should not come to this conclusion or why this Committee should not come to this conclusion. On all the evidence that your officers had at the time, why would any sane person rush to give these tranches of money? We have listened very carefully to the arguments this morning and at the previous meetings. I am a layperson, I am not a technical person and I am not setting myself up to be the expert, but I am looking at the evidence that your officers saw in real time, some of it based on their own expressions and what they have said giving evidence to Margaret Hodge or whatever. Why should any of your officers have ever given money at that particular time on this project, given the risks that we saw in all the paperwork that has been presented? Tell me why I should not come to that conclusion.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Again, Andy [Brown] may wish to come in on this because he was party to the detail of the discussion that led to Richard de Cani making the decision. There is, if I may, still room for interpretation as to what showed that there was funding secured or in the process of being secured and that is a judgment call that somebody made at that time. I can see why you would come to the conclusion you come to.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I do not doubt the integrity of the decision-making process that the Managing Director of Planning was making at that time. Frankly, if I did have any doubt as to his integrity leading up to the decision being made, he would not have been part of my senior team. I just want to be very clear about that. I have to assume and I do assume, and all the evidence in everything else that he was doing for me was that his integrity was robust and therefore he would have come to a decision based on the balance of issues that he confronted at that time.

Len Duvall AM: Even if we had walked the extra mile, and not much of that extra mile, we would have worked out what was in the bank and what was not in the bank. You have a number of officers working closely on a project. I understand about the pressure of delivering for political masters, but something just tells me with all the risks and the potential risks for the future of TfL which were becoming known, as soon as you had to guarantee that project the warnings bells should have been rung. We knew that this particular administration was going to face a particularly tough time on its revenue funding, right? I am on record telling

Page 41 the Mayor that if it is a question of him defending the Garden Bridge versus bus cuts, I will be supporting cutting the Garden Bridge revenue funding.

Why did your officers not then - to my earlier question - develop that framework just to think about what the implications were? Was the political imperative so much that we potentially put at risk TfL finances in the future of one description or another when the option was to go long, when if actually they had got their act together, secured the landing site and got the money in the bank, this project may still go ahead? No one could say that. Why was the pressure on? There was a new mayoral administration. This Mayor was committed to the project. Nothing that was said put it in jeopardy at that time. The question is: I do not understand. It is not the integrity of the officers, it is the officers’ thought processes about delivering a large project, albeit a slightly different one than they had ever handled before.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): The way you have expressed it is very clear and coherent and as I say, genuinely, I can only tell you what I was informed of: that the conditions had been deemed to be met by the Managing Director of Planning at that time, which was why the funding was released.

Len Duvall AM: OK. You have answered some of my questions and so I am just looking. In terms of commenting on the Trust, a couple of weeks ago I saw that the latest Government example about calling forward private sector transport-led projects. I saw a notable name pushing forward a number of projects. I was quite interested in that. Of course that will change the dynamic of transport infrastructure in the future if that comes forward, if the Government pursues that direction of travel. Do you not think the Trust Board, in terms of the evidence you have seen and now seeing with hindsight, was a bit naïve in risk assessment and financial planning?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): That may well have been the case in terms of what they projected would have happened and what turned out to happen.

Len Duvall AM: In terms of learning lessons from it, is it unlikely in this different world that we are living in in terms of transport infrastructure projects led by other bodies, that you may be overseeing? In a sense, that is what you were doing. On behalf of Government you were overseeing this project, on behalf of Government and on behalf of the Mayor, albeit the Mayor was wanting you to deliver. What would change in terms of the robustness and grip on a project like this in terms of avoiding the risk to the public purse?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Without sounding trite about this, I could write a book of everything I have seen in the last 30 years, particularly those projects where we did not have direct control and of course most notably the public private partnership (PPP) arrangements, which frankly were a disastrous set of arrangements. I had to work as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) initially and then ultimately the Managing Director of London Underground in dealing with both the delivery of that, or the lack of delivery of that, and then bringing it back into the direct control of the publicly accountable organisations.

I have to tell you that while I would never rule out any model that allowed us to secure investment for worthy public transport projects, I think the arrangements by which that is constructed and the controls that you have -- because ultimately risk transfer never really takes place. That is the overarching conclusion of all of those learnings over the last 30 years. Your point is extraordinarily well made and refers to a whole range of things that I have seen in my time and you will have seen as well.

Len Duvall AM: I have exhausted these questions. I think we have answers to them.

Page 42

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Let me. I just want to return, not to belabour it too much, to this condition for providing the money. I am going to read it out again:

“That the Trust has demonstrated to Transport for London’s satisfaction that it has secured a satisfactory level of funding to operate and maintain the Garden Bridge once it is built for at least the first five years.”

Did the Trust have that money, Andy?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): It did not have a sum of money in the bank equal to five years in total of the potential costs of running the Bridge, but that was not what we considered, having taken advice from colleagues including the legal team, was what would be the standard they would have to meet for that condition to be met and for us to have to make that payment. What we interpreted it as was: “a satisfactory level of funding” means that you have cashflow arrangements, including operations and maintenance business plans, that demonstrate that your income versus your outgoings over a five-year period will allow you to run the Bridge.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): That is a very liberal interpretation. This one does not even have the loophole of saying “has secured or is able to secure”. It actually says, “has secured a satisfactory level of funding”. Yet they do not have that money in the bank.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): I have described the view that we took at the time.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Clearly Martin Clarke [Executive Director of Resources, GLA] took a different view because he said there was no way he could sign off on this condition.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): You would have to ask Martin about that.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): As you say, he said you had received legal advice that --

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): I talked earlier about the process that we went through that ultimately allowed Richard [de Cani] to make a decision one way or the other, and that included representatives from our legal team and their thoughts on this. That is what I mean by legal advice.

Len Duvall AM: Just a quick question, Mike, to you, and it is more about management issues and people below you. With all the evidence that you have seen to date and the changes that TfL have made - I recognise you have made some changes in terms of some of the reporting lines and some of the work of your subcommittees on other projects like this - would you have called in the various people who were responsible and bollocked them? I cannot think of anything stronger than that. I could go a lot harder in terms of thinking of other processes that I might have done. Do you know what I mean in that sense? In terms of your stance on that, how strongly do you feel, albeit we work in a political environment? You have seen all this evidence that officers have put out on why they thought they should do and what the need was. Where are you in that position?

Page 43

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): My style would never be to leap straight into a bollocking process, to use your term if I may, but certainly it is true that given where this project has ended up I would want - as indeed the various reviews have helped to do - a very granular trawl through all the issues that led us to the position we find ourselves in, on the basis of that involving appropriate learning going forward. I would want to talk to all the people and the teams who were involved at every level of that decision-making process, of course, yes.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): The next set of questions is for Alex, who has been sitting very patiently, from Assembly Member Berry.

Sian Berry AM: Hi, Alex. You took over the job of Director of Planning from Richard de Cani. Can you remind us when that was?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): He left at the end of April 2016 and I took over in early May 2016. In terms of the interaction with this project, I took over formal responsibility as the lead for that in May but in the April period I started to attend a few meetings with Richard and the Trust at the TfL offices.

Sian Berry AM: You went to the meetings as well as Richard?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Not the Board meetings - I have never been to a Garden Bridge Board meeting - but there were working group meetings at Windsor House, the TfL offices, probably every two weeks. I went to a couple of those just to get myself up to speed with what was happening on the project. Those meetings tended to be focused on the consents register, which was mapping out all of the consents, how they were going through each of those and progressing those. It became quite clear that there was good progress on the consents but the one that they were struggling on was Coin Street. I got involved in Coin Street with the Trust and the GLA in May and June [2016], I think it was.

Sian Berry AM: This was a separate subgroup appointed by the Board to work on planning particularly?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Would it be helpful if I said I talked about it at the last meeting here? I said roughly two or three times a week, of which one of them was the meeting where previously Richard and I, and then Alex and I, would ask them to come in. I think that is the meeting that Alex is talking about.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Yes.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): It is not in addition to what we talked about before. This is one of those meetings.

Sian Berry AM: Yes. I was trying to establish its relation to the Board. It was about once a week that you would meet --

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Typically, yes.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): I cannot remember the exact frequency, once a week or every two weeks.

Page 44

Sian Berry AM: Richard used to go to the Board meetings quite regularly. He appears in the minutes quite a lot.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): I have not been to one.

Sian Berry AM: You were not invited to them after you took over?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): No. Andy [Brown] was there as an observer and would feed back to me on the issues raised there.

Sian Berry AM: Fair enough. I am interested why Richard [de Cani] was not replaced as soon as he got his new job, on these boards as well as in his job, really. Should he not have gone onto gardening leave and you have taken over much sooner? That was why I was asking when you took over, whether there was a wall put and you took over earlier than you officially took on the job.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): That was never discussed. He announced he was leaving in January [2016], I think it was, and in April I was confirmed as the interim. I took over that role as the interim formally in May. In terms of him handing over the project earlier, we did not discuss that.

Sian Berry AM: No. He was still attending the Board meeting in February and received congratulations on his new job, which seems the weirdest thing to me, but your concern is more to do with the timing and what job you were asked to do, whether you were asked to take over things. If you were not, that is fine.

Can I ask you what instructions you were given about the project when you took over? Was there anything in relation to a lot of things we have been discussing that you would think would be notable to tell us about?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): The brief from Richard, do you mean?

Sian Berry AM: Yes.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): He talked around the whole context, really: the political context, the funding context and the consents risk. I was well aware of the political context coming to the end of the previous Mayor’s administration and the way that the Deputy Mayor and the mayoralty worked. I had worked very closely with them, not on this project but on other projects, so I understood that. On funding, I was concerned. I had assumed all the money was in the bank and it was revealing to realise that it was not all there.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): This is in terms of the operational costs?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): No, the capital costs. They had done a great job in terms of the circa £70 million they had raised. It was very impressive to do that in a short space of time but - as is always the way with this kind of thing - they might be raising a lot of money but then when you delve into the detail of the cost of construction -- there was a discussion I had with them about the gap, how big that gap was and what we could do to push that down. There was the political context, the funding context and consents. Those are the three things. To be perfectly honest, the area I thought I could help with most was consents.

Page 45

Sian Berry AM: Were you aware of the importance of the mayoral guarantees to achieving the planning consents? Were you briefed on that?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Not beforehand, no. We did not get into that level of detail.

Sian Berry AM: Surely that was the big outstanding thing that was left, was it not? To get those planning consents through, the mayoral guarantees needed to be signed.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Yes, and also a credible business plan. That was discussed. It was not a dominant issue. The dominant issue was the scale of the funding that they had but also the gap in terms of the capital costs rather than the operating costs. I did see that somewhere in the business plan they talked about their ways of trying to raise revenue to cover the operating costs, which was the document I think they were sharing with Lambeth.

Sian Berry AM: They were separately trying to get that guarantee together themselves?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): No, this is the operations business plan. There were versions of that. That was being developed in response to concerns around it.

Sian Berry AM: Was that ever published, do we know?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Yes. There is a version of it on our website right now. We talked last time about the different reviews of that business plan and the point Alex is talking about is that later in 2016, Lambeth were commissioning its own consultant review of it. That was to form a view on whether it was credible or not. At multiple points, different people were taking a view on their business plan for the operations and maintenance.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): It might have been helpful to take a view on the business plan before the funding was released, of course.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): We did take our view on the business plan as part of the conditions in February.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): We did discuss this last time. When you were with Mike [Brown MVO], in your evidence to Dame Margaret Hodge, you said, “Lambeth will be commissioning an expert review”, which suggested that TfL had not done the due diligence on this, if you were waiting for Lambeth to come up with an expert review rather than your own assessment.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): No. They needed to satisfy their processes to do with the planning conditions. That was happening late in the 2016 calendar year. Totally separately, early in the 2016 calendar year, we had this request to us on whether or not the six conditions had been met, so we formed our view then. All I was saying to Dame Margaret [Hodge] was, “They are about to commission another review and I will be interested to see what that says”, because I will always be interested to see what a new review has to say about something.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Sorry to interrupt you, Assembly Member Berry. It just seems that at every stage, every other organisation involved with this was giving it far more scrutiny and doing far more due diligence.

Page 46

The DfT was much more reluctant to hand over the cash. Martin Clarke was refusing to sign the wording that had been given and said the wording had to be changed. Lambeth was commissioning an expert review on this. Yet TfL, of course, was the overseer and was supposed to be the custodian of public money. Why were all these other organisations doing far more scrutiny and far more due diligence than TfL?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): That is not fair. We were the most involved in scrutinising this project of any organisation. No one else had meetings with them two or three times a week, attended their Board meetings or saw all sorts of information that they had about the delivery of the project.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Of course you were acting as cheerleaders as well as the overseer, in a sense, because you were trying to drive this project forward at the same time as you were meant to be custodians of taxpayers’ money and making sure that the Trust satisfied conditions.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): I described last time the dual role we had, doing what we could to support delivery of the project because that was what we had been directed to do and at the same time managing our financial involvement in it. I feel that we did that satisfactorily.

Sian Berry AM: To go back to Alex, you told us about the handover, can you describe the responsibilities that you have in relation to projects like the Garden Bridge in your job?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Around the time that I took over the job it was quite a significant project, as you can imagine, and it did take quite a bit of my time. As I said earlier, mainly it was about trying to get under the skin of the consents issues and seeing how we could move those forward. That was the dominant issue in my time when it was most intense, for probably about three months after the Mayoral election. After that, there was clearly more and more uncertainty about how the scheme was progressing and time and involvement became less.

Sian Berry AM: Just in terms of the funding that you talked about before, you have responsibility in terms of managing the public finances there. You said you were keeping an eye on the gap. This grows during the time that you were --

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Yes, and I signed off some letters in terms of the underwriting and also the one we had done recently, the final payments. I make a recommendation to Mike [Brown] in terms of signing those off. I took over the Richard [de Cani] role in that sense, in terms of making that recommendation to Mike.

Sian Berry AM: Yes. The responsibility then went back to Mike, contractually? We were just discussing before how it was Richard who signed --

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): I will give you example. One we did recently was a final payment asserted to be around £9 million. We had gone through and gotten under the skin of all of the outstanding payments required and it had come in around £5 million. My job is to go, review all of the evidence and make it clear that that £5 million payment is appropriate and legally watertight. Then a note is written to Mike to explain why we should be paying it.

Sian Berry AM: But who actually signs it off now?

Page 47

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): I think it is Mike.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Yes. Those recent payments have been different from the funding agreement stuff during the course of the project. Mike signed those off on recommendation.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): On my recommendation.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): In effect, if it helps, in this later stage of the project as the Trust is winding up and everything else - following Assembly Member [Len] Duvall’s point - with the benefit of hindsight, I had been crawling over every single penny. You may say, “The horse has bolted”, but the reality is that I have been pushing very hard to make sure of what Alex has said to me and the advice from the legal team is strictly necessary, of course.

Sian Berry AM: There was at least one payment made under the regular payments since you took over. Is that right?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): There was the letter I sent on 27 May [2016], which was the underwriting for £15 million to keep the project going. As you know, the Mayor at the time was keen to help it proceed. There was something on the £9 million on 28 September.

Sian Berry AM: That is the one I am thinking of, I think.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): That is the £9 million for the winding up, but then that was the underwriting. That was subject to evidence being supplied. That is the email I have just talked about, which is the evidence supplied, which brings it down to circa £5 million.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Just to be clear, the 27 May one that Alex refers to was the £15 million that was explicitly drawn from the DfT’s contribution to the project.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Yes.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): It was the Government’s contribution to the project, just to be clear. I know it is a bit confusing as to where the sources of the funding came from.

Sian Berry AM: That was subject to DfT approval?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Yes, and none of that money was every paid to the Trust. The agreement in May [2016] and then revised down to £9 million in September was to put the facility in place they could call upon. That is ultimately all they have done this February [2019] to create the £5 million that we have just been talking about. The only payment since the May 2016 election is that one in February.

Sian Berry AM: That was not a normal payment so that was not delegated to you, Alex. That is what I am saying. Every payment since took over as Mayor has come from you, Mike, signing it off rather than anyone else.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Yes.

Page 48

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Yes, that is correct, based on my recommendation.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Yes. Alex has still been recommending.

Sian Berry AM: Great. Thank you. The next question is to Alex again. How frequently would you report to Mike and other senior figures in TfL?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): On this project?

Sian Berry AM: On this project.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): I see. I meet with Mike every Monday afternoon and there are also probably three meetings a month where the executive has a wider discussion. On this project, if there were issues of relevance since I took over the job from Richard [de Cani], I would raise it at our weekly meeting. Then also, as Mike said, he would want to see written documentation as to why any funds should be released and the evidence base to go with that.

To be perfectly honest, it was fairly rare for me to raise it at the monthly meeting because -- I suppose early on in the new administration it probably was raised quite a bit, particularly in relation to the impact of Coin Street, but as it has gone on I do not think it has been raised hardly at all.

Sian Berry AM: Given that we have seen a lot of failures in the policies and processes in the course of our investigation, have there been changes to processes, sign-offs and things like that?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Multiple changes. The key report was from Margaret Hodge, of course, and there was a report that went to the Board, which you have seen, which sets out our responses to that. The other thing I would emphasise is that the TfL Board is a very different board to what it was under the previous administration. It is much more involved in its projects. The other project we are working on with you, Caroline [Pidgeon MBE AM], the other bridge further down the river, has gone to the Board multiple times now at every stage, formally and informally. It is profoundly different now, the level of scrutiny on that project compared to the Garden Bridge, where there was not as much involvement as there probably should have been. The other side of it is training, commercial training for all of the staff. Mike [Brown] insisted that every senior manager sign to say that they had done that training. Generally, there is far more scrutiny of these kinds of decisions, particularly for a project of this nature. Luckily there are not any now but you would expect far more scrutiny.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): With regards to this issue of the Board, Mike, and this deferred payment of £10 million in February 2017, there was a TfL Board meeting on 8 February and this £10 million deferred payment was referred to in a finance report but your own update, which was 45 pages long, does not make a single mention of it and does not refer to the Garden Bridge at all despite the fact it informs the Board that the top-selling toys at the London Transport Museum were the wooden City of London and an Elizabeth line train set. This £10 million payment to an organisation that has filed a disastrous set of accounts, may not even be a going concern and is politically very much a hot potato does not feature at all. Why was that not included?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I cannot comment as to why I did not specifically feature it at that time. The only thing I could say to you is that it was getting a full level of

Page 49 attention, as Alex [Williams] says, from the Board and from the Committees of the Board, in particular, the Programme Investment Committee and the Finance Committee, which are constructed in a totally different way from what they were under the previous administration in terms of the level of scrutiny. Also, by the way, I attend both of those committees whereas in the previous regime it was not customary for the Commissioner to attend what was a combined Finance and Policy Committee that looked at projects as well as finance. I attend all of those Committees, unless I happen to be on leave or whatever, as well as the main Board itself.

I cannot comment on why it was not covered specifically, verbally in the report, other than to say there is a huge range of things that of course I do report on every time. Obviously, I have had some feedback from others in this room previously on what I do report on and what I do not report on. Already the last Board meeting was some four and a half hours. This is a long, detailed Board meeting, longer than it ever would have been in the history of the organisation. I could include everything and maybe on reflection I should have included it that time.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): It just seems strange, given you are talking about the top-selling toys at the Transport Museum, not to include a reference to --

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Might I make a stab at explaining what I think - I do not have the paperwork in front of me - that £10 million was? Did you say February 2017?

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Yes.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): As we have just discussed in the conversation with Assembly Member Berry, there were no payments made to the Trust after the May 2016 election until quite recently. I think, from memory, that £10 million, or actually £9 million a bit - it would have been rounded in some of the commentary - was about accounting allowance of the underwriting that we have now been talking about. This was not money that had gone out the door, it was about making provision in the accounts that eventually we expected some money to go to them, as long as it was appropriately evidenced.

Len Duvall AM: “Appropriately evidenced”. Given the discrepancies we have had from the trustees’ meetings to representations made to TfL about their true state of affairs - ‘misrepresentation’ comes to mind; it might not be and I want to protect myself here but actually most of the thinking public would think that they did misrepresent their position - what double-checks did you make around that figure you set aside that you thought you still had to pay for?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): The £5 million?

Len Duvall AM: Yes.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): There is a lever arch file of every single payment and then everyone was supposed to go through it. I went through that before I made that recommendation to Mike.

Len Duvall AM: Thank you.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): A key issue there was the legal advice about whether we were required to pay this or not, ie what was the form of contract for each of them? Every single payment, line by line, reviewing the lot.

Page 50

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I will just say, if I can add to that, I came from the starting point of, “Not a penny”, just so that you are very clear. That is why the level of evidence that I sought, which Alex would have gone through with the team, had to be very clear to me to ensure that every single penny of that £5 million or whatever the number was had an absolutely robust legal process behind it to say that we had to pay it.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): The other factor, as we made clear in the letter to the Trust, was that any payment would be publicly revealed and there should be full transparency. Some of their donations were done anonymously but it was quite clear that if they were going to get the money back then it would not be done anonymously. It would be in the public domain.

Len Duvall AM: Is that still ongoing, that information coming back from the Trust?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): No. There are one or two -- no, sorry, there is a contingency --

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Yes. The decision that Mike took in February was that they had presented evidence that meant we need to give them just over £5 million. They had also said, “We expect for the following line items up to £500,000 extra”. We have paid them the £5 million and published all of the information around that, the approval form and the lever arch file that Alex references. It is on our website. We are talking with them about potential bits of that £500,000. That is all about the final knockings of their winding up and some requirements for payment that will come forward as they liquidate. In the process of that conversation, we are making very clear to them that it needs to be very solidly evidenced in exactly the same way and that this is not just a tap, basically.

Len Duvall AM: Thank you.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Did that include, as I read when all the details came out, something like £1,500 to pay back to someone who donated to play table tennis with the former Mayor and he had not met that, so you have had to repay that?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): I do not know the detail about that specific one but what I do know is that when you look at the specifics of how they entered into the money it was in the form of contract, ie they offered the donation on the basis that the bridge was constructed. In the absence of that bridge being constructed, we had to refund the money. That was the legal advice we took.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Perhaps you could come back on that specifically. I just remember reading it when all this stuff came out and thinking, “It is extraordinary that a former Mayor committed to this project would not even meet what he has committed at an auction or something”.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): Yes, we could come back on that.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: It was extraordinary. There are a couple of things I wanted just to pick up from this last section of answers. Alex, you used the words “working group”, which is meeting every week or every couple of weeks. You said you went through a consents register looking at the risks and where you are on the project. Was there documentation around those meetings that is available for us?

Page 51

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): It has been sent to the Chair since the last meeting, this consents register.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: OK, so all that stuff has been made available to us?

Tom Copley AM (Chair): It was an example. It was not the full thing.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): These are the things that I sent through.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: I just want to clarify that.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): What we had was an A3 working document that we would review every meeting. That was the basis of the discussion, really. “Look, where are we on the consents? Which ones do we need to focus on?”

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Then you talked about all staff having now been trained.

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Yes.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: What is the training --

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): That is procurement training.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Procurement training and proper behaviour?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): Yes.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Have you also done training around staff declaring interests and so on? Is that embedded in the culture at TfL now?

Alex Williams (Director of City Planning, Transport for London): I would not say there is a training exercise on that but it certainly is embedded because every month we have to set out gifts and hospitality that have been offered, and before they go on that they need to get clearance. I will give you an example. A colleague of mine was asked to attend an event and asked me before he went there whether it was acceptable to go, and I said it was not.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Would it also include any discussions you have on any project? I am not just saying Garden Bridge. I am just trying to process this in my mind. Any project that you are working on, you have internal meetings. If somebody, for example, lived very near to one of the sites and backed on to it and so they would have a financial interest, would they be removed from that? Would they declare it as their --

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): They would certainly declare it. Just as an example, I live in Wimbledon. It is very relevant if there were to be a Crossrail 2 project. I have been very open and transparent about that fact. That is a very personal example to me.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: You would not sign off? Personally, you would not sign off a decision for millions of pounds around that if it was that near to your home?

Page 52

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Absolutely, definitely not.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Yes, so generally --

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Sorry to interrupt, but my default position would be that I would always go to Howard Carter, who is the General Counsel, on anything of that nature, even if I felt there was a very low risk.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Basically your culture at TfL generally is that if you have a personal interest or you are near a site and you could, in theory, financially gain from it, you would not sign it? You would exempt yourself from the decision? You would declare --

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Yes, you would certainly declare it and you would certainly have it checked to ensure that there was no basis that you were making the decision based on anything other than the right business decision being made.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: I am just looking for best practice across the GLA Group, to be honest, in that area.

You were telling us about the [Dame] Margaret Hodge review and the other reviews. You obviously have a grid of changes you have brought in. Is there an update on that we could have, on the actions and how things have progressed?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I am sure we can give you that, yes, by all means.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: That would be helpful. Thank you.

Sian Berry AM: Just to follow up on that last point about interests, there is also the interest that you have when you are in discussions about a future pecuniary interest, ie a job. This is something that we have tried to tackle within Camden Council. I declare an interest, which was in the registry of interests the whole time: I am a member. There was a criticism that Margaret Hodge made about the revolving doors side of this. The way that we have dealt with this in Camden is that we have pecuniary interests for interests that exist, and then interests that may exist in the future we have declared as non-pecuniary.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): This is in Assembly Member Whittle’s section, sorry.

Peter Whittle AM: A perfect introduction. You have the gist maybe but on a more general level we are just going to look at the lessons learnt, if you like. You have obviously alluded to some of those already in the past hour but in particular in relation to this, you have talked about the various changes that have happened in TfL’s governance as a result but one of the changes promised was a review of the terms and conditions of staff to ensure that a member of staff leaving, particularly going to work for an organisation which is seeking to contract with the GLA or TfL, would not be able to continue to make decisions giving rise to even the slightest whiff of conflict of interest, as happened with Richard de Cani returning to Arup. That is a very long-winded way of asking you what changes actually have been made.

Page 53

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Again, we will include the detail of this, of course, in the update that has been requested but we have ensured that there is a more robust process of checking what organisations people might be going to, because of course, as well as the Managing Director of Planning it turned out the Deputy Mayor for Transport was also going to Arup. I was not sighted on that reality. I would just say that I think the record will show that on every occasion where we have been -- let me give you an example. Some senior people directly reporting to me have left the organisation since by taking up the position and there have been some very clear constraints put on those individuals as to where and what they can work on for a defined period of time, having left the organisation. Even if it is not immediately obvious where they are going, there are those conditions put in place. I can give you a detailed outline of those recommendations --

Peter Whittle AM: That would be useful. Thank you.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): -- unless Andy can add to that.

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): I cannot right now but we will get you something.

Peter Whittle AM: Overall, when you look at this, you called it a “sorry escapade” earlier. You could call it a fiasco. How confident are you that something like this could not happen again?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I am confident, and confident for two reasons. One is the breadth of the recommendations and the number of reviews that have been carried out, including, no doubt, some recommendations from this current review as well, Chair, through you. Also, I am confident because the processes by which Mayoral Directions get executed and the way in which the TfL Board operates are entirely different from the situation that I found myself in when I assumed the role as interim in July 2015.

One of the things that the new Mayor immediately put in place was a proper scrutiny of Mayoral Directions to be applied through the Board structures and the Board processes. That was not there previously. That is now in place. The basis on which projects of any type are now scrutinised and overseen by the Programme Investment Committee and indeed the Finance Committee is of a different calibre and level of discussion and interaction than we saw before. As we have seen previously on Board reviews that happened in the previous administration and historically throughout TfL, there were many areas where there was a need for improvement, and I am very confident that those reviews of the Board have not just reported but have been acted on in the way that we now have constructed the committees and the function of the Board members in discharging other duties.

Peter Whittle AM: In the scheme of these sorts of places £50 million I know does not seem very much but I think it is an enormous amount. In the general scheme of things it seems relatively small, you might say. Do you think that the experience of this Garden Bridge has fundamentally damaged public faith in public projects?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I hope not. The importance of transport infrastructure projects in London and indeed around the country is huge, and in this time of relative uncertainty as to what the future will be, whatever the rights and wrongs of the future, the imperative to ensure a steady pipeline of investment projects is really important.

Page 54

Can I just say to you that I do not treat £50 million lightly at all? I do not treat a single penny going out of the public purse lightly at all. It is why, for example, in my own way of operating in this business, I claim negligible expenses, even legitimate expenses that any business leader would normally. I do not claim because I believe that the public purse, the taxpayer and the fare payer of London is sovereign in the processes in which we should apply ourselves. I would like to think that I hold myself to an extraordinarily high standard and I would like to think that people in my team do so as well.

Peter Whittle AM: That is quite good yet here we are, sitting here, having to have this Working Group about why this money went where it did. I do not impugn your virtue at all but here we are having to do this to find this out. Anyway, thank you very much for that. Thank you.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Do you accept that this Garden Bridge fiasco or saga has had an impact in terms of the reputation of London in the Government and wider, in terms of future investment, and also damaged the reputation of TfL in some ways?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): It has not been helpful, to be perfectly honest, of course, but I would like to think that people will look at the wider context in which TfL sits, the huge inroads we have made in terms of tackling our deficit, dealing with - as you know we have had to, from your other experience in the [London Assembly] Transport Committee - the loss of the Government operating subsidy, making us unique among operators anywhere in the world. I would like to think therefore people would look in the round at our financial credentials and our delivery credentials more broadly in how they assess what we are doing and what the public sector does.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: When we, London, the London government, are going in and trying to get funding, rightly, from the Government for projects that we desperately need, the rest of the country blames London and says London gets all the money. They see £50 million or so wasted on nothing. Do you see - you have Crossrail as well and other things - that it is making it harder for you to put the case because they can easily point at these other projects?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): The reality is that London and the rest of the country need significant investment in transport. I have been an absolute advocate for transport schemes in the north of England, in Manchester, the Northern Powerhouse Rail, so called or so described, as well as of course Crossrail 2 and a continuing of investment in transport in London. Unfortunately, there are a number of schemes around the country and indeed around the world where things have not always gone to plan but that should not defeat us in the common objective I know we share, to ensure that London, as the powerhouse of the UK economy and actually getting significantly less per head of population than many other regions in the UK invested in transport, is not deflected from that course that we all must seek to continue to deliver.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: These things are damaging reputationally and have an impact when we are trying to make that case for that investment.

In hindsight and looking at it - I accept it is an arm’s-length organisation and you had a Mayoral Direction - do you as Commissioner of TfL accept any responsibility or any regret for what has gone on with this whole project?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): Of course regret, I accept. I regret very much that this project did not go down one of two paths at a much earlier stage. One was not progressing. One was progressing to completion.

Page 55

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Do you accept any responsibility or that TfL has any responsibility here?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): The decisions that TfL made, and my senior team made, along the way were based on the evidence that they saw when they assessed at the time. It is very easy to look back and say, “What if, what if, what if”, but at the time decisions were made based on the assessment of the facts that people saw at that time. This is regretful. The disciplines and processes we have put in place as an organisation, as I was outlining to Assembly Member Whittle a short while ago, demonstrate that we are determined that we will not be in this situation again.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: You are quite happy to stand by all the decisions that were made, including - and we have tried to get some of this today - whether the conditions were really met? Quite frankly, it should be objective but it feels today from the discussion it has been subjective. You stand by all of that?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): I do not think ‘happy’ is the word I would use. I understand why decisions were made at the moment in time in which they were made, which is not quite the same thing.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: That is not quite the same, no.

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): It is not quite the same thing as being happy.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: I will leave it there. That is clear. Thank you.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Do you think that political pressure had any impact on the decisions that were made?

Mike Brown MVO (Commissioner, Transport for London): The context of the time was that this was a project that seemed to be quite close to the political executive authority of the city at that time, but I am not sure whether -- I honestly do not know. I cannot say because I just do not know. I am not trying to be evasive; I just do not know whether there was any material issue that led to decisions being made. My view is that people will have made the decisions based on the right thing to do at the time.

Again I refer back, without repeating myself, to the decisions on the business plan. I was subject personally - you as politicians may well understand what I mean - to huge pressure to produce a business plan. There were huge, detailed conversations from everybody, right up to the most senior leadership of the city at the time, to produce a business plan, and I refused to do so because it was the wrong thing to do leading up to a Mayoral election. That then led to a Mayoral Direction being issued. That is sometimes a reality of the situation, but I do not believe that in this case there is any evidence to say that was the reason why decisions were made by the Managing Director of Planning at that time.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): I have a final one, just about the issue of Bouygues and where this £21 million went. Is there any more information you have that you could provide about exactly what this money was spent on that is beyond what has been released in the line-by-line account?

Andy Brown (Head of Corporate Affairs, Transport for London): I do not think so. As part of the big pack of stuff in February [2019] around the recent payment, we published the Trust’s line-by-line breakdown

Page 56 of what their whole £50-something million was spent on, including the £43 million of public money plus some extra money. That is the level of detail we have of what has been paid to Bouygues.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): OK. Thank you.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Have you written to them to ask what they spent it on?

Tom Copley AM (Chair): We are going to write to them, yes.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM: Sorry, it is just that it is a lot of money.

Tom Copley AM (Chair): Unless Members have any other questions, that brings us to the end of the session. Can I thank our guests for your participation in today’s meeting?

Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 58

MINUTES

Meeting: Education Panel Date: Wednesday 10 March 2021 Time: 10.00 am Place: Virtual Meeting

Copies of the minutes may be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/education

Present:

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair) AM Andrew Boff AM Dr Alison Moore AM

1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)

1.1 The Chair explained that in accordance with Government regulations the meeting was being held on a virtual basis, with Assembly Members and guests attending remotely.

1.2 The Clerk read the roll-call of Assembly Members who were participating at the meeting. An apology for absence was received from Susan Hall AM, for whom Andrew Boff AM attended as a substitute, and AM.

1.3 The Chair noted that this would be the last Education Panel for herself and thanked the Assembly Members, Jules Pipe CBE and Michelle Cuomo-Boorer for their contribution to the work of the panel since its inception.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v1 2015 Page 59 Greater London Authority Education Panel Wednesday 10 March 2021

2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2)

2.1 The Panel received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

2.2 Resolved:

That the list of offices held by Assembly Member, as set out in the table at agenda item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests.

3 Minutes (Item 3)

3.1 Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2020 be signed by the Chair as a correct record.

4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4)

4.1 The Panel received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

4.2 Resolved:

That the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the Panel be noted.

5 Action Taken Under Delegated Authority (Item 5)

5.1 The Panel received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

5.2 Resolved:

(a) That the action taken by the Chair of the Panel under delegated authority, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, be noted, namely to approve a letter to the Mayor of London and a letter to the Secretary of State for Education on the impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Education Inequality in London.

(b) That the letters attached at Appendices 1 and 2 be noted.

Page 60 Greater London Authority Education Panel Wednesday 10 March 2021

6 Responses to Panel Outputs (Item 6)

6.1 The Panel received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.

6.2 Resolved:

(a) That the response from the Mayor to its letter on the effect of increasing Further Education (FE) college resources, as attached at Appendix 1, be noted; and

(b) That the responses from the Mayor, the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister of State for School Standards to its letters on the effect of COVID-19 school closures, as attached at Appendices 2, 3 and 4, be noted.

7 Adult Education Budget (Item 7)

7.1 The Panel received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions on the Adult Education Budget, and the impact that the pandemic has had on adult learners and providers to the following invited guests:  Jules Pipe CBE, Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills;  Michelle Cuomo-Boorer, Assistant Director of Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority;  Andrew Gower, Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College;  Asfa Sohail, Principal, Lewisham College; and  Mary Vine-Morris, Area Director (London) and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges.

7.2 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 1.

7.3 During the course of the discussion, the Assistant Director of Skills & Employment at GLA agreed to provide the Panel with:  The slides on the Adult Education Budget; and  A copy of the published evaluation that monitors the impact of the pandemic on Adult Education Budget providers.

7.4 During the course of the discussion, the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills agreed to provide the Panel with details on the projects supported by the Mayor’s European Social Funding Programme.

Page 61 Greater London Authority Education Panel Wednesday 10 March 2021

7.5 Resolved:

(a) That the report and discussion be noted.

(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the meeting.

8 Date of Next Meeting (Item 8)

8.1 The London Assembly’s Annual Meeting, due to take place on 14 May 2021, would decide which committees to establish for the 2021/22 Assembly year and a timetable of meetings for those committees.

9 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 9)

9.1 Before ending the meeting, Tony Arbour AM thanked OBE AM for chairing this Panel since its inception in 2013, and recognised the importance of the Panel’s work over the past eight years. Joanne McCartney AM, Deputy Mayor for Education and Childcare also joined the meeting to thank the Chair for her work.

10 Close of Meeting

10.1 The meeting ended at 12:12pm.

Chair Date

Contact Officer: Lamide Odanye, Committee Assistant, Telephone: 020 8039 1307; Email: [email protected]

Page 62

Appendix 1

London Assembly Education Panel - Wednesday 10 March 2021

Transcript of Item 7 – Adult Education Budget

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): We now move to our question and answer discussion on the Adult Education Budget (AEB).

We have with us Jules Pipe CBE, Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills, and Michelle Cuomo- Boorer, Assistant Director - Skills and Employment for the Greater London Authority (GLA). We have back with us Andrew Gower [Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College]. We also have with us Asfa Sohail, who is the Principal of Lewisham College. Mary Vine-Morris is Area Director (London) and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges (AoC).

If you can kick off, Jules, could you briefly outline the impact that the pandemic has had on adult education in London from your perspective, in terms of you being able to do the work that you planned?

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): It will come as no surprise to any of the scrutiny panel that COVID has presented huge challenges for London’s further education (FE) sector. I want to begin by paying huge tribute to Mary’s colleagues for the hard work and dedication of their colleagues across the sector in keeping London learning, whether that was by moving huge swathes of learning online, or by creating safe and secure environments within colleges so that face-to-face learning could continue for the most vulnerable students who did have to come into settings to receive learning.

At the start of the pandemic, for the Mayor the immediate priority was to support the financial resilience of AEB providers. He did this by paying providers on the profile that had been agreed with colleges at the beginning of the academic years. It was agreed that the rest of the profile for the rest of the year would be paid at the rate agreed and so, effectively, we would be reducing the performance tolerance level at which funding could be reclaimed. Basically, we were softening the penalty, or at least the point at which the penalty applied for any underperformance.

Equally, it was important to support providers that did not have the digital infrastructure. We wanted to help them scale up or repurpose what they had so they could move training online to reach learners who were at risk of digital exclusion. To do this, we launched a COVID-19 Response Fund. That supported providers and basically made financial provision to expand their online provision, adapt courses and build capacity, all with the focus of reaching the most vulnerable learners.

Alongside this, the Mayor prioritised supporting providers to deliver education and training to those most at risk of losing their jobs. There was a focus on retraining and upskilling. It was not just those who had lost their jobs, but those who were at risk with courses that could allow them to progress in work. We all know that the higher level you work at and the more qualifications you have, the less likely you are to lose your job. What that involved, for instance, was making all level 3 qualifications - short courses lasting less than a year - free for any adult Londoner unemployed or earning below the London Living Wage. Having a level 3 qualification is far more likely to lead to better paid work and more secure work.

It is important to contrast that offer with the Government offer because it can get confusing if you say, “Well, you are just passing Government money on”. This is different money. The Government has just introduced its own adult level 3 offer, only for certain courses. It is restricted but, importantly, it is restricted to those over

Page 63

24 and to those who have not had a prior level 3 qualification. As I said, ours is to anyone who qualifies on the basis of low pay, at any age. Even if you have a level 3 qualification, it does not count against you. If you need to take a course that could help you progress in, say, the construction industry, and you can take short course in plastering or an advanced electrical course or something at level 3, you can do that.

The Mayor has also allowed providers to use their allocations more flexibly to run some targeted pre- employment and job-focused training to support those who have been hardest hit. We made an extra £1.9 million available on top of the money from the Government, so that came to about £13 million in total for the delivery of high-value courses, sector-based work academies similar to the Mayor’s Construction Academy with the focus being on other sectors, and general support for the London Recovery Programme.

We know how crucial skills are going to be to this country’s recovery from this crisis, particularly in supporting those most at risk from long-term unemployment. They need help to retrain and upskill to enable them to take advantage of employment opportunities that arise. We also know that the most disproportionate effect that the crisis is having on Londoners is on those from minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly black Londoners, whose unemployment rate is twice that of white and Asian groups in London, at 12%. We recognise the importance of supporting Londoners with no qualifications or very low-level qualifications to access the education and training that they need.

We are also applying a 10% uplift to courses to enable colleges to attract and retain their staff, making it a little bit easier for colleges to attract good teaching and provide the learning. It is shocking to think - well, Mary will correct me - that I think it is at least since 2013 and it might be even longer than that since there was an uplift for colleges on the money provided to them for providing courses. That 10% uplift is applicable to all AEB-funded qualifications up to and including level 2.

We have recently launched a new £32 million grant funding competition and that is to help support the delivery of the Recovery Programme and the missions. The two missions of particular interest and particularly relevant to the colleges are the Good Work for All mission and the Digital Access for All mission. Colleges can apply competitively for that pot to deliver across those areas.

As we have discussed before at the Panel, we have used the AEB money as match funding to draw down an additional £70 million of European Social Fund (ESF) money. We have used that, again, to commission programmes from providers across London. Then there are the other programmes that we can touch on but have talked about before: the Construction Academy, the Digital Talent Programme and of course the London Progression Collaboration on increasing apprenticeships.

Finally, Chair, there is the AEB Roadmap. The Mayor has been working with providers throughout the pandemic to make many of the changes I have talked about to the AEB since the start of devolution, but we are also working closely with them on an AEB Roadmap that will contribute to the Recovery Programme. It will be an action plan setting out a clear direction of travel for adult education in the capital with all providers and representatives from business firmly at the heart of shaping it.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Thank you for that. We will pick up the AEB Roadmap later on in the meeting.

Andrew, can you just pick up the issues around the digital divide, because Members from a number of Committees have had concerns about the growing digital divide in London. That must have impacted on adult learners.

Page 64

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): It certainly has. Anecdotally and evidentially, it is the case that for those students who are on what we might call essential skills courses in English, in maths and in English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and those students living in a family setting with perhaps one device amongst the family where that one device has been prioritised for use by the child who is being home-schooled - now that is changing with schools going back, which is a great thing. During those times it has been difficult for students to access their learning online. It is not only the access to the device, but also access to the data. There might be intermittent broadband or, if the family is relying on a mobile smartphone, which some families are, they are then reliant on their data per month.

One of the things Jules has touched on is the emergency support that has been provided, which Morley [College] absolutely benefited from. I would like to pay tribute to Jules and colleagues for being with us at a time of crisis for our students, to enable us to easily access funding, which did contribute to about 80 laptops being loaned out to our students, those with the greatest economic and social disadvantage. That economic divide is certainly present with us and it was amplified during the period of COVID.

Again, touching on the Roadmap, it will be great to continue to work together because that digital exclusion has been a feature within our communities. It was present before COVID. It has been worse during the pandemic and it will need to be something that we continue to work on because, understandably, the majority of investment for technology has gone into school-aged children being able to be home-schooled. For Morley, with our 11,000 enrolments on our courses, of which about 2,000 are essential skills courses, there is a substantial number of students who are doing amazingly well to access learning, but they are accessing learning from mobile phones over extended periods of time. I pay tribute to the students who have been with us.

The final thing is that I have had the great pleasure to sit in on and to observe some online learning this week. It was heartening to be tuned into a beginner’s ESOL class where the students are not only getting to grips with their digital skills but are also grappling with language. The tutor is doing an amazing job with microphones live. Today we are all managing our microphones dutifully, but if you imagine 12 ESOL students who are grappling with language, not quite understanding what the direction is, all keen to speak and contribute, on their phones with limited data, this is the context whilst children are home-schooling. There is a practical reality.

I want to emphasise that it is been great through Jules’ [Pipe] and Michelle’s [Cuomo-Boorer] input to have access to the funding, both the Skills for Londoners COVID-19 Response Fund and also the Emergency Recovery Support Fund. ‘Emergency’ for us was a key word because that is certainly how it felt at the very start of the pandemic.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Andrew, when I recall when we visited, you had quite a good population of mature students. I wondered if you could touch on that because, given the year that they have been through - I know everybody’s been through a bad year, but they had the threat that the virus was impacting on their age group; they were isolated; they were missing loved ones; and prior to that, they had reached out and gone back to college. What will you be doing to reach out to that age group to get them back?

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): We teach students from 19 to 100, all through the age groups, and there are now students aged 16 to 18 as well at North Kensington and at Chelsea. In terms of adult students, yes, there are students who have had to shield continuously in relation to the increased risks they face around COVID.

Page 65

We have also had levels of anxiety about travelling across London at the times when the College was open. There has also been anxiety about meeting together with people outside of the bubbles that have been formed within families. All of that has been going on. Then of course, during the pandemic, we have had phases of being able to deliver in-centre with social distancing and then at other times it has been lockdown. Every time we have sought to be encouraging to students but also to be sensitive and to be with them in the sense that they may not want to come into the College. They may not feel that that is a risk that they are willing or able to take for them and for their families because of their medical anxieties and concerns.

The sorts of things that we have done is to convert all of our learning online. When I talked about the budget that we received early on in the pandemic from the GLA, it was to convert our courses online. Typically, we have about 3,000 short courses each year and all of that has had to be converted online. Where students have not been able to access learning online, they have been sent support materials. For those students who have limited access to data, they have been sent support packs, those students perhaps in community learning settings in Lambeth.

The other thing that we did, to take your point, Chair, is about ensuring students feel that the College is with them and that they can return when they feel able to. Very early on we launched At Home with Morley, which was a free-to-access website that had video content, podcasts from Morley Radio and also reading materials, just to stimulate the mind whilst people were at home. That will bring benefit to us and to students because Morley has been a constant. For many students, they have known the College throughout their lifetime because we are 130 years old. Students know that we are here and we will be with them on their journey. We have tried to find ways in which they can keep in touch with us during this period.

The final thing to mention is that human aspect. People have been grappling with complex lives, family commitments, caring responsibilities and concern for their own health and their families. Their own learning sometimes has had to take a back seat, but it continues to be deeply impressive that the students with the greatest and most complex situations in their lives are still learning and, often, they are learning for others rather than themselves because they are learning for their families. It has been a life-affirming time for Morley but it has been beset by the challenges that students have faced. Online learning has been part of the solution, but the social dimension is the thing that students will be looking forward to when they are able to join us back in College.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Mary, do you want to come in and give us a perspective from your members? Can I add our thanks to your members for all that they have done over the last year?

Mary Vine-Morris (Area Director (London) and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges): My job means that I speak to colleges across London on a daily basis. We all know it, because we have heard it and we have seen it in the press, but I cannot underestimate the shock of the last year and the amazing ability of colleges, both the leaders and the staff and the students within the colleges, in terms of their ability to respond to this shock.

When you think about it, almost exactly a year ago, none of us anticipated in any way that we would be working in this sort of way. Although many colleges had online learning platforms, certainly the nature of our colleges means very much that they are at the heart of their communities and they bring communities into the college premises, quite often on a main campus but many times using local community facilities as well. It has all been about reaching out. It has always been a very in-person experience. To move suddenly from that in- person experience - and we are talking about 350,000 students across London suddenly moving to being home educated - was a phenomenal change. We have talked about it many times in terms of school children, but less in terms of colleges.

Page 66

Two things became really clear. One was how to provide support to all of those learners in an online way for all of the reasons that Andrew [Gower] has just highlighted. That was a huge change in the way in which learning is delivered.

Secondly, how do you feel secure in terms of the financial stability of the college going forward? The way that colleges are funded is that they deliver learning, and they deliver that learning and then they get paid for it. Suddenly you are in March and you are talking about a whole term's worth of enrolments you are about to start. You are looking towards Easter. You would have been starting a huge enrolment. You would have had another group of students coming in. Suddenly it is like, “Where did that income go?”

Of course, the nature of our members is quite different. We have two colleges here that are similar and yet different. We have colleges that are highly reliant on fee income - for City Lit, which many of you will have heard of and know about and will have probably visited, 60% of the income is fee income - all the way through to small sixth-form colleges, which will be 98% Government funded. Whilst the Government was quickly giving assurances about, “Don’t worry, you will continue to be funded. Government funding will still flow”, we have college members who were saying, “Yes, but what about the money that we are not going to earn?” The assurances that Jules [Pipe CBE] and Michelle [Cuomo-Boorer] were able to give in terms of the devolved AEB were hugely welcome, but there was also this very frightening aspect - and continues to be a very frightening aspect - of the fee and commercial income, which colleges do rely on, whether that is as small as the income you get from running a catering service or as huge as the fee income you get from learners paying for courses, or from employers paying for commercial provision. That was very disorientating.

Also, it sounds ridiculous to point it out but the amount of guidance that was coming out to colleges on a daily basis was phenomenal. You are talking here to strategic leaders, but you have strategic leaders, you have all of their governors and you have all of their senior staff having to deal with incredibly operational issues. I am sure at some point this morning you will be dying to know about how mass testing is going on in colleges because it is the most fascinating logistical exercise you could even imagine. I had a college message me on Monday evening to tell me that out of their 3,100 learners who had been tested that day, they had three positive cases. That is across nine campuses and so - don’t get me wrong - there were not 3,100 in one place but, nevertheless, the volumes we have been talking about are just phenomenal. This is all incredibly operational and incredibly logistical. You have leaders having to turn their hands suddenly to, literally, having to deal with members of staff who suddenly cannot get online to teach their classes or students - exactly as has just been described - who are all shouting down the same mobile phone at the same time.

It has been a very live and interesting and exciting environment for the last year, not necessarily one most of us would choose to replicate, but the resilience of the sector is something that I absolutely have to highlight.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Thank you so much for that. It brings to mind stories when people talk about the resilience that came out in wartime when everybody had to be mobilised with their skills and just get on with the day.

Asfa Sohail (Principal, Lewisham College): Some of the points have been covered there, but there are four challenges that I wanted to highlight - one of which has already been covered - that we have been facing as a college, and other colleges as well.

The first challenge for us was adapting the learning environment for full compliance with COVID safety requirements whilst maximising face-to-face learning. One thing I have learned - because we have young and adult learners - is that nothing can replace face-to-face learning. It is quite evident there is always a place for

Page 67 online learning, but face-to-face learning brings a lot more enrichment to learners’ experience than online learning does.

Again, we are very grateful to our colleagues here in terms of being flexible with the funding arrangements because we had to repurpose our estate. Again, coming back to the resilience of teams, teams were doing it over weekends and evenings because we had to switch overnight, to an extent. Every single room in my college was changed. I visited every single room as part of the risk assessments because I wanted to be confident that we were keeping our staff and students safe. We looked at a canteen area and converting it into a classroom environment. Social spaces were converted into classrooms. Staff were asked to leave their staffrooms so that we could use larger spaces for learners. There was a lot of work that went into repurposing the whole estate. We are still doing it at the moment. That is where some of the funding has been helpful. If I take our canteen as an example, we had fixed furniture. Without the help of the GLA, we would not be able to do some of the stuff that we have done. That was one of the biggest challenges for the whole team, the estate team, for everybody.

Then the second challenge was quite operational but is very important because it has had a significant impact. It is the continuous replanning of our online and face-to-face timetabling. Our timetables are always flexible, but they are set to an extent. We have been constantly changing those timetables. Teachers have to adjust around it because they do not have set timetables. We have to be flexible around each other. It is quite a big job in any organisation. Teams have responded very well to that and the focus of this re-timetabling has been, as Andrew [Gower] was saying, meeting the needs of learners. Adult learners have family commitments, they have work to do and they have children at home. Space is a big issue in London. Often our learners are saying, “I do not have enough space”, and so we have been trying to look at how we can accommodate those needs at a local level.

Linked to this is our curriculum planning and curriculum sequencing. It has been mentioned earlier on that we have sector-based work academy programmes. The team at Lewisham has changed the curriculum provision in-year quite significantly because we work very closely with the [London Borough of] Lewisham and so we are informed in advance of what is coming our way, to an extent, in terms of people losing their jobs, unemployment, upskilling and reskilling. That relationship is really strong. The team has been working closely with local Jobcentre Plus (JCP) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to make sure that we were changing our curriculum offer. I am sure we were not the only college. Lots of other colleges had to adapt. That is something we are not used to doing at such a fast pace. Within a month or within weeks we were changing our whole provision. However, I must say that it is been good in terms of getting lots of people back into jobs, getting them upskilled and getting them reskilled. That relationship has strengthened across the whole community, across the whole borough and beyond the borough as well. That is the second challenge that we faced and we dealt with it gracefully and we carry on dealing with that.

The third one for us that stands out for me is engaging learners with low levels of information technology skills and digital learning. They are the learners who have been affected the most by this pandemic. If someone is learning to read or write, teaching them how to use technology is quite overwhelming for that person. What our team has been trying to do is to come up with creative ideas for how to engage these learners when we cannot have them on the College site. Like Andrew [Gower], we have been developing packs and sending them to learners. Learners are then completing the packs and sending them back to the College or dropping them back to the College. Teachers have been marking them and feeding back. In situations where learners were able to drop the packs or post them back to us, teachers have set up WhatsApp groups for adult learners - with younger learners, safeguarding is a significant concern - and then students have been taking pictures of their work and sending them back to teachers and teachers are writing feedback. They have come up with lots of creative solutions for how to accommodate the needs of those learners.

Page 68

It is commendable. I get inspired whenever I go out and about and speak to teachers in terms of how they are engaging.

Just to keep their spirits up, one of my teams recorded a really nice song for our learners because for some of them mental health is a big issue, “Reaching for the Stars”. The whole team took part in that and they shared it with our learners. The feedback we got from that from learners was nice. They are really going outside the job remit to do whatever they can to support.

The fourth one that Andrew has already covered is digital poverty. That remains a big concern. Again, we are very grateful for the flexibility and we have secured lots of laptops and lots of devices because of the extra funding that has been made available to us. It is very appreciated, but it is not enough because we have a significant number of adults in my College and the need is much greater. It is not just about people having one device. I was amazed that some of our learners did not even have basic phones because quite often our learners are coming from different countries. Just to have food on the table is what their priority is. When my teams were telling me they do not even have basic phones and they cannot even engage with learning, it was shocking for me personally because I did not anticipate that that level of poverty existed. One positive part of this pandemic is that we have learned a lot about each other. It has brought communities together. It has brought people together. We should definitely build on it for the future.

I would like to commend all the teaching staff and all the support staff. If I take my support team, they were doing jobs that were not part of their job descriptions. They were getting involved with learning. They were getting involved in sending packs out because everybody wanted to do the best under the given circumstances.

If I could pick up mental health, there has been a significant issue, not just for students but for staff as well because people are working in very different and challenging environments. Even with my staff, some of them have space issues because they are sharing accommodation with other people. Coming back to students, my teams - especially with special educational needs or disability (SEND) learners and I am sure there will be questions coming up on SEND learners in a minute - they are using words like ‘extreme anxiety’ with parents and with children. It seems to be a big issue for us.

If I were to classify or categorise which groups of learners have been disproportionately affected, I would say those with digital poverty have been even more disadvantaged. I do not like to use the word ‘catch-up’. I am sure we will come up with another creative word, but you know what I mean. There is a lot of catch-up to do in terms of learning, their social skills and their mental wellbeing. Learners with children and with other family commitments have been affected a lot because there is too much for them to cope with in the given circumstances and our entry-level learners with no literacy and IT skills. These are the groups of learners that have been affected the most. Everybody has been affected. It is fair to say that it has impacted not just their academic ability, but their social skills, their confidence and their mental wellbeing. When these people start to come back, we have to address all those aspects, not just the gaps of knowledge.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Thank you so much for that insight into the total picture. I love the way that you reminded us about the experience and how that strengthened communities. It is about how we build on that. It is interesting. Both of you are owned by your locality as well as being known across London. You are key to your locality. Thank you for that.

I know my colleague Andrew Boff wants to come in now and I think he has a question for you, Michelle [Cuomo-Boorer].

Page 69

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you very much. I do not know if it is quite the right section but I will ask the question anyway.

How do you actually allocate the AEB? You get £300 million-odd in at the top. How do you then decide how that is allocated? What are the criteria?

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): I would say it is probably fairly historic, the criteria we use. It is probably worth separating out different parts of the AEB. Everybody we have in this room is predominantly what we call a grant-funded provider and that is a provider that is an FE college or a local authority. Historically, those institutions have received funding from the Government on an annual basis. It is probably lost in the histories of time quite how that was allocated, but it was broadly on what had been delivered in the past.

When we took over the AEB, one of the conditions - it was not a condition of funding but one of the things that we brought into that - was that we would replicate that as much as we possibly could within the first two years. Jules [Pipe] mentioned right at the beginning that pre-pandemic we were committed to ensuring the financial stability of our local authority provision, our college provision and our institute of adult learning provision and bringing that across. The pandemic hit and what we then had to do is maintain that funding and ensure that we were supporting them.

If we look at perhaps the other providers, then I will talk about what we have done in 2021/22. In the first year, this is how we took it all over. Not all of the funding was allocated to colleges, local authorities and institutes of adult learning. There was a proportion of funding that was not. That proportion of funding we went out to competitive tender for and we brought in a number of providers across that. We call that our procured provision. I believe Andrew [Gower] has a grant and a procured contract, which is slightly different. The funding that we are used for that procured funding element we also used to match ESF. That enabled us to then bring in an additional £70 million over three years matched with the AEB to bring in that extra resource across.

If we then take ourselves forward probably to the academic year 2021/22 - I am getting this all muddled - this future year, we effectively replicated that for two years. That is where we have got to. The Mayor has just awarded the draft allocations to our providers for future years and there is one subtle change in that. When we took over the funding and we looked at our grant funded providers - local authorities, colleges and institutes of adult learning - we did not then look at where they were located. We literally did, I suppose, a ‘lift and shift’ from the Government. What we decided within those first two years is that we needed to prioritise London. We looked at the types of provision that we had and we looked at where it was and who owned that provision. A significant proportion of that funding was being delivered by colleges outside of London. When I am talking about outside of London I mean significantly outside of London, Gateshead, all over.

We looked at that and we thought, “That does not look quite right”. We recognised that we did not want to draw a ring around the London boundary because outer London learners are probably travelling to colleges, institutions outside of the London boundaries. We introduced a tolerance, an M25 ring, slightly wider than that but the Home Counties boundaries. We bring in some providers that are not necessarily in London, but are outside of the London boundary that are delivering sufficiently and in large numbers to London residents. We looked at all of that. 2021/22 is the first year that we will not be providing funding to those providers that fall outside of that London fringe. We are not funding those providers that are up in Gateshead anymore. We have run down their contracts, which has meant that we have effectively brought an additional £14 million back into London for us to invest in providers that are based in the London fringe area and are delivering to our London communities directly on the ground.

Page 70

How we are allocating that funding brings us to two things. One of the things we have done with that is then increase the rates. We have talked about that today. We have also then put some of that funding out to tender to support the Mayor’s Recovery Programme. That is sort of how we allocate the funding on an annual basis.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you for that. Within that allocation in London, do you prioritise sub-regionally in London? I am thinking particularly that there are parts of London that have very low pay. Other parts of London do not. Do we target particular areas in London depending upon the particular issues in that area?

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): In some ways we do and in some ways we do not and it is a very complex picture. As I said, we historically took this funding. We have looked at it in terms of what is delivered. It is odd speaking about this in the pandemic when we have literally just been talking about everyone’s online learning, but there are travel-to-learn patterns. Andrew’s [Gower] college is a good example of a college that brings in students from across London. When we award the provision to our providers, there is an expectation that not only are they are delivering to their local community, but they are delivering to much wider parts of London. That is one of the fantastic things about the AEB and how it works in London. There is the ability for a student to choose where they go, which will suit perhaps taking up some learning after work, might go nearer where they are working, or they might go to their local college that is literally down the road from their house. There is that expectation.

Within the funding, there are different weightings depending on the individual student and their circumstances. You would effectively get paid more for a learner that has a range of [circumstances], whether that is a disability or whether that is a low income or they come from an area that has particular levels of deprivation. There are then levels within that.

What we can see from the data, which we published on Monday, is that broadly across London it is fairly proportional. You would expect more in east London. Residents of east London are probably undertaking more learning proportionately perhaps to southwest London. It is spread across that. It is targeted in some ways in terms of the funding rates being higher, but in terms of how we award to our colleges, we have not done that on that basis.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you for that. There is scope to target perhaps a proportion of the AEB and you can have policy objectives that then feed into the criteria for allocation. Is that fair to say?

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): Yes, it is to what end we want to get to. For example, on the recent funding that we have just put out to tender, we have not targeted residents and we have not said where they need to come from, but we have targeted sectors where we think there is growth. We have said that of all the sectors we want to see bids that look at green skills and green technology and we want to look at digital inclusion. That is what we have targeted rather than the specific areas within London or where those specific residents may be. There is that. We could do that, but I suppose it is what we want to meet and how we offset that. Anything that we target, we are not targeting something else and we are reducing. There is that equilibrium.

If we look at our European funding, I suppose what we have done is to be more specific because that allows us to say in more detail, at a more granular level, “This is exactly what we want to fund in this area”. That does allow us to do that slightly more.

Page 71

Andrew Boff AM: Yes. I am not suggesting the entire AEB be allocated just to certain priority areas, but I do believe that London has the highest low-pay rate in England and it would seem sensible for us to target that objective, to reduce the overall low pay and absence of career progression. It seems to me that would be a good way to target that, but I do understand that is complex.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): We do that perhaps in a different way. Rather than targeting where residents are - and Jules [Pipe] mentioned this right at the beginning - we introduced the flexibility around the London Living Wage --

Andrew Boff AM: I was not sure if Jules’s comment was just in the context of the pandemic - one day we are going to be out of this - or whether it was a general comment.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): No. We introduced that from taking over the AEB. That was way before the pandemic when we were looking at high rates of employment in London. We introduced full funding for those earning below the Living Wage and the data we have literally just published this week says that one in 10 learners during 2019/20 was funded because they were earning under the London Living Wage. That is a good piece of work that we have done. It is a policy that we put in that providers have been able to take on. It is a different way of perhaps targeting what you were talking about as well.

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): We have some excellent slides that show both the geographic spread of the postcodes of Londoners plus the extraordinary degree to which the AEB gets spent on entry-level courses that you could summarise as ‘preparation for life and work’.

Andrew Boff AM: Is that something possibly you could send us?

Dr Alison Moore AM: Before I ask the question I was going to, I wanted to pick up an issue. I think this is the way it works, through work as a councillor. Do I understand that you have done some skills-related work through the sub-regional working through things like the West London Alliance? That sticks in my mind because you have a particular interest in skills. I do not know whether that might play into the question I am about to ask because I guess that would involve working alongside or with London Councils.

To Jules and Michelle, the effects of the pandemic are due to last for some considerable time and that is what the recovery missions are all about. Does the Mayor need to release more money into the COVID Response Fund and would that cross-working benefit that? You have talked a bit about how you are targeting not so much geographically but individually, so I do not know whether that wraps up with that question.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): Do you want me to pick up how we work with the sub-regions? Also, I have just put up a couple of the slides that Jules was referring to in the chat box. You can have a look at the proportion of learners across London and there is one around the levels of skills that we are funding. Jules, let me know if there are others and I can put those in.

On how we work with sub-regions and local authorities, I would say they are absolutely key partners in this. The way we have our funding delegated to us is that the Mayor is effectively the only person who can make those decisions, and there is a conflict of interest with a lot of our local authorities that also deliver significant amounts of provision. A good example is Westminster. Westminster Adult Education Service is the largest. It gets a general allocation of around £5 million or something like that. It is huge. There is that conflict of interest with our local authorities.

Page 72

The way we have overcome that is with the Skills for Londoners Board, which has recently merged with the [Skills for Londoners] Business Partnership. It has a strategic oversight of what we are doing with the AEB and then advising in that way.

On a more local level, there are significant partnerships. The sub-regional partners will all have skills boards - there is a fantastic one in west London - and they do the joining up that we do not do at City Hall. We give the framework for London and we pull all of that together. We work very closely with our college principals and the AoC and others, but we do not do the joining up perhaps at that very local level. That is where the sub-regional partnerships and the local authorities as an extension of them are absolutely key. The recovery work that we are talking about recognises those levels that sit in. The GLA very much has that overview of London, but we cannot make that work on a granular basis without the local authority engagement and without the colleges talking to their local authorities, which we have already had some fantastic examples of.

The other key partner there is the DWP and the local JCPs and that community at a more local level that the sub-regional partnerships and local authorities have worked together on.

Dr Alison Moore AM: Through your data and strategic overview, you are the body that is able to influence that all of those priorities you were talking about: the digital divide and individual patterns of learners. You are the keeper of that pan-London picture?

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): Yes, we are. I have to say we have consulted a considerable amount, both informally and formally, I suppose, over the last two three years to make sure that we hear local voices on any of our decisions. We know they have impact and they have unintended consequences in some ways. We want to speak to partners across all of those areas to make sure that we are doing as much as we possibly can to make sure the funding we have - or I suppose the Mayor has - overall responsibility for is meeting the needs of all of those different communities.

I suppose the other thing that is important to say is that we are in the process of working on some research where we start to bring that community voice. We have not done that so much. We have spoken to our partners, our local authorities, our colleges and colleagues across the sector. We have not heard the learner voice in quite that strength. There is a piece of work that is now being kicked off that is starting to work with community leaders. Why are people not undertaking adult education? What puts them off? Has the pandemic had an additional impact on them wanting to go back into learning? How can we bring that voice as well as all the other voices into the picture to make sure that when we look at funding for future years, we have the best impact and can support either recovery or whatever other priorities there are as we move through?

Dr Alison Moore AM: Jules, do you think that there is a need to release more money into the Response Fund or is the balance about right?

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): The balance is about right in terms of what you would be taking it from to disperse it elsewhere. More money is always welcome and raising all budgets up.

Dr Alison Moore AM: Absolutely. Thank you. What are some of the reasons some providers were not awarded money from the Mayor’s COVID Response Fund?

Page 73

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): There are probably two things. Some did not bid. It was open to all and some did not put in for that. Others perhaps did not meet the criteria that we could all the funding on. From memory - and I do not have the figures in front of me - there were very few that did not receive funding.

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): It was a very small number.

Dr Alison Moore AM: That is really helpful. Thank you.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Sometimes providers - certainly, it happens with the European funding - do not get enough time to put their bids together. When you say the criteria were not met, was that in terms of not allowing enough time or not providing enough information?

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): It was more about what they were proposing to spend the money on.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): It was quite rapid. I am sure our colleagues would say they would much rather have had more time but, at the same time, we were trying to do a rapid response.

Dr Alison Moore AM: That must have been a pressure for everyone during what was effectively an emergency response through the earlier part of last year.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Yes, definitely.

Mary Vine-Morris (Area Director (London) and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges): Chair, can I just comment? Sometimes the urgency is welcomed because at that point we needed something that did not have layers and layers of decision making. A complex organisation like the GLA was able to turn around and quickly assess and quickly get money back out of the door to address the particular need rather than take a three-month decision-making process. It was welcome, but I appreciate exactly what you are saying. It did require a quick turn of hand.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Thank you, Mary. A great plug for devolved government there. Can I bring in my colleague Tony Arbour?

Tony Arbour AM: Thank you, Jennette. There is something I would like to say. I was particularly impressed by Andrew [Gower] saying that the entire experience has been life-affirming. That has been the most confident and optimistic statement I have heard about the whole epidemic. Clearly, the descriptions you have been giving of students just using mobile phones, and some not having mobile phones at all, and their efforts to keep up have indeed been life-affirming.

Because time has been passing very rapidly, I will just stick to a single question that affects all students and certainly employers. With the cancellation of examinations, how are you ensuring that your students get appropriate certification? That is for all of the practitioners.

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): One of the things at a high level that we have emphasised to students is that however their assessments are finally decided, they should be proud of what they have achieved during the year. Whatever assessment method is used by any of the

Page 74 awarding bodies, it will be based on the student’s coursework and the student’s progress that they are able to demonstrate.

In answer to your question, Tony, it will depend on the different types of qualifications. There will be teacher assessments, it looks likely, for GCSEs in maths and English. For professional qualifications, the assessment is unlikely to be undertaken internally. It would be in accordance with the professional body that is certificating. There are variations between the two.

At the moment my Deputy Principal who is responsible for this area of the College’s work is in a holding pattern until we get the final answers from the various awarding bodies. We need to communicate clearly with students to make sure they do continue their commitment to completion and that we give that encouragement, particularly as we transition now to bringing students back in centre. It will be brilliant when we get the clarity on how each of the awarding bodies will need us to be operating. It is a holding response at this point in time.

Asfa Sohail (Principal, Lewisham College): Similar to what Andrew said, some exams will be going ahead. For some exams, we are awaiting guidance from awarding organisations at the moment. It is fair to say that learners are nervous about it because of what happened last year, so we are trying to reassure our learners and we are saying to parents or learners directly, “We are putting systems in place. Continue to engage with your learning. Make sure your attendance rates are good”, all the basic stuff that we should be emphasising as an educational establishment. They are the reassurances we are providing.

As Andrew said, the more quickly we get the information from awarding organisations the better. On a positive note, we will have a little bit more time this year than we did last year with College adaptations. Yes, that is where we are at the moment. It is a holding response like Andrew’s.

Mary Vine-Morris (Area Director (London) and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges): The only thing I would add to the comments that have been made is that we are aware that some students will not be ready for final assessment in terms of being successful. For lots of students who will have missed out on practical learning - hairdressing students or beauty therapists or your engineers - even with the best will in the world, it is going to be challenging for colleges to make up for that in this period of learning.

Asfa mentioned earlier the unattractive expression of ‘catch-up learning’ but it is going to need to occur. We do know now that we are going to be in a situation where colleges will have some students who will need to continue their learning potentially into the next academic year. That brings with it all sorts of complications in terms of how we respond to those learners’ needs, not just convincing them to continue, which is a major thing. Don’t get me wrong, colleges will do their absolute best to get them through if they possibly can, but you want a competent plumber. You do not want us to just rush them through. You want to feel confident that when they come to your home, they know what they are doing. There will be some continuing.

We also know that there is the issue of how students perceive this and the issue of how we accommodate them within colleges, but there are also some very odd issues as well particularly around 18-year-olds where there is an expectation that their learning takes only two years from 16 to 18 and then the funding reduces to 18. There will be colleges that will be disadvantaged by the fact that learning reduces at that point. There are a number of complexities going forward in terms of our responsibilities about assisting them to be successful and competent in whatever it is that they want to achieve.

Tony Arbour AM: Thank you for that. There is just one general supplementary arising from this. Are employers sceptical about what has been happening in the past year? In other words, if there is not the

Page 75 traditional certificate or the traditional examination, are they satisfied, as far as you can tell, with what you are doing in saying that your students have qualified and have indeed passed?

Asfa Sohail (Principal, Lewisham College): From our point of view, this is all new to everybody and so, if I am being honest, employers are just working with us and supporting learners at the moment. They have not raised any concerns like this. When we are working with them, we are looking at gaps in knowledge, skills and behaviours to see how we can support those learners.

It is interesting that Mary raised that point because in our college I am saying to teams, “You have to do whatever you can to get these learners through”. We are not even thinking about them not passing their qualifications. We are moving into the summer term and we are looking at how we can bring staff in to use some of the extra funding to get those learners through. That is the focus of the moment. However, Mary is absolutely right. There will be some learners who may not be able to achieve those qualifications.

I have not seen that from employers from my College. They have been very supportive so far. They are nervous. I know we are not discussing apprenticeships here but we have seen quite a significant dip unlike anywhere else. Apart from that, no one has come forward saying that they have concerns. When they get those learners, that is probably when they will start to raise those points because it is quite variable. The gaps in knowledge are very variable because learners are engaging at different paces and at different levels at the moment.

Tony Arbour AM: I imagine that is the same with both of you other two: it is too soon to say. Certainly, I think employers will think - just as you do - that this is uncharted territory and you are going to have to wait and see, but there we go.

Andrew Boff AM: Thank you these questions to Jules [Pipe] and Michelle [Cuomo-Boorer]. How is the GLA Skills and Employment team monitoring the impact of the pandemic on the providers it supports?

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): That is probably one for Michelle on the technical stuff about the framework generally and how it is being adapted, or at least the parameters adapted, for this peculiar time that we are living through. It might be helpful for Michelle to outline what our general framework is. That sits within the context of the wider outcomes we want to achieve and monitoring those, which will be the learner survey, but on the specific question about the impact of the pandemic, we are probably only able to talk about impact on outputs as opposed to outcomes at the moment, because the outcomes will only be seen through the survey.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): Yes, there are two slightly different things, I suppose. One is the impact on learners, which we will see through results and learner surveys and other activity. The other is the impact on our providers, which is also significant.

One of the things we have done - and we committed to do this pre-pandemic anyway - is to evaluate the transition from the Government because we also need to remember we are only in year two of this Budget. In our first year, which we thought was going to run smoothly, we did not even do a full year of a normal year. Halfway through, the pandemic hit. Pre-pandemic we had committed to do an evaluation on the transition from the Government to City Hall, and then also going slightly further into how we have then been supporting those providers through that transition in the first year of delivery. That evaluation we published fairly recently and I am happy to share a copy of it.

Page 76

One of the things that did come out - and it did also cover the first few months of the impact of the pandemic, the first set of college and institution closures and talking about some of the funding that we put in, and other things - was that we found that around 90% of our providers were very or fairly satisfied with the delegation of the AEB to London at that point. That evaluation does go into a little bit more around the effectiveness of the GLA’s response to COVID and how we supported our providers. From an evaluation point of view, we can be quite pleased with what we have achieved to support our providers.

There are always things that we could do more and better when we reflect. I certainly know that for my technical team, some of the complexities around the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) and some of the things we implemented they probably would not do in the same way, but on the basis of the speed we were having to work to at the time, we managed to support those providers.

I feel very bad talking about people on their behalf because you are sitting in this room and you may have a different reflection.

Andrew Boff AM: I was just wondering. This is focused on the people who hold the Budget. In addition to that, perhaps what you could explain to us is the quality assurance methods that have been put in place to ensure that the learners, who are ultimately what we are in business for, are receiving value for money from providers. Perhaps you could also touch on what happens if they do not.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): There are a couple of things there. Firstly, on the way that we have, I suppose, awarded and looked after the funding and made sure that our providers are delivering what they said they have, we have had two audits of the AEB in the last year, which must be a record. In fact, I am going to the panel this afternoon with some of your colleagues to talk about those audits. With both of those audits we have been awarded ‘substantial’. That does demonstrate that there are sufficient checks and balances within the work that the officers and my team do to make sure providers are delivering what they say they are delivering, and we are not duplicating funding or anything else there.

I completely forgot the second half of your question. That was around our checks and balances.

Andrew Boff AM: It was about what happens if during your quality assurance programme it is revealed that a provider is not providing value for money to that learner.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): There are two sides to that as well. That brings in our partners on the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). They have overall responsibility for the quality assurance of our providers. The ESFA is responsible for far more funding that those providers receive than we are. We work in partnership if there are issues or concerns around that provision.

From our side, there are a number of checks and balances that happen. Our provider managers meet with our colleges formally on a quarterly basis to check the information they are submitting and the quality of the learning that is going on there. If there are any concerns around any of the data that is submitted or we have received, there is a risk register that we fill in about those providers. That comes back to an internal meeting where we scrutinise that activity and look at what we could implement. In some cases that may lead to improvement plans or whatever else, working with our colleges. That then comes to another group, which I oversee, which then looks at the whole picture and makes sure our providers are delivering across the piece. Then eventually we have the Mayor [of London, Sadiq Khan], Jules [Pipe] and the [GLA] Chief of Staff [David Bellamy], who then look at that information as well.

Page 77

There are quite a number of checks that go in through the GLA to make sure that we are responsibly using public funds, as well as working very intensely with the colleges and other providers that are delivering this, as well as - where there are serious concerns - working with our colleagues in the ESFA, who ultimately hold the responsibility for some of that.

Andrew Boff AM: Do you publish the quality assurance on different providers?

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): We do not. Probably what we do publish would be the end-of-year performance, I suppose, across learner numbers. We do not publish the financials on that, but we do publish in line with the Government and what it publishes.

Andrew Boff AM: All right. It might be something worth considering in the future. Giving learners an informed choice as to the provider they go with might be a good thing.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): Just to pick up that, the London Learner Survey has that intent. There is all the quality assurance that we do in terms of responsibility of public funds, but there is also then the learning experience and outcomes.

What we were looking to do - and this has been delayed by the pandemic - is we were looking to launch the London Learner Survey in January [2021]. For obvious reasons, we did not do that and we are looking for a soft launch with our colleagues in April, with a full launch of the London Learner Survey for the next academic year. That will measure the outcomes for those students, whether those are social outcomes or economic outcomes, in terms of whether the qualification helped them get a job, whether the qualification helped them move into another phase of learning and whether it helped them support their family because now their English skills are much better and they can have a conversation with their children’s schoolteachers. We are measuring all of that and we will be publishing that information.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Andrew, this is something that we explored last year with Michelle and Jules. It was about how we, as scrutineers, could see the satisfaction level from learners. It would be from their voice and from this survey. It does need to happen. Indeed, it happens at the micro level because student surveys are taking place all the time. I know from my time and continuing as a trustee of college, I am sitting thinking, “My goodness, what is the Learner Survey going to be like?” It is an absolute indicator of their satisfaction with the provision on offer.

Let us now move on to some questions on support for SEND learners. Asfa, I wonder if you could kick off this session. You spoke earlier of the challenges faced by both SEND learners and staff during the last 12 months. You talked about the mental aspect of it and the extreme anxiety or heightened anxiety that you saw.

I wanted to focus on, if you like, the learning experience. Can you share with us a couple of the challenges and how you overcame them? Then spend some time thinking through what further support is required so that in our summary when we post on our letter to the next administration and the next group of scrutineers, they can follow through this theme.

Asfa Sohail (Principal, Lewisham College): In terms of challenges, making sure the learning experience was at least good for SEND learners was the biggest challenge because, for these learners, a little bit of disruption is significant disruption for them. With the first lockdown we were open for some time but, because the nervousness was so significant, these learners stopped turning up to college. This time during the national

Page 78 lockdown, we knew beforehand. We knew from parents and we knew from learners that they wanted to continue to come to college. We have had the college open for those learners to make sure that they were attending their classes.

In terms of what we had to do, the challenge was to make sure there was a bit of online learning involved with these learners and we had to educate them how to learn online. That was one of the key challenges and priorities for us too because it was a significant change for those learners. To give a background to this, just moving classrooms or just moving chairs and tables for some of these learners could be a significant change. This is massive if you put it in context.

Within that, we had to educate them around safety and safeguarding because there are many more risks when you are learning online. We were training our teachers. We were training our students. Especially for these learners, teams were personalising resources and spending time on a one-to-one basis with these learners. One of my team members was using the term ‘explicit teaching’. She said that we had to focus on explicit teaching around those aspects.

We did make sure, because there was disruption to their learning, that there was extra support that was put in place for these learners. There were extra sessions that were put in place to make sure that when learning was not taking place to the level it should have, they had this extra support in place. There was a lot of focus on English and maths. We introduced social chats and social groups for them to help them to address some of the anxiety issues. We had to educate parents as well, because this was a significant change for parents. We had to educate them how to help their children with this online learning.

There was a lot of work that was conducted by this team and I want to commend this team because they were accessible for their learners over the whole summer break. I did not know until somebody told me back in September [2020]. Because the anxiety levels were so significant, throughout their annual leave all these staff members in the supported learning area were engaging with their learners and were engaging with their parents because they needed that support, meaning that some of these learners were coming back to us.

That is going back to what Andrew [Gower] was saying. People have been resilient and supportive and are thinking outside the box. This was not an instruction from the College. This was something teachers were doing of their own choice. That was the biggest challenge the team has managed, that learners are settled as much as possible, because most of these learners do lots of hands-on activities and it is quite difficult to move all of that over to online learning.

If I could come back to mental wellbeing, that has been the biggest challenge for these learners because of the disruption. We have focused a lot on supporting these learners, looking at different strategies for how we can support them. As I said, the words ‘extreme anxiety’ have been used. I have been asking my team to gather their thoughts as well and they were saying that parents are struggling to cope with it at the moment. Whilst it is appreciated that the police are doing welfare checks and they have access to some online support in terms of mental wellbeing, they are saying it is not enough. They need proper intervention. They need proper personalised support for parents and students in this area because they have been affected the most. Our teams are not allowed to go and visit them at home but they are saying, apart from visiting them at home, they do not know what else to do. That is where we need some extra support and that is proving quite a big challenge. We had one of the parents actually the day before yesterday on College premises and my team spent a whole afternoon with that parent to just calm her down. It is just coming out of this pandemic and this constant change and not knowing what is happening. That is one thing I would like to highlight.

Page 79

In terms of other aspects, we are working on supported internships, not just linked to COVID-19 but in general, to make sure we get these learners into independent living or into jobs. One of the requests is that maybe there is a need to train employers to get them to understand how to support these learners. I will just give you an example. We work with three local employers and my team has been going and training them. It has resulted in positive outcomes for SEND learners. Had we not done that training for those employers, we would not be able to secure those supported internships for those learners. We would appreciate it if we could have some national or local initiative where we can start to upskill employers because they do not know about reasonable adjustments and stuff like that.

There is also a plea from my team to make sure that there is more support for learners with learning difficulties and adults with autism. They are saying autistic learners have really struggled during this time.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Thank you so much. Andrew, can you pick up anything that you have to add on further support needed?

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): I would endorse fully what Asfa has suggested to us. I have two further thoughts.

At a very high level, it feels like there is a shift of expectations that students will feel. As they return back into Centre, they have benefited - certainly 150 of our students have benefited - from online one-to-one support. Whilst that level of anxiety is amplified, the expectation of students about the support they will receive within a cultural setting is, quite rightly, that mental health is a priority. Mental health is something we are actively encouraging us all to be conscious of and to articulate our needs around. In terms of the Learner Support funds, which are part of the AEB rules, the important part is to think about how those rules acknowledge there will be greater support needs within colleges for low and moderate levels of anxiety and related matters, including the autism Asfa mentioned.

The second one for Morley is that we have a small group, an important group of learners with learning difficulties or disabilities (LLDD) with complex needs that come along and do arts, dance, drama, music classes with us. They are free to the students. We would love to do more with LLDD students, but for students who are 24-plus, outside of Education, Health and Care Plans, I always worry about what learning can be provided given we are committed to lifelong learning. It would be interesting to think more about how we might support older LLDD students better in the future.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Can I go quickly to Jules and Michelle [Cuomo-Boorer]? You have heard from Asfa [Sohail] and Andrew [Gower]. Will you be picking this up as a specific area? We started this development and from what I have just heard, it is an area that needs a bit more focusing on. I totally understand what Asfa said about training for employers because they may have all the best will in the world but without some understanding they might not take an intern.

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): Yes, that is absolutely right. There is a number of issues we can explore here. Obviously, the context we need to see this in is the Mayor [of London] has limited powers in respect to special educational needs and disability (SEND) provision for students under 24. It is interesting Andrew was talking about older age groups and we want to look at that because a lot of our discussion today, when we have been talking about outcomes, inevitability majored on job and employment outcomes. The Mayor is clear that the other outcomes we want to see in terms of wellbeing are crucial and that is why our performance framework looks as much at wellbeing as economic outcomes. Yes, that is certainly post-24 SEND and engagement with adults. That is something we can fund directly and would want to look at in the future.

Page 80

Also, because of the growing crisis that there is in SEND and the growth in SEND numbers, and that not all colleges have been up to speed as much as the guests that you have today, one thing that we have looked to spend money on is support in the same way that Asfa was talking about supporting employers. We have also been supporting those colleges who need support to help train their college staff to be able to better deliver for SEND learners. Although we are not able to fund SEND courses for younger people, we can, at least, make a contribution by making sure the provision is as good as it can be when it is not already as good and as focused as the kind that Andrew and Asfa provide at their colleges. Michelle?

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director, Skills and Employment, Greater London Authority): The issue we have is that we are relatively limited in what we can do. Certainly, we had high aspirations until we looked into the legalities of some of the things and the local authority responsibility versus mayoral responsibility. There is some work going on with our local authority colleagues and how we can score there as well.

We have done some things since we took over the AEB and looking at Learner Support, which Andrew [Gower] said is something that we are continually doing, and how we can flex the Learner Support to maximise that as much as possible, that is an area where we do have the ability to do that. Some of that is working with our providers, perhaps not to change the rules, but to be clear about what you can use that for. Some of that can be a bit mystifying. Certainly, I find it like that.

There are some other things we have done. We introduced the funding for Deaf learning and for British Sign Language (BSL) courses from when we took over the AEB. We are the only area nationally that does that. We have had 300 Deaf learners undertake that qualification and they have undertaken 330 BSL courses. I am quite surprised by the size of that number considering we introduced it last year and with everything else that has gone on. That is good. We are on the right steps to doing those things and we are certainly keen to hear if there are other specific qualifications that can help specific groups that we would have the ability to decide to fund in London.

We also made SEND a priority for the Skills for Londoners Innovation Fund that we talked about a little bit through this. As Jules [Pipe] said, we introduced the funding for the qualifications for teachers who are working with SEND pupils as well to support them.

The issue around the workforce is interesting. I have been on the other side of that, as an employer who has taken on SEND learners. We have had SEND interns and they were absolutely fantastic. What we did not realise, and it was good for us to learn - we had some fantastic training; someone came in and trained us on how to support these learners - was the level of intensity to support some of the students to achieve their potential. It was a great experience, we are looking to do it again and we certainly took some learning from that. It is something we can look at as we move through supporting employers and perhaps do some of our recovery work on good work, what good work is and how you bring a more diverse workforce into your organisation. That is something we can definitely explore further.

Dr Alison Moore AM: As a former governor of a special school, a secondary school with a sixth form, I absolutely get the point about disruption. I have been through a fire drill with a group of children with autistic and other needs and it is an interesting experience. Thank you very much for that input.

Moving on to the role that the Education Panel has taken in this, the Education Panel and Post-16 SEND Review had previously recommended that the evidence base around SEND should be improved. Obviously, this has been an unprecedented year with lots of disruptions, but lots of great examples of flexibility and

Page 81 commitments during this year. What action has been taken so far on improving that SEND evidence and what still needs to be done?

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills: Two things. We have already taken action on some of the findings of the previous research. I have mentioned one of them about the intervention on teacher training. We are using ESF money as well. We have recently awarded £6.5 million to support young Londoners with SEND. From this April, there should be three distinct projects working with young people who either have a learning difficulty or a learning disability, a physical disability, or a long-term health need, or a social, emotional or mental health need. That is going to directly help young people to gain skills and self-confidence and gain work experience which will help them on a pathway to a job or a training course.

The projects are also going to work directly with employers as well, in the way that Asfa’s college is directly intervening with employers to help them better understand the barriers faced by young people with SEND needs, and how employers themselves could modify their practices and policies and just be more inclusive as employers. There are a number of ESF co-financed projects that we are taking forward as a result of that. A lot of that has been driven by the research we took earlier.

On your question directly about further research, we are about to launch a peer-led research project. That is going to be about identifying perceptions of adult education and the barriers to their engagement for SEND learners.

Dr Alison Moore AM: That collates your evidence base and that additional evidence base through the peer learning, and also some of the best practice that is coming through from individual colleges. You talked about the breadth of colleges, Mary [Vine-Morris], and the ability or lower level of ability to support SEND. Are you going to be collectively doing work to promote that good practice as well as supporting those other providers in supporting SEND, and also with employers? Do you have plans to promulgate that evidence and disseminate it?

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director, Skills and Employment, Greater London Authority): Yes, we probably will do. Anything that we research, we want to share the best practice with.

There are two things. The research Jules [Pipe] was talking about around the peer research will be very important, and I am sure our partners will want to see that and what the recommendations are to take forward. Many of them will also be involved in that research as well.

The other research that we are keen to explore the outcome of is around social prescribing, which is not necessarily for SEND learners but for those people that are perhaps going to their general practitioners (GP) with mental health or serious issues of that nature that may be exacerbated by the pandemic but maybe predate that as well, and also how social prescribing can be used in terms of the AEB to prescribe them different types of learning. We are keen to explore that and see what that research comes out with, that is a series of pilots we are working through. Again, once we get the outcomes of that research, we will be talking about that more with our partners and how we can make sure that happens.

Just to say, the London Roadmap that we have talked about a number of times, we will combine some of the research recommendations about how we take some of that forward.

Page 82

Dr Alison Moore AM: That is great because it is going to be a challenging job, social and emotional market going forward. We should ensure that those with SEND or other challenges are given the best chance they can going forward.

If I can move on, again for Jules and Michelle - it comes back to the ESF programme funding - what programmes or projects, beyond what you have already talked about, have been supported by the Mayor’s £6 million ESF programme fund?

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): Unless Michelle’s recall is better than mine, it is something I will have to write to the Committee on.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director, Skills and Employment, Greater London Authority): Yes. I was trying to scramble around. There is also around £70 million we have put up using ESF and that is across a range of different areas. Recently, we have awarded £6.5 million to support young Londoners with SEND. We can give you specific examples around those projects. There are also other programmes that look at older Londoners. When I say, “older Londoners”, adult learners would also fit into that category. There is a range of projects there. We are happy to share that with you.

I was just going to come in on your last point or the one before. It is important when we talk about adult education in London to recognise the difference with our national colleagues. Nationally, the drive is about jobs. It is very clearly economically driven. Whilst we recognise that is hugely important, what Jules [Pipe] and the Mayor [of London] have been real champions of is recognising the social importance of learning in London. For our students, learning is not just about getting into jobs. Some of our students are so far away from the jobs market that they need a whole other wealth of support. The importance of adult learning is a strength of London, strengthened by Andrew [Gower] and his colleagues at the institutes of adult learning, who bring a completely different flavour of activity, alongside our general FE and local authorities. I thought it was useful to highlight that significant difference with our national colleagues.

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): The third slide that Michelle has helpfully put up in the chat demonstrates that. When you see the proportion of courses there, they are about preparation for life and work. That demonstrates where the focus is on that. It is both economic and also wellbeing.

Dr Alison Moore AM: Absolutely. Some of the work I have done in the past is as a councillor working particularly with the then Barnet College, which is Barnet and Southgate now, in terms of those preparatory courses, particularly in the context of those who are new to English and new to the country. It is understanding that that is part of their ability to function as citizens and within daily life, as well as taking those steps towards work eventually, but it may not be an immediate issue.

We may come back to this in the final set of questions because there are some questions around the White Paper.

Tony Arbour AM: I was pleased to hear Michelle’s [Cuomo-Boorer] last comment about what we do in London in relation to adult education. One of the features of our visit to Morley [College], which certainly pleased me, was that you are still doing your historic work in relation to the arts and literature and things of that kind. This, I suppose, is a left field question. Has the demand for those sorts of courses substantially increased because of the pandemic?

Page 83

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): It is a varying picture in the sense that when we have been able to provide those courses online - those courses that are fee-bearing courses, which students access because they are interested in that area of study and they are interested in personal development and so on - then courses have done very well. The challenge is transporting some of our short courses into an online mode. We trust that students will be back with us when we are able to open our centres again and welcome them back.

Courses to do with philosophy, to do with history, to do with art appreciation, music appreciation and the arts and sciences in a traditional sense, have gone well and they have sold well, if I put it in commercial terms, in terms of the short courses that we have been able to put out online. In terms of Michelle’s point about the distinctive contribution of institutes of adult learning, that area of arts, culture, applied sciences and liberal arts is very much what we are about and will continue to be about. I suspect that through all of the efforts that we will put into the transition back to more normal times, we will be able to encourage students back to us. In the meantime, At Home with Morley is available for you, Tony, just in case you would like to do any.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): I am definitely going to sign up, absolutely. Do you do writing courses?

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): Yes, creative writing is very popular. That has been popular, yes.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Yes, definitely and I am going to become your student or your learner.

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): We would love to have you, Chair. That is brilliant.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Can I just have a quick follow-up question to Mary before I ask her some questions around the future of adult learning from her perspective? Mary, throughout our work on this area of SEND learning, we have been told time and time again that teachers come ill-equipped into the sector to deal with children and then youths with SEND and other related conditions. Do you get from the work that has been done here that it is possible to feed that back into the establishment? Do you not need to do more in terms of the curriculum for teachers around how they are going to have to be in a classroom? The numbers are rising amongst their pupils with, you name it; the range of conditions is just limitless. Do you not think more needs to be done?

Mary Vine-Morris (Area Director (London) and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges): Yes, it is a good point and it can be extended. It is quite a nice link into the questions that you are going to be talking about in terms of the White Paper a little bit later because that highlights issues of workforce, specifically for FE.

I would generalise the point slightly and say there is quite a broad need in terms of workforce for the FE sector as a whole. The idea of teaching and teaching specifically for school education is well established and we will all know children who have grown up wanting to be a teacher. It is probably less common for people to grow up thinking, “I want to be a college lecturer”. Some of the people we want to attract quite often to work within colleges are not necessarily our absolutely newly qualified teachers but perhaps some of our teachers who have experience. Perhaps industry experience is quite commonly in need, but also experience of life, in part because the learners who present in colleges are quite often adults as well as young people. We have a high proportion of adults. Whilst many adults are very, very happy and willing to learn from very young, newly qualified students, many of them appreciate people with life experience as well.

Page 84

There are some specific challenges for the workforce generally for FE. That said, we do have some amazing new teachers who come to the FE workforce, some of those newly qualified and some very experienced. Many of those have worked in industry or commerce previously and have made life choices to change and then to get involved in the workforce of colleges, which makes for a very interesting and diverse range of people that we attract. One of the things that we all aspire to is a workforce that reflects the diversity of its student population. We want students to be able to look at the teachers or at the lecturers and say, “Yes, I recognise that person, I recognise them as me and what I could potentially become if I want to”. That is really important.

To your point specifically about SEND and more broadly about LLDD, yes, it is generally true that we want a better qualified, better experienced workforce for all aspects of education, from early years, being able to work with very young children who perhaps do not immediately present needs but have needs that need to be identified very early and will benefit from that, right the way through to working with learners with additional needs as adults. One of the reasons why that particular initiative that Jules [Pipe] and Michelle [Cuomo- Boorer] mentioned in terms of providing extra training support for the teaching workforce was welcomed and has been so well taken up is because colleges know that they want to enhance that. You will know that continuing professional development (CPD) within colleges is usually quite extensive within that particular area.

Students who present in colleges tends to be largely from communities where they have experienced greater poverty, where they are more diverse and where they have perhaps not been successful first time around in the statutory education system. It is not always the case, obviously, but it is quite commonly the case. We already work in a high level of diversity and we need to meet those individual needs.

It is challenging. Both Asfa [Sohail] and Andrew [Gower] have referred to needing to spend incredibly intensive amounts of time on meeting the needs of individual learners, and the whole of FE is about personalised learning to the best you possibly can. If we just had to deal with somebody’s educational needs, we would probably all be hugely successful and it would all be so easy, would it not? They all come with complex life issues as well, whether those are educational needs, whether they are mental health, whether they are poverty, whether they are where they live, whether there are gangs that they had previously been in, or the lack of self-esteem that they have acquired over years because of the way they have been treated within their family or within their community.

Yes, it is a challenge, and what we can do, with lots of respect, is show some of the excellent practice that is there and influence what goes on nationally in terms of learning. I would suggest that some of the FE lecturers could add an awful lot to some of the education that is delivered to newly qualified teachers through initial teacher training in schools. Try dealing with some complex needs of some 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds who are feeling a bit feisty. Colleges can do that very well in a perhaps less regimented environment than some schools do. There is lots to be said for learning that can be shared both ways.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Staying with you, Mary, what was your initial reaction to the Government’s proposed education reforms in the Department for Education’s (DfE) recent Skills for Jobs White Paper? You first thought, “Oh, my God”?

Mary Vine-Morris (Area Director (London) and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges): No, our first thought was, “Wow, a whole White Paper that talks about colleges”. Fancy, they even knew what a college was. It is brilliant. No, we welcome this. It was a long time in the waiting for and we were all expecting it for quite a long time. We genuinely, absolutely welcome the recognition of the role that colleges can play, and that FE can play more generally in the world of the skills for jobs, which is very much what that White Paper is focused on.

Page 85

I am sure this will come out and it has already been mentioned by Michelle [Cuomo-Boorer]. More broadly within skills for life, skills for learning, skills for wellbeing, etc, the role that colleges can play there was, to be fair, rather underplayed within the White Paper. There was less recognition. It is one of the things that we are particularly pleased to be working in London about, because there is that recognition of learning for all purposes. That is quite clearly embedded within the London culture. We welcome the emphasis on colleges and we welcome the recognition of colleges as key parts of their local community.

There are also some very specific things within the White Paper that we welcome. The change to issues to do with funding and accountability would be incredibly welcome because we work in an overly complex situation. We do have to be careful. We do recognise that you could make it very, very simple, but then it would not meet the needs in the way that complex situations do. You could take out all of the complexities but you might lose some of the nuances, which we all benefit from. That said, I do not suggest you ask Andrew [Gower] and Asfa [Sohail] how many individual funding streams they currently have to account for their learning against and how many audits. Michelle has had two this year and probably each of our colleges have had five.

The way that the GLA has approached trying to simplify things is only restrained, probably, by the national limitations. We need to change the national limitations. Our feeling is that we need to rewrite the way in which colleges are viewed so that there is a much more trusted relationship. That is what seems to be missing, rather than counting the beans. There is a very good chance that you know that neither Asfa, Andrew, nor any of the other college principals in London are driving around in massive, flashy cars and enjoying huge salaries they are creaming the top off this huge amount of funding which is invested in our sector because it is simply not true.

Sadly, funding for the sector has reduced significantly over the last few years. When I started working for the AoC in London, which was five years ago, we had 500,000 total learners in London. I mentioned earlier on that we are just under 350,000 now. There are so many more learners, potential learners, out there both in London and elsewhere, whose needs are currently not being met. Every time we talk about priorities, we talk about moving funding from one part of the envelope to another part of the envelope whereas in fact the envelope is simply too small.

The bit that was missing for us in the White Paper - and we did not expect it because we knew we were stuck with the one-year spending review - was the increased investment. That is absolutely needed in order to both reflect the workforce that we were referring to earlier, but in order to make sure that they are paid in the way in which they should be. That is also to make sure that we have sufficient learning opportunities and that we are not turning learners away simply because we do not have sufficient capacity to meet their needs, or that we are not making our programmes smaller than they need to be because we cannot afford to make them larger. All of that aspect is there.

I will not go on for much longer because I know you want to ask other people their views. My final point would be that we all so desperately want to build on what is already there and not have just another set of initiatives which reinvent the wheel, because we have done a lot of work in London over the last few years. We had done a lot of work particularly over the last couple of years in terms of the new set of devolved budgets. For the introduction of things like a Local Skills Improvement Plan, you might look to some of the skills plans that we already have in London. For the concept of having a relationship with the employers, you might look to the Skills for Londoners Business Partnership, you might look to the London Enterprise Panel (LEP), which happens to work in London, or the London Economic Action Partnership (LEAP).

Page 86

Rather than saying, “Nationally, we’ve got some great ideas and let’s throw out a few initiatives”, what we want to do is say, “Well, let’s grasp the agenda, let’s make sure it works for London and for Londoners and let’s build on what is already there”, putting colleges absolutely at the centre of that because they are there. There is a college in every single borough in London. Despite the fact that we now have college groups and you might think there are fewer colleges, we still have one in every single borough. They are absolutely at the heart of their communities and we want to make sure that when we are thinking locally and when we are thinking regionally, colleges are just a natural part of the way in which people think about what their community assets are.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): That absolutely took us across the piece on that White Paper. Andrew, did Mary miss anything out critical to you and Asfa?

Andrew Gower (Principal and Chief Executive Officer, Morley College): I will not rehearse everything that Mary has just said, which is a fantastic summary. I will just mention lifelong learning loans. Whether we like loan systems or not, it is a feature of the White Paper to be introducing those loans from 2025. I do think that is a welcome thing. We had a really crushingly reduced number of people who are engaged in part-time higher education because the funding no longer was there to support them. As a lifelong learning institution, we do welcome the lifelong learning loan. It would be great to bring it in earlier and it would also be great to understand the connection between colleges and universities as to how we can make that work. As an initiative, I do welcome that.

The only other thing I will just mention while I have the chance is that colleges have done a terrific amount, as we have been discussing this morning, about accelerating their digital transformation. There is lots and lots of development work we have done in all the ways we have sought to describe this morning about online learning. It would have been great to recognise that within the White Paper and to somehow offer colleges the opportunity to crystallise these developments and to mainstream these developments so we can build on that for the future. I did not see that perhaps as in the foreground as it might have been, given that it has been the ever-present challenge for us just over the last year. With digital matters being much more present for us in life and in work, all things digital will continue to be important. So, too, is some innovation funding or some sort of developmental support for colleges to somehow, as I say, crystallise the developments that we have rapidly put in place, lifelong learning loans and online investment.

Asfa Sohail (Principal, Lewisham College): I will not repeat what my colleagues have said, but one thing that is really important to me personally is the investment and the investment in workforce. If we look at automation and Brexit there are a number of challenges coming our way, and with the need to get people into jobs, sometimes it is really difficult to attract people, for example, from construction and engineering into the education sector. The two things there are the investment in terms of developing our workforce and more input into delivery from the employers.

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): I would simply lift what Mary [Vine-Morris] said, copy it and put it underneath my name as the contribution. The Mayor [of London] welcomes the focus on the importance of the sector and that it should be developed, but, yes, the overall envelope needs to be grown. It absolutely needs to build on what is already there instead of inventing new processes and whole new ideas to run separately. It should build on what is there and there should be additional emphasis, as I have said directly to the Minister herself, on wellbeing.

If, at the end of the day, they have to boil it down to pounds, shillings and pence - that ages me - there is a financial benefit to focusing on wellbeing for the nation, whether keeping people out of hospital or reducing mental health issues. Also, there is a whole piece there about creative, additional cultural activities that help

Page 87 cross-subsidise things like ceramics and textiles that produce the next generation of designers. There is an economic benefit from that, both for the value of itself and of wellbeing but also, if you need to monetise it, there are benefits there too. It is exactly as Mary said.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): What we do have is a job as London to educate our national colleagues about what London is and how we work. We have already started that. We are bombarding the DfE with information about what London is, how we work and what the benefits are.

We really need to get across that many of the structures that they mention within the White Paper are already in place. What we do not want is either competing plans or direction of travel, or duplicating what is already working quite well in some instances. I say that for London but I also say that for the other mayoral combined authorities (MCA) areas, who I think feel similarly. We have had some time to get there that perhaps the rest of the country has not. We have some education to do.

Jules Pipe CBE (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills): Interestingly, though, in the White Paper they have said that they are not going to reverse devolution. It has been odd not to reverse it but, at the same time, bring in other things to run parallel. It should be one or the other.

Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, Greater London Authority): Just to add to that, going back to Mary talking about the simplification of funding, one of the early successes and one of the things we really pitched very hard to the DfE was the National Skills Fund at level 3, which has come out. It was going to be delivered by the ESFA. We pitched very successfully as a group of MCAs to say, “If you want to talk about simplification, you’re making it more complex by doing it in that way. If you can give it to the MCAs and the GLA, we can wrap that into the other activity that we’re also funding”. Although it is different funding streams, we are able to merge those things together with that delegation from Government. That is where the MCAs - the GLA in particular - have a real role in helping to glue some of those funding streams together to support networks.

Jennette Arnold OBE AM (Chair): Thank you so much. I am just going to recommend to our colleagues that we have heard enough that we can write a letter and share with the DfE what we have heard here today because it was so enriching, and we are all madly and passionately in love with adult education and FE.

Page 88 Agenda Item 7

Subject: Summary List of Actions

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 This report updates the Committee on the progress made on actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee notes the completed and ongoing actions arising from previous meetings of the GLA Oversight Committee and additional correspondence sent and received.

3. Summary List of Actions

Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 9 March 2021

Item Item Title Responsible Action(s) Status No.: Person 4 Summary List of Chief Officer  Provide a written response to Ongoing. Actions Keith Prince AM explaining why Followed up parking was not being provided 20/04/2021. for motorcycles. 9 Changes to the Principal  That the changes to the GLA Completed. GLA Committee establishment report be shared Circulated on Establishment Manager with Members of the Budget and 9/03/2021. Performance Committee.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 89 v1/2021 13a Shared Service Chief Officer  To respond to the following Ongoing. Proposal by the queries: Followed up Greater London 20/04/2021. Authority for the o What arrangements would be Management of in place to ensure there is an the GLA's objective to reduce risk and Forthcoming reoffending in relation to Duty to Provide domestic abuse; Support to o Whether victims placed in Victims of safe accommodation would Domestic Abuse have access to free school and their meals; Children in Safe o Whether support would be Accommodation provided for victims with substance abuse issues; and o Whether specialist separate provision was to be provided for male victims of domestic abuse.

Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 2 February 2021

Item Item Title Responsible Action Status No.: Person 5 Consultation on Chief Officer  That any responses to the Ongoing. Proposed consultation from trade unions be Followed up Restructuring of shared with the Committee. 20/04/2021. Assembly Secretariat Teams' Staffing Establishments

Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 13 January 2021

Item Item Title Responsible Action Status No.: Person 6 Proposed Senior Policy  That authority be delegated to the Completed. Delegations of Advisor Chair of the GLA Oversight See Authority Committee, in consultation with Agenda Members of the EU Exit Working Item 5. Group, to agree any outputs of the EU Exit Working Group, for the period up until the May 2021 GLA Elections.

Page 90 Item Item Title Responsible Action Status No.: Person 9 People’s Assistant  To conduct further consultation Ongoing. Question Time Director for with party Group Leaders and Further External Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and to consultation Relations present further proposals on future is expected dates and locations for the next at the next Mayoral term back to the meeting of Committee. the Committee.

Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 3 November 2020

Item Item Title Responsible Action(s) Status No.: Person 12b Relocation from Chief Officer  The Chief Officer committed to Ongoing. City Hall look into the options at Union A monthly Street for reserving desk space. update is provided to Lead Assembly Members. Senior Policy  The Chair requested that Ongoing. Advisor continued scrutiny of the relocation to The Crystal be built into the Committee’s work programme.

Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 9 September 2020

Item Item Title Responsible Action(s) Status No.: Person 6 COVID-19: Deputy Mayor,  To provide the Committee with Ongoing. Phase 1 and the Fire and the lessons learned for the Followed up GLA Staff Resilience, and strategic coordination of COVID- 10/05/2021. Response Co-Chair of the 19 and the role and functioning of SCG the London resilience Forum (LRF).

Page 91 Item Item Title Responsible Action(s) Status No.: Person Chief Officer  Provide the total numbers of Ongoing. supporting GLA staff and the Followed up areas they were working in to 20/04/2021. assist with COVID-19 response; and

 Discuss at a later date ongoing resilience measures and the mobilisation of GLA staff in future crises.

7 GLA Pay Award Chief Officer  To provide confirmation of the Ongoing. implementation of a working Update – group. 1/3/2021 – The terms of reference have been drafted for the working group.

Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 17 December 2019

Item Item Title Responsible Action(s) Status No.: Person 11 London Senior Policy  That pay conditions for GLA staff Ongoing. Assembly Work Advisor be added to the GLA Oversight Programme Committee Work Programme; and January – March 2020  That the separate GLA Oversight Committee investigation into This output Jennifer Arcuri be added to the has been work programme. put on hold as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Page 92 Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 16 October 2019

Item Item Title Responsible Action(s) Status No.: Person 9 Smart Working Chief Officer  The Chief Officer agreed to write Ongoing. Policy – to Members of the Committee Followed up Consultation following her meeting with the 20/04/2021. Feedback staff disability network.

16 London & Executive  That authority be delegated to the This output Partners Director of Chair of the GLA Oversight was put on Funding of the Secretariat, or Committee, in consultation with hold as a Innotech their deputy, as the Deputy Chairman and lead result Foundation & Proper Officer Members from other party groups, of the Playbox Ltd And to correspond with (in accordance COVID-19 Associated with the advice of the Executive pandemic. Matters Director of Secretariat, or his deputy, as Proper Officer): (i) solicitors for the Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. Boris Johnson MP; (ii) the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC); and (iii) any other relevant parties

in relation to the matters that are the subject of the report.

Actions Arising from the Meeting Held on 8 April 2019

Item Item Title Responsible Action(s) Status No.: Person 9 London Assistant  The Committee requested that Ongoing. Assembly Work Director of a watching brief be kept on The on Grenfell Scrutiny and any further work that might be Scrutiny Tower Fire Investigations required by the Assembly in team will Phase 2 of the hearings into follow the the Grenfell Tower Fire. hearings as they take place.

Page 93 4. Correspondence

4.1 On the 2 March 2021 the Chair wrote to the Deputy Mayor for Transport regarding the Silvertown Tunnel Project. The letter is attached at Appendix 1. On the 17 March 2021 the Deputy Mayor for Transport responded, and the letter is attached at Appendix 2.

4.2 On the 11 March 2021 correspondence was received from the Chief Officer containing the monthly update on the risk associated with the relocation of City Hall. The letter is attached at Appendix 3. The Chair wrote further to the Chief Officer to request further information on the 17 March 2021, to which the Chief Officer then responded on the 18 March 2021. The correspondence is attached at Appendix 4.

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Letter from the Chair to the Deputy Mayor for Transport, dated 2 March 2021

Appendix 2 – Response from the Deputy Mayor for Transport, dated 17 March 2021

Appendix 3 – Letter from the Chief Officer, dated 11 March 2021

Appendix 4 – Further correspondence between the Chair and Chief Officer, dated 17 to 18 March 2021

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager

Telephone: 020 8039 1285

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 94

City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk

Appendix 1

Len Duvall OBE AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Heidi Alexander Deputy Mayor for Transport (Sent via email) 2 March 2021

Dear Heidi,

Request for further information on the Silvertown Tunnel Project

Thank you for your letter of the 30 November on the Silvertown Tunnel. We greatly appreciate the level of detail included in the response and its confidential nature.

The Committee is seeking further clarification about the confidential nature of your response and the value for money of this project. To this end, please can you answer the following:

A. We understand that following receipt of ‘extensive correspondence from members of the public questioning the appropriateness of TfL’s decision making with regards to the Silvertown Tunnel project’ by TfL’s external auditors, that the external auditors ‘will investigate the allegations made using a specialist team.’1 Can you confirm the timescale of this investigation, if the full outcome will be published or when the Committee can have sight of the results?

1 TfL Audit and Assurance Committee 2 December 2020 P43 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/audit-assurance-committee- agenda-pack.pdf

Page 95

B. Would there be a comment from yourself, as Deputy Mayor accompanying the auditors investigation if it is made public? C. Has the cancellation cost included in your response been indepentently verified? D. Can you confirm if there will be a time when the cancellation cost is no longer confidential and can be released? E. Would it be possible to have the cancellation cost published earlier if a range was used, similar to that for publishing costs of contracts in existing transparency data2? F. The Committee agrees with the confidential nature of the cancellation cost quoted in your response, but would like to consider publication of the underlying principles in the interests of transparency. Can you confirm if this would be acceptable? The relevant text is reproduced here:

Under the termination provisions, which are market standard for this type of transaction and which reflect the UK Treasury standardised contract for PPPs (“PF2”), to cancel the Silvertown tunnel project, TfL would need to enact a Voluntary termination by TfL event. In this scenario, TfL is liable to pay compensation calculated according to a pre-defined contractual formula: referred to as the TfL Default Termination Sum on the Termination Date. The premise of the TfL Default Termination Sum is to put the contractor (Riverlinx) in no better or no worse position that it would have been had the contract have continued to the Expiry Date of the Project Agreement. The costs included in the TfL Default Termination Sum fall into the below categories: • Costs incurred prior to contract award, including bid costs, a reimbursement of TfL’s development costs which was paid to TfL and finance arrangement fees • Costs incurred during construction. Costs of termination: • Known costs, such as the cost of exiting the fixed interest financing package, which is linked to financial market information and will vary at any given time. • Unknown costs, such as terminating sub-contracts and employment contracts and liquidating the special purpose company set up for the project. • Compensation for lost profits of Riverlinx - this cost is estimated by calculating the difference between the returns in the Financial Model and the alternative returns that could be achieved by investing in similar operational projects.

G. The request for the audit has stemmed in part from concerns at the lack of detail on the project being in public. The current Silvertown Tunnel page on the TfL website says that the winning consortium would provide regular updates, but none have yet been produced3. Given the nature of confidentiality you have disclosed, can you confirm when these updates will commmence being published, how often they will be produced and if there is a means by which you can update the Assembly on any confidential matters as they arise?

2 TfL Contracts Greater than £5000 https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/contracts-greater-than-5000 3 TfL Silvertown Tunnel https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/silvertown-tunnel

Page 96

I would be grateful if you could provide this information by Tuesday 16 March. I look forward to your response. Please copy Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager, into your response via the following email address: [email protected] .

Yours sincerely,

Len Duvall OBE AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Page 97

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 Appendix 2

Len Duvall AM Date: 17 March 2021 By email

Dear Len,

Thank you for your further letter of 2 March on behalf of the GLA Oversight Committee. I have provided answers to your questions below:

A. We understand that following receipt of ‘extensive correspondence from members of the public questioning the appropriateness of TfL’s decision making with regards to the Silvertown Tunnel project’ by TfL’s external auditors, that the external auditors ‘will investigate the allegations made using a specialist team.’ Can you confirm the timescale of this investigation, if the full outcome will be published or when the Committee can have sight of the results?

As they are obliged to do as part of their routine audit work, Transport for London’s (TfL) external auditor Ernst Young (EY) have investigated issues raised with them and TfL’s Audit and Assurance Committee (AAC) about the Silvertown Tunnel project. Their report will be presented to the Committee on 17 March and the meeting papers are available publicly on https://content.tfl.gov.uk/aac-20210317-agenda-papers-public.pdf. The report concluded that the option comparison carried out by TfL was reasonable, and that TfL’s approach to the revenue from charges on Blackwall Tunnel users in the Value for Money assessment was correct.

The report also concludes that given the very early-stage consideration of wider road charging policies, it was not possible for TfL to assess the impacts on the Silvertown Tunnel and that the broader growth and resilience objectives for the scheme could not be met through implementing a user charge at the Blackwall Tunnel alone.

B. Would there be a comment from yourself, as Deputy Mayor accompanying the auditor's investigation if it is made public?

The papers are in the public domain and will be discussed as part of the AAC. I don’t expect to make any direct public comment on the investigation given I am not a member of the AAC. The

City Hall, London, SE1 2AA - london.gov.uk - [email protected] - 020 7983 4000 Page 99 meeting can be viewed via TfL's YouTube channel. I expect TfL will provide a comment on the findings of the report, if asked.

C. Has the cancellation cost included in your response been independently verified?

The termination cost previously shared with you has been reviewed by EY and their conclusion broadly aligns with TfL’s.

D. Can you confirm if there will be a time when the cancellation cost is no longer confidential and can be released?

Termination costs in a contract of this type will always have to take into account contemporaneous matters, some of which will be readily calculable, such as outstanding debt, and other costs that are less readily calculable in a desktop exercise, such as demobilisation costs. If termination rights are exercised, it is inevitable that there would be a degree of discussion and negotiation with the counterparty. It is not, therefore, appropriate that TfL’s, or EY’s, calculations are made public during the period of the contract with Riverlinx, which runs until 2050.

E. Would it be possible to have the cancellation cost published earlier if a range was used, similar to that for publishing costs of contracts in existing transparency data?

No. Even indicating a range would run the risk of prejudicing TfL’s discussion and negotiation with Riverlinx should the contract ever be terminated.

F. The Committee agrees with the confidential nature of the cancellation cost quoted in your response but would like to consider publication of the underlying principles in the interests of transparency. Can you confirm if this would be acceptable?

The compensation on termination is calculated according to the Project Agreement, the full text of which is published and unredacted. References:

 https://content.tfl.gov.uk/silvertown-project-agreement-including-schedule-1- definitions-and-interpretations-rs-feb-2020.pdf (page 132, clause 35.3) and  https://content.tfl.gov.uk/silvertown-tunnel-schedule-27-compensation-on-termination- rs-feb-2020.pdf (page 12)

Page 7 of the confidential EY appendix also summarises the principles. Subject to confirming with EY, we believe EY’s text could be published by the Committee.

The text you reproduce in your letter was written by TfL in an informal manner for internal guidance only and is not consistent enough with the language of the project agreement text to be published as a guide to the calculation.

G. The request for the audit has stemmed in part from concerns at the lack of detail on the project being in public. The current Silvertown Tunnel page on the TfL website says that the winning consortium would provide regular updates, but none have yet been produced. Given the nature of confidentiality you have disclosed, can you confirm when these updates will commence being published, how often they will be produced and if there is a means by which you can update the Assembly on any confidential matters as they arise?

Page 100

TfL has continued to update its website. The Riverlinx consortium is developing its own external website which will house information about the construction works and updates as construction moves forward this year. TfL also regularly reports progress on the scheme as part of its standard investment programme reporting and is currently in the process of briefing elected representatives in the local area. TfL would be happy to provide any further updates to the Assembly as required.

Thank you again for writing to me.

Yours sincerely,

Heidi Alexander Deputy Mayor for Transport

Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 102

Appendix 3 Chief Officer City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Switchboard: 020 7983 4000 Web: www.london.gov.uk

11 March 2021

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Dear Len

With apologies for being slightly later than normal, here is my usual monthly update on three specific risks related to the GLA's move to The Crystal – the risks that: the costs of the relocation of City Hall exceed the assigned budget; the works on The Crystal are not completed in time for occupation; and vacant possession works at the current City Hall require a longer time to complete than anticipated.

As usual I attach the three relevant entries from the project team's risk register.

There are some changes to point out since my last update: • One new sub-risk has been added this month – the risk that:

o Complex stakeholder engagement during delivery impacts on The Crystal being completed in time for occupation This addition comes in light of a complex stakeholder context and such a tight timetable. However, you have heard me speak already about our ongoing constructive engagement with officers across many departments at the London Borough of Newham – and this continues. • One sub-risk has decreased in score – the risk that:

o City Hall vacant possession works are more extensive than anticipated – as discussions with our current landlord progress this risk is decreasing

• One sub-risk has increased in score – the risk that:

o Security works take longer than expected to implement – this increase is due to the outcome of some recent surveys but we are confident this score will drop down again relatively soon.

As ever, I would be very happy to answer any questions that might arise from this update.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Harpley Chief Officer Greater London Authority

Page 103

Direct telephone: 020 7983 4959 Email: [email protected] Date of review Feb-21

Inherent risk assessment Deadline Action Residual risk assessment Overarching risk Sub-risk Risk owner Overarching control measures Sub-risk control measure Prob. Impact Overall /Completed owner Prob. Impact Overall

Costs exceed budgets Tender returns in excess of budget. Alun Jones 2 4 1. Robust costings assessment including QS 1. Detailed specification included in Mar-21 Alun estimation of works. 2. Ongoing monitoring of costs procurement. 2. Specification is value Jones 8 and budget. 3. Close scrutiny and challenge of fit out engineered to ensure it is close to budget. 2 4 8 proposals to ensure works balance quality and cost Additional spend required for temporary Simon Grinter 3 3 considerations.4 Fixed price terms to be requested 1. Alternative options assessed for Mar-21 Simon venue for the Chamber and Committee from Contractors. accommodation to ensure competitive Grinter Rooms. 9 pricing. 2 3 6

Unforeseen costs for Crystal works. Alun Jones 3 3 1. Upfront de-risking works to reduce Ongoing Alun likelihood of further costs emerging. 2. Jones 9 Quantity Surveyor appointed to ensure more 2 3 6 accuracy in works pricing. City Hall vacant possession works costs Alun Jones 2 3 1. Detailed assessment of vacant possession Jun-21 Alun higher than budgeted. 6 works undertaken by building surveyors. Jones 2 3 6

Works to The Crystal not Further waves of Covid-19 delay Alun Jones 3 4 1. Robust and detailed project programme developed 1. Ensure contractors put in place appropriate Ongoing Alun completed in time for programme, particularly during and reviewed on a weekly basis. 2. Proposals in place social distancing working arrangements. 2. Jones occupation. construction phase, or prevent to ensure critical functions of the GLA can be Prepare contingency solutions for any occupation of the Crystal. accommodated elsewhere or remotely. 3. Appropriate timing/supply chain difficulties. 3. 12 weighting attached to programme during contractor Contractors proposals to comply with Covid 2 3 6 procurement. restrictions and employees welfare on site to be assessed.

Use of ExCeL as a mass vaccination Steve Sheasby 2 4 1. Close engagement with LBN on timescales Ongoing Steve centre delays highway works. to assess risk and determine whether works Sheasby can take place in any case. 2. Explore mitigation measures of highways works taking 8 place post-occupation. 3. Preparation of high 2 4 8 level scheme of works to confirm not required. Page 104 Page

Planning conditions are not discharged in Steve Sheasby 3 4 1. Ongoing engagement with LBN during Mar-21 Steve time, preventing commencement of preparation of materials to discharge Sheasby works or occupation. conditions. 2. Close management of condition 12 discharge. 3. Enter into agreement with LBN 2 4 8 to timescales to discharge conditions.

Delay in securing necessary consents for Alun Jones 3 4 1. Engagement with LBN on securing permits Jul-21 Alun some works. to undertake surveys. 2. Close engagement Jones 12 with LBN on agreeing technical design. 3. 2 4 8 Close management of consultants.

Contractor not appointed. Alun Jones 2 4 1. Contingency plan in place in the event of Mar-21 Alun an unsuccessful appointment of contractor. 2. Jones Flexible approach to be adopted regarding 8 the terms and conditions of the appointment. 1 4 4 3. Further discussions around

Additional unforeseen works are Alun Jones 4 3 1. Early scoping of works. 2. Sufficient de- Ongoing Alun required. risking through early technical work. 3. Jones Ongoing engagement with consultant team 12 including identification of risks. 4. Additional 2 3 6 contractors appointed to deliver works.

Complex stakeholder engagement during Steve Sheasby 3 3 1. Stakeholder engagement plan developed. Ongoing Steve delivery impacts timings. 9 2. Set up clear stakeholder engagement Sheasby 2 3 6 routes. Security works take longer than expected Alun Jones 3 3 1. Early submission of security works details Ongoing Alun to implement. 9 to discharge condition. 2. Formalise consents Jones 2 3 6 to install.

Vacant possession works at City City Hall vacant possession works are Alun Jones 2 4 1. Determine the works required as soon as possible 1. Detailed assessment of VP works is being N/A Alun Hall require a longer time to more extensive than anticipated. and commence the works in good time. 2. Aim to prepared. 2. Complete the works by the end Jones complete than anticipated. reach a financial settlement with the landlord to of November to provide contingency to 8 minimise the work required. handover. 3. Engagement with landlord to 1 4 4 confirm agreement on approach to VP works.

Further waves of Covid-19 delay City Hall Alun Jones 3 4 1. Ensure appropriate social distancing Ongoing Alun decant and/or vacant possession works. working arrangements are put in place. 2. Jones Prepare contingency solutions such as storage of staff equipment. 3. Ensure the tender 12 process evaluates the contractors Covid 2 4 8 mitigation measures and apply a high weighting to this element of the scoring. Appendix 4

Further Correspondence

Dear Mary,

Dear Mary,

Thank you for your letter of 11 March on the principal risks arising from City Hall moving to The Crystal. I am grateful for the care which goes into these detailed reports.

Could I ask that we revert to the updates being provided at the end of each calendar month? So the next update would be on or by 31 March and the one after that would be on or by 30 April.

More substantively, you may be aware that Secretariat officers have been seeking a statement of income and expenditure on GLA office accommodation for 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 from the Executive Director of Resources as part of their work in support of Members' scrutiny of the GLA:Mayor budget for 2021-22. It would be good to see that sooner rather than later and certainly before the 19 March meeting of the Budget and Performance Committee.

I am sure you will agree that it will enable us to develop a better understanding of these risk reports if it were clear what is the target date which you are working to for GLA staff to start moving into The Crystal? I recall that it has been made clear that the current City Hall has to be vacated by the end of the current calendar year but I am unaware of any communication as to the target date for GLA staff starting to move into The Crystal and would appreciate early sight of that to provide some context for these risk updates.

As ever, I would be grateful for a swift response.

Yours Len

Len Duvall AM Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee

Sent via email on 17 March 2021

Page 105

Dear Len

Here is the statement of income and expenditure on GLA office accommodation for 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 which you have asked for.

In terms of the target date we are working to for moving staff into The Crystal, I have also attached the 2021 calendar we shared with all staff in early January as some immediate context for the risk updates you have had so far. You will see from this that we are looking at a phased move out of City Hall into our expanded space at Union Street and into The Crystal.

I am more than happy to add some more detailed context on our target dates to my update for 31 March.

Mary

Mary Harpley

Chief Officer

Sent via email on 18 March 2021

Annex 1 – Budget Summary – GLA Office Accommodation Annex 2 – Relocation Calendar

Page 106 Annex 1 Budget Summary - GLA Office Accommodation Revised budget Budget Plan 20-21 21-22 22-23 £000 £000 £000 Expenditure Amenities 1,019 1,037 1,238 Facilities Management 12,602 10,400 4,336 Infrastructure 2,582 2,359 1,620 Staff costs 2,579 2,642 2,642 Support Services 241 241 241 City Hall Relocation 3,500 10,500 -

Income Rental and other sales income (1,783) (1,783) (1,300) Included for the first time in 21-22. GLAP recharge 0 (1,253) (1,253) Previously budgeted corporately

Net Cost 20,740 24,143 7,524

Page 107 Annex 2 Our year ahead: relocation and continuing transformation

January February March April May June Decant Royal Construction starts Clear-up of City Preparation of New address Docks team from at The Crystal Hall & Union St new Union for The Crystal The Crystal New guidance on complete Street space agreed Anchor points document Independent Principles of retention issued agreed review into hybrid working Conversation about agreed

Page 108 Page barriers to culture and values progression

July August September October November December City Hall phased Internal fit-out Phased strip-out We move into City Hall re- Hand back City de-cant starts at The Crystal of City Hall The Crystal instatement Hall to landlord First Union Street starts starts works anchor points Only Mayor's Office GLA Christmas operational All Crystal anchor and Assembly party at The points up and Policy changes to Secretariat Crystal! support hybrid anchored at City Hall running working agreed Agenda Item 8

Subject: Action Taken Under Delegated Authority

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out recent action taken under delegated authority.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the Committee notes the recent action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with Members of the EU Exit Working Group, namely to agree the Working Group’s letter to the Mayor on the key issues for London, as attached at Appendix 1.

2.2 That the Committee notes the recent action taken by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman, party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and any relevant committee Chair(s), namely:

(i) To authorise the Chief Officer, or the person they delegate authority to, to:

a. Engage an external recruitment agency to support the Assembly with the forthcoming London TravelWatch Board recruitment exercise, up to a maximum value of £20,000; and

b. Make necessary arrangements and associated decisions up to the final stage of recruitment, where shortlisted candidates will be interviewed and appointment decisions made, in liaison with the lead Members of the Transport Committee.

(ii) To agree letters to the GLA’s external and internal auditors, from the Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee and Audit Panel regarding the GLA Group Budget Setting Process for 2021-22.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 109 v1/2021

2.3 That the Committee notes the recent action taken by the Chair of the Education Panel under delegated authority, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, namely to agree the Panel’s letter to the Secretary of State for Education, The Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP, as an output to the Q&A on ‘Adult Education Budget’. The letter is attached as Appendix 2.

3. Background

3.1 At the GLA Oversight Committee meeting on 13 January 2021, it was resolved:

That authority be delegated to the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee, in consultation with Members of the EU Exit Working Group, to agree any outputs of the EU Exit Working Group, for the period up until the May 2021 GLA Elections.

3.2 The Chair of the Committee exercised the above delegation on the 6 March 2021 to agree the EU Exit Working Group’s letter to the Mayor on the key issues for London.

3.3 At its meeting on 17 December 2020 the Assembly resolved:

That, in relation to urgent matters only, a general delegation of authority in respect of the Assembly’s powers and functions (apart from those that cannot under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 be delegated) be given to the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee, in consultation with the Deputy Chairman of that Committee, party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and any relevant committee Chair(s), from 17 December 2020 to the May 2021 GLA elections.

3.4 The Chair of the Committee exercised the above delegation on the 26 March 2021 to agree letters to the GLA’s external and internal auditors, regarding the GLA Group Budget Setting Process for 2021-22, and on the 14 April 2021 to authorise the Chief Officer, or the person they delegate authority to, to:

 Engage an external recruitment agency to support the Assembly with the forthcoming London TravelWatch Board recruitment exercise, up to a maximum value of £20,000; and

 Make necessary arrangements and associated decisions up to the final stage of recruitment, where shortlisted candidates will be interviewed and appointment decisions made, in liaison with the lead Members of the Transport Committee.

3.5 At the London Assembly Education Panel meeting on 10 March 2021, it was resolved:

That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output from the discussion.

3.6 The Chair of the Education Panel exercised the above delegation on the 17 March 2021 to agree a letter to the Secretary of State for Education, The Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP as an output to the Q&A on ‘Adult Education Budget’.

4. Issues for Consideration

4.1 Following consultation with Members of the EU Exit Working Group, the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee approved the letter to the Mayor on the key issues for London. The letter is attached at Appendix 1.

Page 110

4.2 Following consultation with the Deputy Chairman, party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and the Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee and Audit Panel, the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee approved the letters to the GLA’s external and internal auditors, regarding the GLA Group Budget Setting Process for 2021-22.

4.3 Following consultation with the Deputy Chairman, party Group Leaders, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM and the Chair of the Transport Committee, the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee authorised the Chief Officer to recruit to the London TravelWatch Board.

4.4 Following consultation with party Group Lead Members, the Chair of the Education Panel agreed the letter to the Secretary of State for Education, The Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP as an output to the Q&A on ‘Adult Education Budget’. The letter is attached at Appendix 2.

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no direct financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Letter to the Mayor, dated 6 March 2021

Appendix 2 – Letter to the the Secretary of State for Education, dated 17 March 2021

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

Member Delegated Authority Forms:

1278 [EU Exit Working Group – Letter to the Mayor on Key Issues for London]

1287 [London TravelWatch - Board Recruitment]

1289 [GLA Group Budget Setting Process for 2021-22] – Part 1 Form Only

1283 [Education Panel - Skills for Jobs White Paper]

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Davena Toyinbo, Principal Committee Manager Telephone: 020 8039 1285 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112 Appendix 1 City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk

Len Duvall OBE AM Chair of the EU Exit Working Group

Sadiq Khan Mayor of London (Sent by email) 6 March 2021

Dear Sadiq,

Key issues for London following the final meeting of the EU Exit Working Group On 26 January 2021, the London Assembly EU Exit Working Group met for the final time to discuss the Brexit deal and its effect on London. The Working Group heard from a number of experts across a range of sectors. Many of the experts we heard from were in agreement that a no-deal would have been the worst-case scenario for their sector and for London, and the avoidance of that outcome was without doubt positive. It was also clear that, for many of the sectors we heard about, it is currently quite difficult to separate out the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic from the emerging impact of the Brexit agreement. However, the Working Group did hear some key messages which we think it important for you to be aware of.

Musicians and touring artists Maddy Thimont-Jack, Associate Director at the Institute for Government, highlighted to the Working Group that the Free Trade Agreement does not include a standard mobility chapter for musicians and touring artists. The likely consequence of this is that touring in Europe for British musicians, and touring in Britain for Europe’s musicians, will become more costly and administratively burdensome. With live music accounting for around 20

Page 113 per cent of the £5.8 billion contributed to the UK’s economy by the music industry,1 and London’s cultural offer greatly enriched by the touring of international artists, the Working Group would like to see more action taken to address this key ongoing issue, given the particular importance of the live music sector for London.

Recommendation 1. The Mayor should lobby the Government to put in place arrangements that would allow musicians to continue to tour freely between the UK and Europe.

The health and care sector The Working Group heard from Martin Machray, NHS Incident Director and joint Chief Nurse, and Peter Boorman OBE, Head of Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response at NHS England. The primary area of concern relayed to the Working Group was the possible long-term impact of immigration rules on the workforce. Across NHS trusts there was a shortage of almost 100,000 staff (nine per cent of posts) in October 2019, impacting nurses, some doctors, allied professionals and care staff. Similarly, vacancies in adult social care were at 122,000 in October 2019, with around nine per cent of roles unfilled. International staff are key to the healthcare workforce; currently, 5.6 per cent of the NHS workforce and seven per cent of the adult social care sector come from the EU.2 The demand on the sector is likely only to grow. It is expected that there will be 14.5 million people aged over 65 by 2035, which is 44 per cent more than there were in 2017. To cope with that rise, the charity AgeUK estimates that around 650,000 extra care jobs will be needed.3 Mr Machray was confident that the new points-based immigration system and the EU Settled Status scheme meant that skilled positions within the NHS would not experience a loss of workers from the EU. This is corroborated by investigation from the fact checking organisation fullfact.org into the impact of the new visa system on healthcare workers; the conclusion of which is that, although the system is not static and the Government can adjust requirements for obtaining a work visa, as it currently stands, healthcare workers (including doctors, nurses and technicians) would qualify for a visa. Mr Machray did, however, raise concerns about ancillary staff and ‘unskilled’ jobs, with most care assistants, due to the average salary of such a role and level of qualification needed, likely not qualifying for a visa.4 It was noted that work was underway in human resource departments in the NHS in response to this issue.5 Recommendation 2. The Mayor should report back to the Working Group on how he is monitoring, in collaboration with partners on the London Health Board, the ongoing workforce implications of the new immigration rules, with particular regard to those health and care sector posts that are defined as ‘unskilled’.

Construction Graham Watts OBE, Chief Executive of the Construction Industry Council, explained to the Working Group that the relationship with Europe was particularly important to the construction industry in the UK, due to the supply

1 Brexit: UK government music touring proposals were ‘rejected by the EU’, BBC News, 30 December 2020 2 Brexit: the implications for health and social care, The King’s Fund, 31 October 2019 3 Brexit could worsen broken care system, Age UK, 4 November 2020 4 Most of these NHS jobs are classed as “skilled” under new immigration rules Fullfact.org 5 Appendix 3 National Health Service, Transcript, 26 January 2021

Page 114

of materials and labour. He highlighted that, even before the deal was reached on Christmas Eve, there were already serious supply chain issues facing the industry. He also told the Working Group that there were ‘gaps’ in the deal, but that “we do not know what the impact of those gaps are going to be yet.” Graham Watts spoke to the Working Group about the long-term impact on the workforce due to changes to the immigration rules. Around 37 per cent of London’s construction workforce comes from EU countries. The new points-based immigration system is likely to exclude roles such as general labourers. This could slow down planned construction in the capital, if there are not enough workers to complete projects. It could also raise the cost of construction, if the balance of workforce demand and supply is altered.6 Mr Watts stated that European nationals comprised a very large proportion of some specific jobs in the construction industry, such as dry lining. Mr Watts emphasised that the construction industry is made up of many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which may need to help in navigating and adapting to the changes in regulations.7 In particular, the sector will require assistance in understanding the rights and status of their European workforce ahead of 30 June, as we outlined to you in our letter of 17 February.8 Recommendation 3. The Mayor should work with industry leaders to ensure that London’s construction industry – and in particular its SMEs - are adequately informed of forthcoming changes to immigration rules.

Financial Services There has been concern about the impact of the deal on the financial sector, with the Prime Minister himself admitting that for financial services, the deal “…does not go as far as we would like”. 9 Much of this concern has focussed on the issue of equivalence; the means by which the EU determines whether the regulations in a third country, in this case the UK, can be deemed equivalent. The Working Group heard from Chris Bates, Head of Financial Regulation Practice at Clifford Chance, who stated that it would be important for the sector that the UK and EU continued discussions on equivalence. However, Mr Bates also suggested that while equivalence was important, it was also important to focus on what decisions the UK makes regarding the future of financial regulations. He explained that he thought it extremely unlikely for there to be a “bonfire of regulation” following the deal, and that for London’s financial services to continue to be a world leader it would be important for London to retain its strong regulations.10 He also echoed comments made by Catherine McGuinness, Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee at the City of London Corporation, that for the financial sector it will be vital for London to remain an attractive place to visit, to live and to do business. Recommendation 4. The Mayor to report to the London Assembly on how he is working with partners to ensure London remains an attractive place for people to visit, live and do business, and explain how elements of this are targeted specifically at ensuring the prosperity of the financial sector.

6 The Impact of Brexit on the Construction Industry - an overview, Lexology 7 Appendix 4 The Construction Industry, Transcript, 26 January 2021 8 EU Exit Working Group letter to the Mayor, 17 February 2021 9Boris admits Brexit deal is limited for financial services, Financial Times, 27 December 2020 10Appendix 6 Financial Services, Transcript, 26 January 2021

Page 115

I would be grateful to receive a response to our findings and recommendations by 17 March 2021. Please send your response by email to the Working Group’s clerk Lauren Harvey ([email protected]).

Yours,

Len Duvall OBE AM Chair of the EU Exit Working Group

Page 116

City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA Tel: 020 7983 4000 www.london.gov.uk

Appendix 2

Jennette Arnold OBE AM Chair of the Education Panel

Gavin Williamson Secretary of State for Education (Sent by email) 17 March 2021

Dear Secretary of State,

I am writing to you on behalf of the London Assembly Education Panel to share findings from our recent meeting, where we discussed the Adult Education Budget and future reforms to further education. On 10 March 2021, the Panel heard from expert witnesses about the challenges faced by further education providers due to COVID-19, and also focused on the future of adult education in London in the context of the reforms proposed to post-16 education by the Department for Education’s (DfE) Skills for Jobs White Paper. The Panel heard from: Andrew Gower (Principal, Morley College), Asfa Sohail (Principal, Lewisham College), Mary Vine-Morris (London Area Director and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges), Jules Pipe (Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills, GLA) and Michelle Cuomo-Boorer (Assistant Director - Skills & Employment, GLA). The Panel welcomes the White Paper, and the focus on further education that it brings from the Government. As Mary Vine-Morris (London Area Director and National Lead Employment, Association of Colleges) said, “we genuinely absolutely welcome the recognition of the role that colleges can play and that further education can play more generally in the world of the skills for jobs”. There are, however, five issues that the Panel would like to make you aware of, following our discussion.

Page 117

Investment The proposed reforms must be backed by sufficient investment. In previous investigations, the Panel has heard that further education funding has reduced significantly over previous years. An increase in investment is needed to ensure that sufficient learning opportunities are available and providers have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of learners who are otherwise at risk of being turned away.

Structures The Skills for Jobs White Paper proposes reforms to education structures that sit alongside the structures currently in place in London. The Panel is keen to emphasise that the proposed reforms must be complementary to the adult education responsibilities that have been devolved to London.

Digital learning In light of the pandemic, there has been a great deal of disruption across the education sector at all levels. For adult education providers, the pandemic has meant a reduced or different kind of offer of support for learners and the need to digitally upskill or re-skill themselves. COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of digital learning, with many providers having to scale up or repurpose their resources to deliver courses online. This also shone a light on digital exclusion and digital poverty amongst learners, an issue that was present before the crisis. The Panel heard that there could be a greater emphasis on digital learning for the future in the White Paper, especially given the challenge that moving courses online has posed for providers in the last year. Andrew Gower (Principal, Morley College) told us that “with digital matters being much more present for us in life and in work, all things digital will continue to be important. So, too, is some innovation funding or some sort of developmental support for colleges to somehow crystallise the developments that we have rapidly put in place”. Digital skills present great opportunities, not only for the learner but also for the economy as a whole and it is important that this is recognised in legislative reform.

Lifelong Loan Entitlement The Panel recognises that the White Paper proposes to implement the Lifelong Loan Entitlement from 2025, which would provide learners with the equivalent of four years’ worth of post-18 education to use over their lifetime. This funding would be available for modules at higher technical and degree levels regardless of whether courses are provided in colleges or universities. The Panel heard that it would be advantageous for learners if the Lifelong Loan Entitlement was brought in earlier than 2025, as providers are currently experiencing a significantly reduced number of learners engaging in part-time higher education as the funding to support them is currently not available.

SEND learners ‘Putting employers at the heart of post-16 skills’ is embedded within the proposed reforms to further education. Learners with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) require continued support to acquire skills. The Panel recognises that DfE says it will ensure that people with SEND continue to gain direct work-related skills alongside maths and English to increase their employability. As the reforms include an increased focus on involving employers, the Panel believes there is a need to assist employers in supporting SEND learners, alongside the education reforms proposed in the White Paper. As Asfa Sohail (Principal, Lewisham College) told the Panel, “we would appreciate it if we could have some national initiative or local initiative where we can start to upskill employers”.

Page 118

I hope that you will take the issues we raise into account as the Government develops its proposals for reforming further education. If you would like to engage with the Panel further on these matters, please copy your response to the Panel’s Committee Assistant, Lamide Odanye, [email protected].

Yours sincerely,

Jennette Arnold OBE AM Chair of the Education Panel

Page 119

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 120 Agenda Item 9

Subject: Mayor’s Responses to EU Exit Working Group Outputs

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 The Committee is asked to note the responses received to EU Exit Working Group outputs.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee notes the responses from the Mayor to EU Exit Working Group letters, as attached at Appendices 1 and 2.

3. Background

3.1 The GLA Oversight Committee delegated authority to the Chair of the Committee to agree outputs of the EU Exit Working Group, in consultation with Members of the Working Group.

3.2 The EU Exit Working Group used its meeting on 26 January 2021 to hold discussions with invited guests on the key issues for London following the end of the transition period. Following that meeting, the Working Group sent two letters to the Mayor, which made a number of recommendations.

3.3 The first letter was sent on 17 February 2021 and focused on some issues facing EU citizens in London, the recommendations to the Mayor were as follows:

 The Working Group asking you to advocate for the Home Office to release their best estimates of how many EU citizens are left unregistered with the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) so that they can be helped by organisations such as those being supported by you.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 121 v1/2021

 The Working Group asks you to publish your best estimate of how many Londoners remain at risk of becoming and undocumented migrant on 1 July 2021, and provide the Working Group with details on how this estimate is driving your support and outreach work to assist as many people as possible between now and the deadline.

 The Working Group asks you to request that the Home Office provides clear guidelines as to what would be considered a ‘good reason’ for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline to apply for settled status and pre-settled status, and in particular seek clarity over how a late application due to lack of awareness would be processed and how that would need to be evidenced.

 The Working Group asks you to request that the Home Office investigates the number of people who applied for a permanent residence certificate, but have not subsequently applied to the EUSS, and consider what action might be taken to ensure they are fully aware of what the requirements are to remain in the UK post 30 June 2021.

 The Working Group asks you to tailor part of your communication strategy to ensure that it specifically targets people who may have obtained permanent residence documentation and are not aware that they must still apply for EUSS.

3.4 The Working Group’s letter can be found on the GLA’s website here.

3.5 The second letter was sent on 6 March 2021 and made the following recommendations to the Mayor on the key issues for London following the UK’s exit from the EU:

 The Mayor should lobby the Government to put in place arrangements that would allow musicians to continue to tour freely between the UK and Europe.

 The Mayor should report back to the Working Group on how he is monitoring, in collaboration with partners on the London Health Board, the ongoing workforce implications of the new immigration rules, with particular regard to those health and care sector posts that are defined as ‘unskilled’.

 The Mayor should work with industry leaders to ensure that London’s construction industry – and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises – are adequately informed of forthcoming changes to immigration rules.

 The Mayor should report to the London Assembly on how he is working with partners to ensure London remains an attractive place for people to visit, live and do business, and explain how elements of this are targeted specifically at ensuring the prosperity of the financial sector.

3.6 The Working Group’s letter can be found on the GLA’s website here.

4. Issues for Consideration

4.1 The Mayor wrote to the Chair responding to the recommendations on 19 and 20 March 2021. The letters are attached at Appendices 1 and 2.

4.2 The Committee is asked to note the responses received.

Page 122

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Response from the Mayor, dated 20 March 2021

Appendix 2 – Response from the Mayor, dated 19 March 2021

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Senior Committee Officer

Telephone: 020 7983 4383

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 124 Appendix 1

Len Duvall OBE AM Our ref: MGLA170221-6033 Chair of the EU Exit Working Group C/o [email protected] Date: 20 March 2021

Dear Len,

Thank you for your letter of 16 February and for bringing these issues to my attention. Brexit is by far the most significant change in rights and immigration status for a generation and has caused a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty for the community of European citizens who have made London their home. With this in mind, I have provided in the attached annex an initial response to the Working Group’s findings.

Thank you again for raising these important issues and for your vital ongoing work as Chair of the EU Exit Working Group. The insight and constructive suggestions provided by the Working Group will continue to play an important role in informing my asks to the Government and the work of my teams as they support European Londoners to understand and secure their rights.

Yours sincerely,

Sadiq Khan Mayor of London

Annex.

Att. EU Settlement Scheme Statistics, Quarterly statistics, December 2020

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 125

Mayor of London’s response to the recommendations of the London Assembly’s EU Exit Working Group on the Brexit deal and its effect on European citizens living in London

Recommendation 1 The Mayor should advocate for the Home Office to release their best estimates of how many EU citizens are left unregistered with the EU Settlement Scheme so that they can be helped by organisations such as those being supported by the Mayor.

Greater London Authority (GLA) officials produce regular analysis of the data on Londoners who have already accessed the scheme and the outcomes, based on Home Office data – this is then shared with stakeholders who support European Londoners to support their work in targeting groups to access the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).

Recommendation 2 The Mayor should publish his best estimate of how many Londoners remain at risk of becoming an undocumented migrant on 1 July 2021, and provide the Working Group with details on how this estimate is driving his support and outreach work to assist as many people as possible between now and the deadline.

An estimate of how many Londoners remain at risk of becoming an undocumented migrant on 1 July 2021 would come from comparing the number of successful applications to the EUSS for each nationality, against their respective population estimates for London. There are no reliable official estimates of population by nationality, and the number of applications to the EUSS in London is already higher than the available ONS estimate of the EU population. If the estimates were comparable, this would imply that all EU citizens have applied, and no one is at risk of becoming undocumented. However, the Mayor’s teams know this is incorrect through qualitative evidence from stakeholders and local authorities, and they are concerned that an over-reliance on this limited data could lead to a relaxation of efforts targeted at helping people to apply. This would be especially detrimental to European Londoners that are still to apply to the scheme, including some of the most vulnerable.

The Mayor is particularly concerned about the number of children who are still to apply. The Mayor has recently funded a programme that supports local authorities to work with children’s immigration experts to identify and support children and young people in care, as well as care leavers, who have yet to apply to the EUSS. The GLA website is also being updated by immigration experts with resources providing information and guidance about citizenship and settlement options for children and young people. Last year, the Mayor also contributed over £300,000 towards the establishment of Justice Together, which is a funder collaboration aimed at making the immigration system more accessible and providing lasting long-term outcomes for migrant Londoners.

Recommendation 3 The Mayor should request that the Home Office provides clear guidelines as to what would be considered a ‘good reason’ for missing 30 June 2021 deadline to apply for settled status and pre-settled status, and in particular seek clarity over how a late application due to lack of awareness would be processed and how that would need to be evidenced.

The Mayor shares your concern regarding late applications and what constitutes ‘good reason’. As you are aware, the Home Office has confirmed in writing1 that someone who makes a late

1 http://www.t3m.org.uk/HO_letter_StuartMcDonald_Dec20

Page 126

application (i.e. after 30 June 2021) will not have lawful status in the UK between 1 July 2021 and the date of submission of application, even if their status is eventually granted.

The Home Office has also put in writing that ‘this means, for example, they will not be able to evidence their right to work or rent if they seek new employment or a new tenancy agreement in the private rented sector during the period in which they have no lawful status. They will also not be entitled to benefits and services while they do not have lawful status’.

The Mayor’s team continues to call on the Home Office to provide more clarity on what constitutes ‘good reason’ but given the fast-approaching deadline and the ongoing restrictions due to lack of capacity and COVID-19, the Mayor agrees with organisations who work on these issues on the ground that the 30 June 2021 deadline should be lifted.

Recommendation 4 The Mayor should request that the Home Office investigates the number of people who applied for a permanent residence certificate, but have not subsequently applied to the EUSS, and consider what action might be taken to ensure they are fully aware of what the requirements are to remain in the UK post 30 June 2021.

The Mayor will ensure that his team raises this issue with Home Office officials and request that they capture data on people who applied for a permanent residence card but have not subsequently applied to the EUSS.

Recommendation 5 The Mayor should tailor part of his communication strategy to ensure that it specifically targets people who may have obtained permanent residence documentation and are not aware that they must still apply for EUSS.

The European Londoners Hub currently hosts guidance on permanent residence cards and the importance of applying to the EUSS by the deadline. Recently, the Mayor’s team also added specific guidance for older Europeans.

The Mayor’s team are aiming to reach 345,000 European Londoners, driving them to the Hub for further support and guidance in the run-up to the June application deadline. To ensure no-one is left behind, their communications will be translated and targeted at those with low English literacy.

Recommendation 6 The Mayor should create a communications plan to ensure that local authorities, landlords and employers understand the rights conferred by pre-settled status.

We are facing the terrifying prospect of 1.6 million people currently holding temporary pre-settled status, of which over 600,000 live in London, ending up undocumented unless they re-apply for settled status in the next five years. Recent research with vulnerable communities in London by New Europeans UK shows that 73% of respondents said they had no idea about how or when to re-apply2.

There are currently no plans or provisions put in place by the Government to support Londoners with pre-settled status. However, the Mayor’s campaign will aim to reach those affected by the temporary status, improving their understanding of the applications process and highlighting the importance of converting their pre-settled status into settled status.

2 https://neweuropeans.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NEUK-Digital-Status-Report-LARGE.pdf

Page 127

At the moment, the Mayor’s team is working with Brexit leads in London boroughs encouraging their staff to access training on EU citizens’ eligibility to public services in the light of current unclarity and confusion.

The Mayor’s London Business Hub team are also working with small business owners to help them support their staff. This includes online guides, webinars, social media campaigns and free one-to-one support from a panel of Brexit experts. Please do promote this offer to any business owners you may be speaking to.

The Mayor has been clear from the start that the Government needs to do more to ensure the rights of European citizens in the UK. He will continue to lead by example and do what is in his power to mitigate against this series of cliff edges for people with pre-settled status over the next five years.

Page 128

EU Settlement Scheme statistics Quarterly statistics, December 2020 25 February 2021

Page 129

The Home Office today published the latest quarterly information on applications received and cases concluded to the EU Settlement Scheme for local authorities and regions up to 31 December 2020. On 11 February, they released monthly numbers for the UK up to January 2021. This note highlights the key trends from both releases.

The EU Settlement Scheme is a digital system that enables UK residents who are EU, EEA and Swiss citizens and their families to obtain settled or pre-settled status to continue living in the UK after June 2021. The Scheme formally launched in March 2019, though applications began to be accepted from August 2018. Please note that these are experimental statistics. Summary of key points

• Total applications were 5.06 million for the UK to January 2021, 179,500 more than the total to December. Total applications concluded to January were 4.68 million, 189,600 more than the total reported to December. The sharp spike we saw in applications in the UK in December 2020 did not continue into January 2021, with applications dropping back by more than half – although, they were still at a higher level than last summer (70- 100k). • Total London applications up to December were 1.72 million with 279,700 applications made in the December 2020 quarter. The last quarter saw the highest number of quarterly applications in 2020, but numbers were lower than the 300,000 plus applications being made each quarter in the early stages of the scheme. • Total London applications concluded so far were 1.59 million. 210,000 were concluded in the December 2020 quarter. • There were 130,000 outstanding applications in London in December, this number had more than doubled (up 69,700) since September 2020 when they were 60,300. This pattern was also reflected in outstanding applications in the rest of the UK. • Of all London applications concluded in the scheme so far, 52% were granted settled status and 45% pre-settled. 43,700 or 2.8% had other outcomes. • For the second quarter running, concluded applications were more likely to receive a pre- settled outcome than a settled outcome in December 2020: Pre-settled were 111,600 (53%) and settled were 86,400 (41%). • Top nationalities of London applicants up to December were Romanians (290,200), Italians (219,700), Polish (173,500), Portuguese (144,400) and Spanish (139,800). • Paper applications concluded under the Chen, Ibrahim & Teixeira and Zambrano routes and as a family member of a British Citizen total 9,400 up to December 2020 in the UK. 65% of Zambrano applications concluded so far have been refused. Of derivative rights applications made so far, 68% have been concluded. This is a much lower proportion that the average for the scheme in the UK (92%).

Additions to this quarterly briefing

In this briefing we also consider comparisons of the EU Settlement scheme with the ONS Annual Population Survey (APS) estimates of population in answering the question ‘how many people are left to apply for the scheme?’. Please refer to the Appendix on the complexity of answering this question.

Page 130

Changes to the data from the June 2020 quarterly publication onwards

Figures for the December 2020 quarter include any paper applications made to the scheme so far. Paper applications were incorporated into the series in June 2020. Paper applications made include those made based on a derivative right to reside in the UK. This follows the integration of data derived from two separate case-working systems used to process electronic and paper applications into a single reporting set of data.

Prior to the June 2020 publication, some applications were given a withdrawn or void outcome when they were transferred onto a different system, irrespective of their true outcome. With the integration of the two systems for this publication, this subset of withdrawn or void outcomes have been changed to reflect true outcome, reducing withdrawn or void applications by 7,000 and increasing the other types of outcome (settled, pre-settled, refused etc.).

Monthly Figures for the UK up to August 2018 to January 2021 (as at 11th February)

Total applications were 5.06 million for the UK, 179,500 more than the total to December. Total applications concluded to January were 4.68 million, 189,600 more than the total reported to December. The sharp spike we saw in applications in December did not continue into January, with applications dropping back by more than half – although, they are still at a higher level than last summer (70-100k).

Conclusions were higher than applications this month suggesting that some of the backlog from last month had started to be processed: applications outstanding at the end of January decreased slightly to 382,400.

Of concluded applications to the scheme so far, 53% were granted settled status and 44% pre- settled. 140,900 or 3.0% had other outcomes. The pattern of outcomes in January was similar to recent months: there were more pre-settled (103,300, 54%), than settled outcomes (75,500, 40%).

Other outcomes in January were similar to last month (10,700) comprising: refusals 5,200 (3%), withdrawn or void 4,000 (2%), and invalid 1,500 (<1%).

In the quarterly publication, more detail is published on which nationalities are most likely to receive each of the concluded application outcome types in the UK. These figures are shown in the section below to December 2020.

Page 131

Outcome type by nationality, Quarterly UK-only figures from August 2018 to December 2020

Figures showing the application outcome type (settled, pre-settled, and ‘other’ comprising refusals withdrawn or void, invalid) by the nationality of the applicant are only published for the UK.

The table below shows the nationalities with the largest number of concluded applications so far. It follows that, these nationalities also often have the largest number of settled, pre-settled and other outcomes. (See figure 1.)

Figure 1: Number of concluded outcomes by nationality, ordered by size, UK to Dec 2020

Total Settled Pre-settled Other 1 Poland 854,600 1 Poland 669,000 1 Romania 475,300 1 Romania 30,600 2 Romania 760,900 2 Romania 255,000 2 Italy 249,200 2 Poland 19,100 3 Italy 441,300 3 Portugal 190,500 3 Poland 166,600 3 Non-EEA 16,000 4 Portugal 331,200 4 Italy 183,900 4 Non-EEA 155,600 4 Portugal 10,000 5 Spain 277,200 5 Lithuania 164,400 5 Spain 149,500 5 Bulgaria 8,300

If we look at settled, pre-settled and other outcomes as a proportion of all concluded applications from a nationality, we can see different patterns. (See figure 2.)

Polish nationals had the highest proportion of settled outcomes (78% of all Polish applications) followed by Lithuanian (76%), Latvia (75%), Slovakia (72%), Estonia (72%).

Pre-settled outcomes are most likely to be received by Croatian nationals (74% of all Croatian applications), followed by Greece (62%), Romania (62%), Non-EEA Nationals (62%), Bulgaria (60%).

Other outcomes are most common for the Non-EEA nationals group (6% of all applications), Slovakia (5%), Ireland (4%), Czech Republic (4%), Bulgaria (4%).

Page 132

Figure 2: Proportion of total conclusions by applicant's nationality and outcome type in the UK to December 2020

Settled Pre-Settled 100% 80% 74% 78% 76% 75% 80% 72% 72% 70% 62% 62% 62% 60% 60% 60% 50% 40% 40% 669,000 164,400 85,700 65,700 8,600 30% 7,400 63,900 475,300 155,600 142,800 20% 20% 10% 0% 0% Poland Lithuania Latvia Slovakia Estonia Croatia Greece Romania Total Bulgaria Non-EEA

Other: Refused, Withdrawn or Void, or Invalid Outcomes 7.0% 6% 6.0% 5% 5.0% 4% 4% 4% 4.0% 16,000 3.0% 4,600 360 2,200 30,600 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Total Non- Slovakia Ireland Czech Romania EEA Republic

Source: EU Settlement Scheme statistics, Home Office Note: The EU Settlement Scheme allows resident EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens, and their family members (who could be Non-EEA nationals), to apply for UK immigration status. Non-EEA nationalities are presented here as a group of nationalities as we do not have any more granular detail about the nationality of these applicants.

Derivate rights to reside paper applications, Quarterly UK-only figures from August 2018 to December 2020

Paper applications concluded under the Chen, Ibrahim & Teixeira and Zambrano routes and as a family member of a British Citizen total 9,400 up to December 2020, mostly Family members (4,400), and Zambrano (3,700).

Almost all Family members and Ibrahim & Teixeira applications concluded have settled or pre- settled outcomes but nearly two-thirds (65%) of Zambrano applications concluded so far have been refused. Page 133

Applications under derivative rights account for 1.5% (1,900) of all other outcomes (comprising refusals withdrawn or void, invalid), and 86% of these (1,700) were refusals under the Zambrano route. Zambrano refusals accounted for 5% of all refusals made to the scheme so far, but Zambrano only account for 0.07% applications.

Of derivative rights applications made so far, 68% have been concluded. This is a much lower proportion than the average for the scheme in the UK (92%). Applications under the Ibrahim & Teixeira route are the least likely to have been concluded at 16% of all applications. (See figure 3.)

Figure 3: Paper applications and concluded paper applications by route to Dec 2020

Chen Family Ibrahim Zambrano All UK member of &Teixeira Derivative a British Rights citizen Applications 1,100 4,400 250 3,400 9,400 4.92 million received Applications 250 3,500 40 2,500 6,300 4.51 million concluded % concluded 24% 80% 16% 69% 68% 92% % settled 40% 35% 50% 20% 29% 54% % pre-settled 44% 61% 50% 13% 41% 43% % other 20% 5% 0% 67% 30% 3%

Figures for London August 2018 to December 2020

Total London applications up to December were 1.72 million with 279,700 applications made in the December 2020 quarter. The last quarter saw the highest number of applications in 2020, but numbers were lower than the 300,000 plus applications being made each quarter in the early stages of the scheme.

London boroughs with the highest number of applications were Newham (117,400), Brent (109,000) and Ealing (90,400). Newham was also the local authority with the highest number of applications to the scheme in the UK.

Top nationalities of applicants up to December were Romanians (290,200), Italians (219,700), Polish (173,500), Portuguese (144,400) and Spanish (139,800).

Total London applications concluded so far were 1.59 million. 210,000 were concluded in the December 2020 quarter. There were 130,000 outstanding applications in London. The number of outstanding applications had more than doubled since September 2020 in London and the Rest of the UK: London increased by 116% (69,700) from 60,300 in Sept 2020, and Rest of the UK increased by 116% (250,200) from 134,300 in September 2020. The number of outstanding applications had slowly been decreasing up to end of September 2020. (See figure 4.)

Page 134

Figure 4: Total Number of outstanding applications at end of each quarter to December 2020 300

250 250 216 195

200 209 Thousands 166 150 118 107 116 108 130 100 87 60 50

- to Sept 2019 to Dec 2019 to Mar 2020 to Jun 2020 to Sept 2020 to Dec 2020

London Rest of UK

Of all London applications concluded in the scheme so far, 52% were granted settled status and 45% pre-settled. 43,700 or 2.8% had other outcomes. For the second quarter running, concluded applications were more likely to receive a pre-settled outcome than a settled outcome: Pre-settled were 111,600 (53%) and settled were 86,400 (41%). Other outcomes were 12,300, accounting for 6% of concluded applications in the December quarter.

Overall, London applicants have been more likely to receive pre-settled outcomes and less likely to receive settled outcomes than the rest of the UK: Pre-settled in London were 45% compared to 42% in the Rest of the UK; settled in London were 52% compared to 55% in the rest of the UK. Other outcomes were in line for London (2.8%) and the rest of the UK (2.9%).

Figure 2: Concluded applications by outcome type London compared to the rest of the UK to Dec 2020 60% 55% 52% 50% 45% 42% 40%

30%

20%

10% 3% 3% 0% Settled Pre-settled Other London Rest of the UK

Source: EU Settlement Scheme statistics. Note: Other outcomes include refused, withdrawn or void, and invalid applications.

Page 135

Figures by age of applicant August 2018 to December 2020

For London 1.47 million applicants (86%) were aged between 18 and 64, 210,100 (12%) were aged under 18 and 38,200 (2%) were aged 65 or older. The last quarter saw the highest number of applications from under 18s in London (39,400) since quarterly data began. Applications from over 65s were 6,100 (2%) and 18-64 were 234,200 (84%) in the December quarter.

Applications from 18-64 year olds account for over 80% of applications in all London Boroughs. Applications from under 18s made up the largest share of applications in Barking and Dagenham (18% of applications) and the smallest share in Islington and City of London (5% of applications in both). The following London Boroughs have less than 10% of applications from under 18s: City of London (5%), Islington (5%), Westminster (7%), Southwark (8%), Hackney (8%), Camden (8%),Hammersmith and Fulham (8%), Tower Hamlets (8%), Lambeth (9%), Wandsworth (10%). (See figure 5.)

Kensington and Chelsea had the largest share of applications from over 65s (4.8%). The boroughs with the lowest number of applications from over 65s were City of London (40), Bexley (440), Havering (550) and Tower Hamlets (580).

Figure 3: London Boroughs with under 10% of applications from under 18s to Dec 2020

12% 7000 9.8% 10% 9% 6000 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 5000 8% 7% 4000 6% 5% 5% 5,960 5,860 5,750 3000 4% 4,560 2000 3,720 3,720 3,380 3,510 2% 2,000 1000 120 0% 0

Source: EU Settlement Scheme statistics.

Page 136

Appendix: Comparisons of the EU Settlement statistics and the Annual Population Survey Questions around the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) statistics are often aimed at trying to understand how many people have not yet applied. However, we must be very cautious about attempting to compare the EU Settlement scheme statistics with ONS population statistics such as the Annual Population Survey (APS) country of birth and nationality data. This is because there are fundamental differences between the two sets of figures: EUSS counts applications made, while the APS is a survey of most residents. Not all EU, EEA and Swiss citizens eligible to apply for EUSS will choose to do so; some eligible citizens may apply more than once, if, for example, there is a problem with their first application, or they are converting from pre-settled to settled status; Conversely, some who do apply may be excluded from the population estimates, such as those not living at private addresses.

In addition to this, there is an issue of timing: the population estimates are based on the sample surveyed over a period - currently the year to June 2020, whereas the EUSS statistics are a cumulative of everyone who has ever applied. This will therefore include people who receive settled or pre-settled status and then decide to leave the country, so would not be part of the resident population.

In earlier publications of the EU Settlement scheme statistics comparisons with the Annual Population Survey (APS) country of birth and nationality data indicated which nationalities had the expected largest number of people left to apply to the scheme. More recent comparisons of EU Settlement scheme data up to December 2020 with the APS for January-December 2019 (the last version before surveying methods were impacted by the coronavirus pandemic) suggested that, in London, the number EUSS applications for all nationalities were larger than their respective population estimates. As you can see in Table 1 below, EUSS applications are at over 100% of the population. This is true of all nationalities apart from Switzerland1.

Table 1: EUSS applications compared to their respective population estimates from a sample of nationalities

EUSS Applications to APS Population Under (-) or Over December 2020 December 2019 applied (+) Proportion applied

France 105,700 101,000 +4,700 105% Poland 173,500 142,000 +31,500 122% Lithuania 63,800 43,000 +20,800 148% Germany 53,800 51,000 +2,830 106% Netherlands 43,900 25,000 +18,900 176% Sweden 33,200 22,000 +11,200 151% 1 APS population estimates below 20,000 are subject to large confidence intervals which can make them unreliable

We believe there are two opposite explanations for the proportion of people applying being over 100%, which relate back to the fundamental differences between the two datasets mentioned earlier. First, it could suggest the EUSS statistics are counting people that have applied and then left the country, and the population estimates are working correctly and not picking those people up. On the other hand, it could be because recent immigrants have come to the UK and applied to the scheme, but they are not being picked up by the APS, as we know it does not pick up recent immigrants very well.

We could look at figures of over 100% positively. But we know colloquially that there are people who still haven’t applied, and they aren’t identifiable through this data. Page 137

COPYRIGHT

Greater London Authority February 2021

Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4000 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN Photographs © Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk

Page 138

Appendix 2

Len Duvall AM Our ref: MGLA080321 -7651 Chair of EU Exit Working Group C/o [email protected] Date: 19 March 2021

Dear Len,

Thank you for your letter of 6 March sharing conclusions from the London Assembly EU Exit Working Group’s final meeting on the impact of the Brexit withdrawal and trade agreement.

Whilst we do have a trade deal, there is no doubt that it falls short of what is best for London and key sectors of the economy, most significantly financial and professional services.

An independent study I commissioned from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) estimates a potential loss of £9.5bn GDP per year to London’s economy from the Brexit withdrawal agreement and trade deal. London’s financial and professional services sector alone is set to account for more than £2bn of this loss.

We are doing everything we can, from City Hall, to help Londoners and businesses adapt to this new reality and will continue to reassure EU Londoners that they will always be valued and welcome in our city.

Despite what will no doubt be an extremely challenging period ahead, I am optimistic that London will remain the business capital of Europe. I will continue working for the UK and EU to have a closer relationship in the future.

Musicians and touring artists

On 3 February, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Rt Hon Oliver Dowden CBE MP, about the UK Government’s failure to come to a deal with the EU. In the letter, I confirmed my support of industry and cross-party calls for the UK and the EU to come back to the negotiating table with immediate effect to ensure a deal is done.

Without an agreement on smooth travel, international touring will be prohibitive, expensive and will result in fewer cultural exchanges and tours between the UK and EU. This would be devastating for the UK’s music industry and for talent development. In the meantime, my London Business Hub has provided a podcast with advice for music industry businesses affected by this issue.

Health and care sector

As highlighted by the experts during the London Assembly’s recent evidence session, some roles in the health and care sector will be completely excluded by the new points-based immigration system because they do not require qualifications higher than RQF3 (A Level equivalent). It is particularly concerning that Care and Personal Services roles would be affected, given London’s social care sector has one of the highest vacancy rates in England.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 139 As you will be aware, unfortunately, I do not have powers over the health and care system – including workforce issues. The London Health Board (LHB) provides oversight of the London Health and Care Vision. At the LHB in February, Sir David Sloman expressed the critical importance of workforce to deliver London’s Vision as we respond to COVID-19 and start to build back better and fairer. In addition to the LHB I will continue to champion and challenge the NHS through my six tests. The latest analysis of the Integrated Care Systems in London, which I commissioned from The King’s Fund, has highlighted workforce as a major challenge for London. I have asked that the board considers the King’s Fund report in more detail at its next meeting. I will also continue to raise workforce issues with Sir David at our regular meetings.

Construction

The London Business Hub has been updated with guidance and resources to support London based businesses to implement the changes required to continue to do business with the rest of the European Union. This includes specific guides on the construction sector and employing EU nationals. Businesses can also speak one to one with an expert advisor. We are promoting these resources extensively through a paid for media campaign and have also commissioned a series of podcasts that talk to business all over London, finding out about them and the challenges they face because of Brexit.

Financial services

The future of our capital city as a global financial centre is vital to our country’s economy. I have been clear that I will continue to champion the importance of the sector and through London & Partners, I am promoting London to ensure we continue to be the most competitive, attractive and innovative city in the world for business. Going forward, I will also be working with stakeholders on the recommendations made by the Kalifa Review of UK Fintech, in order to maintain and grow London’s global fintech reputation.

In February, I hosted a discussion with senior leaders from the financial and professional services industry to understand their concerns regarding the impact of the new UK-EU trade deal on their relationship with Europe. Following that, I wrote to the Chancellor urging the Government to work urgently to close major gaps in the deal on issues such as financial services equivalence, recognition of professional qualifications and business travel.

Thank you again for writing to me about the EU Exit Working Group’s recent work, and for the valuable work that you and the Working Group have undertaken over the last few years, which has shone a light on the significant problems caused by Brexit for London and Londoners.

Yours sincerely,

Sadiq Khan Mayor of London

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2AA ♦ [email protected] ♦ london.gov.uk ♦ 020 7983 4000 Page 140 Agenda Item 10

Subject: Allocation of 2021-22 Assembly Member Services Budget

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 The Committee is requested to consider and approve the overall proposed allocation of the relevant element of the Assembly’s budget for the 2021-22 year to the party Groups.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee agrees the proposed budget allocation, as set out in section 4 of this report, for the Assembly’s party Groups for the 2021-22 year.

3. Background

3.1 The overall 2021-22 budget for the London Assembly and its Secretariat Directorate was presented to the Assembly at its meeting on 25 February 2021 and was subsequently set in accordance with the arrangements set out in the GLA Act 1999 (as amended).

3.2 This Committee then agreed, at its meeting on 9 March 2021, the overall allocation of budgets for the teams within the Assembly’s Secretariat Directorate, subject to a review of the budget allocations to the party Groups following the 2021 GLA elections.

3.3 As a result of changes to the membership of the Assembly and its party Groups arising from the elections, a revised allocation is now proposed – as set out in the table overleaf.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 141 v1/2021

4. Proposed Assembly Member Services Budget 2021-22

2021-22 £’000 £’000 Member Services - total* 2,288 Labour 1,006.72 GLA Conservatives 823.68 Group 274.56 Liberal Democrat 183’04

*the detail of the proposed allocation for the party Groups is set out at Appendix 1.

5. Allocation of the Budget

5.1 In accordance with the revised budget arrangements under the GLA Act 1999 (as amended), the Assembly is responsible for the allocation of resources provided as part of the overall budget decision for 2021-22. In discharging this responsibility, the Committee could, if it so wished, change the proposed allocations between budget heads and could also decide not to allocate the entire budget, in which case any unallocated funds would be put into the Assembly reserves. (It is not, however, able to alter the overall budget figure.)

5.2 The proposed allocation is based on a proportional allocation of the Member Services budget, with the proposed budget for each Group reflecting their number of seats on the Assembly as a whole.

6. Legal Implications

6.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.

7. Financial Implications

7.1 The financial implications are set out in Section 4 of this report.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Member Services Budget

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Page 142

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Rebecca Arnold, Assistant Director of Committee & Member Services

Telephone: 020 7983 4421

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 143 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 144 Appendix 1 Member Services £2,288 Budget k

GROUP SUPPORT

Member Group Re- allocation allocation allocation of budget Total £ Group Members

Labour 11 4.0% 44.0% 1,006,720 Conservative 9 4.0% 36.0% 823,680 Green 3 4.0% 12.0% 274,560 Liberal Democrat 2 4.0% 8.0% 183,040

Page 145 Page TOTAL 25 100.0% 2,288,000 Methodology

It is proposed that the budget is allocated on a strictly proportional basis, with the allocation reflecting the relevant Group’s seats on the Assembly as a whole

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 146 Agenda Item 11

Subject: The Mayor’s Office – Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Chief Officer

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 Following the Mayoral election, this paper sets out proposals for changes to the Greater London Authority (GLA) Establishment relating to the Mayor’s Office directorate.

1.2 The Mayor has announced a number of changes to the remits of his Mayoral Appointees. This necessitates changes to a number of posts within the Mayor’s Office. Additionally, changes are also proposed that reflect Mayoral priorities, given the impact of Covid-19 on London, and in recognition of the Authority’s duty of care to its employees, given the significant workload pressures faced by the directorate.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee responds to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Mayor’s Office directorate.

3. Background

3.1 This has been an unprecedented time for our city. The Covid-19 pandemic has led to over 19,000 Londoners losing their lives, leaving behind thousands of grieving families. London’s economy and public finances have been shattered, with at least 300,000 Londoners estimated to have lost their jobs. The scale of the responsibility of the role of Mayor of London – to be the voice and champion for our city, help it to recover, and to support London’s communities – is on a level unseen since its creation.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 147 v1/2021

3.2 The pandemic is expected to create a huge impact on the finances of London Government. We have already seen the collapse of the 2015 fares-based Transport for London (TfL) funding model, and huge uncertainty about in particular business rates income. Given the state of Government finances, the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review is expected to be very challenging. As well as supporting the Mayor’s submissions and lobbying, the Mayor’s Office will have to lead the response to the outcome, including working ever more closely with London boroughs to identify and deliver further opportunities to help each other deliver savings while minimising the impact on frontline services and supporting London’s recovery.

3.3 We have also experienced in the past five years a series of incredibly difficult incidents in our city – including the Sandilands tram crash, the Grenfell Tower fire and five terror attacks. We have also seen Brexit and a national increase in violent crime. We cannot know what the future will hold but the Mayor’s Office must have capacity to respond to this, as well as supporting the Mayor in dealing with the consequences of recent events and the ongoing impact of Covid-19.

3.4 Taken together, this represents a significant and lasting increase in the work of the Mayor’s Office – responding to the needs of bereaved families, listening to impacted communities and sectors, engaging with stakeholders, developing and delivering new strategies and policies, lobbying the Government for legislative change and keeping Londoners informed in a round-the-clock media landscape in which many people no longer follow traditional media.

3.5 Therefore, these proposals seek to establish a Mayor’s Office that can efficiently deliver against these challenges, leading delivery of the Mayor’s manifesto in a term of office reduced to three years, whilst recognising our duty of care to employees.

3.6 The Mayor’s Office directorate is led by the Mayor’s Chief of Staff on behalf of the Mayor and the Chief Officer. Its role is to provide advice and support to the Mayor and his Mayoral Appointees, including through the coordination of the work of the GLA Group.

3.7 The current structure of the Mayor’s Office was established in 2016. Notable changes were introduced in 2017 and 2018 (additional support for Deputy Mayors), 2019 (the move of the Fire & Resilience team and Government Relations to the Strategy & Communications directorate) and in 2021 (the move of business support functions to the Chief Officer’s directorate, which went live at the start of May). The Committee was consulted in the usual manner ahead of these changes being agreed.

3.8 Following his re-election, the Mayor has made a number of changes to the roles and remits of his Mayoral Appointees (the “11+2”). These include:

 The introduction of a Deputy Chief of Staff post, taking a number of responsibilities previously assigned to the Chief of Staff and the Mayoral Director, Policy (the latter role having been deleted);

 The broadening of the post of the Mayoral Director, Communications, to include leadership of marketing, digital communications and strategic communications;

 The focussing of the post of Mayoral Director, Political and Public Affairs on stakeholder relations, including international stakeholders;

 The deletion of the post of Mayoral Director, External and International Affairs; and

 The introduction of the post of Mayoral Director, Operations.

Page 148

3.9 As part of these changes, a number of responsibilities previously within the job descriptions of Mayoral Directors no longer are and these need to be covered within Paid Service posts. Equally, some responsibilities within Paid Service posts have been assigned to Mayoral Directors and consequent changes need to be implemented.

3.10 In addition to addressing the above, further changes are proposed in this consultation to enable the Mayor’s Office to meet the requirements of the Mayor, including as he leads London’s recovery from Covid-19, and so that posts are deliverable in these new circumstances.

3.11 In late 2019, the GLA staff survey asked colleagues whether they could “meet the requirements of my job without regularly working excessive hours”. Just 35% of Mayor’s Office respondents said that this was the case, compared to an average of 55% across the organisation (other directorates ranging from 47% in the Chief Officer’s directorate as then constituted to 64% in Housing & Land).

3.12 The response to Covid-19 and ensuing focus on London’s recovery has generated significant additional work for the Mayor’s Office. Even with the engagement of a number of fixed-term posts as previously reported to the Committee, the pressures have and continue to be intense, requiring sustained work at a high level.

3.13 These fixed-term posts have or will soon come to an end. Recognising the ongoing impact of Covid- 19 and the need to provide leadership to London’s recovery, this consultation proposes appropriate changes to ensure that posts are sustainable and Mayoral business can be delivered.

3.14 The existing structure of the Mayor’s Office is provided at Appendix 1. To aid understanding of this structure, it includes the executive support posts deleted as of 30 April and fixed-term posts established in response to Covid-19 that have recently or will soon come to an end. Comparative numbers of roles given in this paper represent the current position (excluding the executive support and previous fixed-term posts), unless otherwise indicated.

3.15 Grades for all Paid Service posts are determined by an independent process involving HR and Unison (the GLA’s recognised trade union), scoring job descriptions using a methodology established by Hays. The current staff consultation invites feedback on draft job descriptions and independent scoring will take place after incorporating any changes arising from this consultation. Ahead of this process, the grades set out in this consultation are indicative based on HR’s advice on the draft job descriptions.

3.16 Where a material change to an existing post’s responsibilities has been proposed, they are presented in this report as deletions and creations of new posts in accordance with the Authority’s policies. For clarity, these are referred to below as ‘successor posts’. For completeness and context this report outlines all proposed changes to Mayoral Appointees posts and Head of Paid Service posts in the Mayor’s Office. However, it is important to note that consultation is only being undertaken for those posts which are Head of Paid Service appointees.

Page 149

4. Proposed Changes

4.1 It is proposed to structure the Mayor’s Office into five units:

 Deputy Mayors and lead advisors;

 Communications;

 Mayoral Operations;

 Policy and Delivery; and

 Political and Public Affairs.

4.2 This represents a change from the current units (Deputy Mayor Support, Mayor and Mayoral Appointees, Mayoral Support, Private Office and Correspondence), in order to give a clearer view on the purpose of each unit and leadership responsibility for it.

4.3 These proposals would increase capacity in the Mayor’s Office for delivery, recognising the vital importance of implementing key priorities at pace. They provide increased focus on relationships with central and local government. And they adopt a new streamlined structure for communications, reducing the resources allocated in this area.

4.4 The proposed structure for each unit, including new, updated and deleted posts is set out below. A chart showing the proposed structure, grades (subject to formal assessment) and reporting lines is provided at Appendix 2.

Deputy Mayors and Lead Advisors

4.5 It is proposed that this unit consists of the Deputy Mayors and the following lead advisors:

 Mayoral Head of Business and Economic Policy: a successor to the existing post of Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Business and Digital Policy to provide increased focus on economic policy, given the impact of Covid-19;

 Chief Digital Officer, who will take sole responsibility for digital policy; and

 Night Czar.

4.6 With eight Deputy Mayors appointed by the Mayor as part of the “11+2” (excluding the Statutory Deputy Mayor who is an Assembly Member and the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, who is employed by MOPAC), this unit is proposed to have a headcount of 11.0 FTE, compared to 11.5 FTE during 2020-21. The reduction reflects half the time of the current Head of Digital Communications and Data Innovation post being spent on digital systems and transformation, responsibilities which are proposed to now more properly sitting elsewhere in the organisation.

Page 150

Communications

4.7 The remit of the proposed Communications unit is to:

 Develop and lead on media, communications and marketing strategy to deliver the priorities and objectives of the Mayor and the GLA;

 Advise the Mayor on matters relating to media, communications and marketing, and act as the Mayor’s official spokesperson; and

 Provide direction to relevant GLA External Relations teams and co-ordinate the communications and marketing work of the GLA Group on behalf of the Mayor.

4.8 In the current structure, lead responsibility for communications was apportioned between the Mayoral Director, Communications (broadcast and press), the Mayoral Director, External and International Affairs (social media and marketing campaigns) and the Mayoral Director, Political and Public Affairs (strategic communications). The Mayor has decided to bring all these functions together under the Mayoral Director, Communications. This delivers one of the recommendations of Bloomberg Associates’ review of the GLA’s external relations capabilities.

4.9 The Paid Service posts proposed for this unit are as follows:

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Communications (News Media), a successor post to the existing Senior Adviser to the Mayoral Director, Communications post, to lead on the news media communications strategy and act as deputy official spokesperson for the Mayor;

 Adviser to the Mayor, Communications (News Media), a new post to provide support and resilience to the unit’s work, given the pressures of the modern media environment;

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Marketing Campaigns, a new post to lead work on this area, previously carried out by the Mayoral Director, External and International Affairs, and the Senior Adviser to the Mayoral Director, External and International Affairs;

 Head of Strategic Communications, a new post to take on the communications strategy responsibilities previously held by the Mayoral Director, Political and Public Affairs;

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Strategic Communications, a successor post to the existing Senior Advisor - Communities; and

 Adviser to the Mayor, Strategic Communications, a change in title of one of the existing Adviser to the Mayor, Research posts, to more accurately reflect its existing requirements.

4.10 It is proposed to delete the second Adviser to the Mayor, Research post (which whilst it has the same title as the post referred to above, has fundamentally different responsibilities). Around half of this post’s time was spent on stakeholder relations and arrangements for this work are included in the proposals for the Political and Public Affairs unit. The balance relates to strategic communications and sufficient capacity is available in that team with the creation of the new ‘Head of’ role.

Page 151

4.11 It is also proposed to delete the Senior Adviser to the Mayoral Director, External and International Affairs post, given that the associated Mayoral Director post has been deleted by the Mayor. Responsibilities associated with both posts are proposed for distribution amongst new and updated posts as set out in this paper.

4.12 During 2020-21, three fixed-term communication posts were created to enable the Mayor to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic and London’s recovery. One of these related to news media and this ongoing requirement has been captured in the proposals above, albeit at a lower grade. The other two were to support digital communication and during the year were moved to External Relations. A separate consultation proposes these posts be permanently established in External Relations, and this, together with the change recommended at para 4.6 above, enables the post of Head of Digital Communications and Data Innovation to be proposed for deletion.

4.13 These proposals would result in a Communications unit of 7.0 FTE, compared to 9.1 FTE working on communications during 2020-21.

Mayoral Operations

4.14 The remit of the proposed Mayoral Operations unit, to be led by the Mayoral Director, Operations, is to:

 Plan and lead activities and processes to ensure the effective use of the Mayor’s time and the effective conduct of the Mayor’s business; and

 Ensure the Mayor receives timely and appropriate support and advice, including from Mayoral advisors and officers.

4.15 The Paid Service posts proposed for this unit are as follows:

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Internal Operations, a new post taking on responsibilities from the Head of Mayor’s Private Office and Deputy Head of Mayor’s Private Office, both of which posts are proposed for deletion (with some responsibilities of the former post having been taken on by the new Mayoral Director, Operations post);

 Adviser to the Mayor, Casework, a new post to deal with the volume of individual issues raised with the Mayor in response to proactive outreach to Londoners such as victims of terror attacks, those affected by major incidents and those who have lost a family member to serious violence, as well as providing additional capacity and cover for the unit;

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, External Operations, a successor post to the existing Head of Operations post, with additional responsibility for the logistics of overseas Mayoral trips in addition to the role’s current responsibilities for events and visits in the UK;

 Adviser to the Mayor, Staffing, a change in job title for the existing Senior Aide to the Mayor post, with no fundamental changes to the job requirements;

 Diary Secretary to the Mayor, unchanged;

 Mayor’s Correspondence Manager, unchanged; and

 Senior Correspondence Coordinator x 2 posts, unchanged.

4.16 These proposals would result in a Mayoral Operations unit of 9.0 FTE, compared to 8.0 FTE working on Mayoral operations during 2020-21.

Page 152

Policy and Delivery

4.17 The remit of the proposed Policy and Delivery unit is to:

 Oversee the coordination of policy and the delivery of key priorities, on behalf of the Mayor; and

 Coordinate the work of the Mayor’s Office and the wider GLA Group to ensure the Mayor’s manifesto is delivered as fully as possible, that appropriate performance monitoring information is available and that policy development reflects the Mayor’s views and the evolving needs of Londoners.

4.18 The unit will be jointly led by two Heads, reporting to the Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff, whose posts will also be included within this unit for budgetary purposes.

4.19 The Paid Service posts proposed for this unit are as follows:

 Mayoral Head of Policy, a new post to provide policy advice and coordination, particularly on cross-cutting topics;

 Mayoral Head of Delivery, a new post to oversee delivery of strategic Mayoral priorities;

 Adviser to the Mayor, Policy and Delivery, a new post to provide support and advice related to policy coordination and delivery; and

 Senior Adviser to the Deputy Mayor x5 posts (Communities and Social Justice; Culture & Creative Industries; Environment & Energy; Fire & Resilience; Planning, Regeneration & Skills), to advise and support the respective Deputy Mayors and assist with policy coordination and delivery relevant to their Deputy Mayors’ remits.

4.20 It is also proposed to delete the Senior Adviser to the Mayoral Director, Policy post, given that the associated Mayoral Director position has been deleted by the Mayor. Responsibilities associated with both posts are proposed for distribution amongst the new and updated posts listed above.

4.21 To provide greater capacity to Deputy Mayors to focus on their core responsibilities, it is proposed to transfer line management of the Senior Adviser to the Deputy Mayor posts from the Deputy Mayors to the new Mayoral Head of Policy and Mayoral Head of Delivery posts. To provide consistency, it is proposed to move the line management of the Senior Adviser to the Deputy Mayor for Fire & Resilience from the Strategy and Communications directorate to the Mayor’s Office (budget remains in the Mayor’s Office).

4.22 These proposals would result in a Policy and Delivery unit (including the Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff) of 10.0 FTE, compared to 8.4 FTE working on policy and delivery during 2020-21.

Page 153

Political and Public Affairs

4.23 The remit of the proposed Political and Public Affairs unit, to be led by the Mayoral Director, Political and Public Affairs, is to:

 Develop and lead a strategic Mayoral and GLA Group approach to engagement with national, regional and local government to deliver the Mayor’s priorities and objectives;

 Advise and lead on the Mayor’s relationships with national, regional and local government, politicians, trade unionists and other stakeholders, both in the UK and internationally; and

 Lead the Mayor’s relationships with the London Assembly and its Members, including responsibility for the Mayoral Questions process.

4.24 The Paid Service posts proposed for this unit are as follows:

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Briefing & Assembly Liaison, an existing post, to lead the response to Mayoral Questions (oral and written) and liaison with Assembly Members and their offices;

 Adviser, Mayoral Briefing, a successor post to the current Mayoral Briefing Officer post to support the Senior Adviser in the production and coordination of responses to Mayoral Questions;

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Stakeholder Relations, a successor post to the existing one with the same title, to focus on overseeing the stakeholder engagement work of GLA policy teams and key stakeholder relationships not assigned to other members of the Mayor’s Office;

 Adviser, Community Relations, a successor post to the existing Senior Adviser Community Stakeholders post to lead on relationships with faith and community groups;

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Political Affairs, a new post to lead on relationships with politicians, including Members of Parliament and senior councillors, and their advisers;

 Adviser, Political Affairs, a new post to support the Senior Adviser in their responsibilities; and

 Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Trade Unions, to lead on the Mayor’s relationships with trade unions, a successor to the Senior Stakeholder Engagement Adviser post and some responsibilities previously held by the Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Stakeholder Relations.

4.25 As part of the Chief Officer’s restructure of GLA directorates in late 2019, the Government Relations team was moved from the Mayor’s Office to the new Strategy and Communications directorate. This move has been successful and it is now proposed that the International Relations team should similarly be transferred to that directorate, enabling the team to benefit from being part of an established corporate function and reducing the line management burden on the Mayor’s Office. The Mayoral Directorate for Political and Public Affairs would have a ‘dotted line’ relationship to this team, and they would also continue to do so to the Government Relations team.

Page 154

4.26 The current directorate structure at Appendix 1 shows two Senior Stakeholder Relations Officer posts that were established to support the Covid-19 Strategic Coordinating Group with its response to the pandemic. One of these posts ended in January; the other is funded until September 2021 by the SCG from money allocated by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The requirement for this post will be kept under review based on developments in the pandemic and London’s response to it.

4.27 These proposals would result in a Political and Public Affairs unit of 9.0 FTE (including the fixed- term SCG post), compared to 13.0 FTE working on political and public affairs during 2020-21 (4.0 FTE of whom will move to the Strategy and Communications directorate).

Summary

4.28 If adopted without amendment, these proposals would result in:

 The creation of 18.0 FTE new posts and the deletion of 14.0 FTE posts;

 4.0 FTE being moved out of the Mayor’s Office to the Strategy & Communications directorate; and

 A total Mayor’s Office headcount of 46.0 FTE (excluding the Mayor and statutory Deputy Mayor), unchanged from the current position and compared to 51.0 FTE during 2020-21 (including 2.0 FTE fixed-term posts transferred to External Relations, and other fixed-term posts that ended in the run-up to the Mayoral election).

5. Consultation

5.1 In accordance with the GLA Head of Paid Service Staffing Protocol and Scheme of Delegation (the “Staffing Protocol”), formal consultation with the Chief of Staff (on behalf of the Mayor) and the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee, (on behalf of the Assembly) is required for this proposal as five or more posts within one unit are being created or deleted.

5.2 This paper seeks to consult the Assembly (via the Assembly’s staffing committee, the GLA Oversight Committee) in line with the requirements set out in the Staffing Protocol. The Chief of Staff has been involved in the creation of these proposals. The Head of Paid Service (“HoPS”) will take their views into consideration when making a decision.

5.3 A formal consultation with Unison and affected staff about the proposals set out commenced on 17 May 2021 and will end on 16 June 2020, in line with the Authority’s Organisational Change policy. As the majority of the workforce are currently working remotely, we want to ensure that we are offering the appropriate support during this period of change. Therefore, any individuals who are put at risk of redundancy due to this proposal, will have the option of having their one to one consultation meeting in person, if they wish, rather than it being held remotely. Additionally, we will discuss with Unison and ‘at risk’ staff the best way to consult and provide support in the current circumstances.

Page 155

5.4 Details of the proposal have been shared in writing with all individuals whose permanent posts are affected by this proposed change including any on long term leave or internal or external secondment. One to one consultation meetings with the individuals affected (those whose posts are at risk) will take place, and they will be offered the chance to submit comments in writing throughout the consultation period. They will have priority consideration for posts in the proposed new structure as part of a ring-fenced interview process. They will also have priority for posts in the organisation considered to be suitable alternative employment and where possible will be redeployed to try and avoid redundancy.

6. Legal Implications

6.1 Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the HoPS may, after consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly and having regard to the resources available and priorities of the Authority:

 appoint such staff as the HoPS considers necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Authority (section 67(2)); and

 make such appointments on such terms and conditions as the HoPS thinks fit (section 70(2)).

6.2 The Assembly has delegated its powers of consultation on staffing matters to the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

6.3 After consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly, the Staffing Protocol was adopted by the HoPS in November 2009 and revised in July 2018. The Staffing Protocol sets out the Authority’s agreed approach as to how the HoPS will discharge the staffing powers contained in sections 67(2) and 70(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended).

6.4 Paragraph 5.1 of the Staffing Protocol says that, “The HoPS will consult the Chief of Staff, on behalf of the Mayor, and the Assembly’s staffing committee, on behalf of the Assembly, on any major restructure; namely the creation or deletion of five or more posts within any one unit.” As set out above, the Assembly’s staffing committee is currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

6.5 The proposals set out above fall within the definition of a ‘major restructure’ contained within the Staffing Protocol so require formal consultation with the Chief of Staff (on behalf of the Mayor) and the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee, (on behalf of the Assembly). This paper seeks to consult the Assembly (via the Assembly’s staffing committee, the GLA Oversight Committee) in line with the requirements set out in the Staffing Protocol. The HoPS will take the Assembly’s views into consideration when making a decision.

7. Financial Implications

7.1 The full-year financial implications of the proposed changes outlined above are detailed in the table below. This shows a net increase of £58k to the Mayor’s Office budget, taking into account a reduction of £292k to the Mayor’s Office staffing budget from the movement of the International Relations unit to Strategy and Communications where there is an equal increase.

Page 156

FTEs £000 Notes

Posts to be deleted (14) (1,129) Spinal point salary costs including on costs. New posts are costed at Posts to be created 18 1,479 1st spinal point of the post grade; the costs of any staff appointed at a higher spinal point (within the grade) will be reported through the budget monitoring process. This should usually only happen where the appointee is currently in an equivalently- graded post.

Posts moving out of (4) (292) International Relations team the Mayor’s Office moving from Mayor’s office to the Strategy and Communications directorate where there is an equal increase.

Net Total 0 58

7.2 The full-year impact on the overall GLA budget is an increase of £350k which is set out in the table below.

Directorate Impact £000s Mayor’s Office As above 58 Strategy and Communications Cost of transfers out of MO 292 TOTAL 350

7.3 The 2021-22 costs of this restructure (dependent on the outcome of the consultation and the timeline for filling these posts) will be met from the redundancy reserve and reported through the budget monitoring process. Future year costs will be met through the Authority’s budget-setting process.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Current Mayor’s Office Directorate Structure

Appendix 2 – Proposed Mayor’s Office Directorate Structure

Appendix 3 – Equality Impact Assessment

Page 157

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Laura Heywood, HR Business Partner

Telephone: 020 7983 5557

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 158 Mayor’s Office – Private Office and Correspondence Mayor Appendix 1 and PA Team *Chief of Staff Spot Salary 001299

*MD Pol and Pub *MD Communications *MD Policy *MD International and Affairs G15 Spot Salary G15 External Affairs G15 001263 001312 001313 001265

Head of Mayor’s Office G13 003260 Senior Executive Senior Executive Diary Secretary Assistant to CofS Assistant to to the Mayor G9 MDx2 G7

Page 159 Page G9 000019

Executive Assistant to MDx2 G7 Senior PA to DM Senior PA to DM Senior PA to DM Senior PA to DM Deputy Head of Senior Aide to Mayor’s G6 G6 G6 G6 (0.6 FTE) Mayor’s Office the Mayor Correspondence G9 G9 Manager G8 003259 003261 Senior PA to DM Senior PA to DM Senior PA to DM Senior PA to DM 000839 G6 G6 G6 G6 (0.6 FTE)

Senior PA to DM Senior PA Senior PA to DM G6 (Cover) G6 G6

Correspondence Senior Correspondence Senior Co-ordinator Co-ordinator G7 G7 000020 003335 KEY Note- Deleted as of 30 April Mayoral Appointees marked with asterisk 2021 *11 All posts included in the **2 current headcount of 46 FTEs Mayoral Support Teams Senior MD Political and MD Communications Spot Senior Adviser to MD Senior Adviser to MD MD International and Adviser to Public Affairs G15 Salary G11 MD Policy G15 G11 External Affairs 003329 003603 G15 MD G11 Deputy MD Comms 003263 G14 Fixed term post ended on 22/03/2021.

Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Head of Digital Head of International Strategic Communications Stakeholder Relations Briefing Business Communications and Data Relations G11 G13 003266 G12 G13 Innovation G12 003332 004542 003265 G13 000690 003203 Principal Intn’l Relations Officer G10 Adviser to the Mayor Senior Stakeholder Mayoral Briefing Officer 000364 Research G9- 003435 Engagement Adviser G8 001326

Page 160 Page (TU) G9 Principal Intn’l 003514 Relations Officer Adviser to the Mayor Head of Operations G10 Research G9 – 003264 G9 Senior Adviser 003262 000744 Community Stakeholders Project Support Officer G10 International Relations 003515 G8 000864 Senior Stakeholder Relations Officer G8 004445 Fixed term post until 30/09/2021, funded by SCG

Senior Stakeholder Relations Officer G8 Fixed term post ended on 02/01/2021.

KEY

Deleted as of 30 April 2021

All posts included in the current headcount of 46 FTEs Deputy Mayors, Night Czar, CDO and Support

Chief of Staff Spot Salary

*DM *DM Social **DM *DM *DM Planning, **DM *DM Culture & *DM Fire & Statutory DM Spot Chief Digital Transport Integration Business Env & Energy Regen, Skills Housing & Res Dev Creative Ind Spot Resilience Spot Salary Officer Spot Salary Spot Salary Spot Salary Spot Salary Spot Salary Spot Salary Salary Salary 001259 G15 001267 003281 003204 003280 003236 003163 003212 003737 003434

Night Czar G13 003340 Page 161 Page Senior Adviser to DM Senior Adviser to DM Senior Adviser to DM Senior Adviser to DM Senior Adviser to DM G11 G11 G11 G11 G11 003741 003361 003360 003362 003359 Post is in Strategy & Comms but is funded by Mayor’s Office

KEY Note- Deleted as of 30 April Mayoral Appointees marked with asterisk 2021 *11 All posts included in the **2 current headcount of 46 FTEs This page is intentionally left blank

Page 162 Appendix 2

Mayor’s Office proposed

Page 163 Page structure GLA Oversight Committee, 25 May 2021

All grades are indicative and subject to formal evaluation. Communications

Mayoral Director Communications Spot Page 164 Page

Mayoral Head of Senior Adviser to the Senior Adviser to the Strategic Mayor, Communications Mayor, Marketing Communications (News Media) Campaigns G14 G12 G12

Senior Adviser to the Adviser to the Mayor, Adviser to the Mayor, Mayor, Strategic Strategic Communications (News Communications Communications Media) G12 G9 G9 Mayoral Operations

Mayoral Director, Operations Spot

Page 165 Page Senior Adviser to Senior Adviser to Mayor’s Diary the Mayor, External the Mayor, Internal Manager Operations Operations G12 G7 G12

Mayor’s Adviser to the Adviser to the Correspondence Mayor, Staffing Mayor, Caseworker Manager G9 G8 G9

Senior Senior Correspondence Correspondence Co-ordinator Co-ordinator G7 G7 Policy and Delivery Page 166 Page

Head of Mayoral Head of Mayoral Policy Delivery G14 G14

Senior Adviser to Senior Adviser to Senior Adviser to Senior Adviser to the Senior Adviser to the Adviser to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor for Deputy Mayor for the Deputy Mayor the Deputy Mayor the Deputy Mayor Policy & Delivery for Communities for Culture for Environment Fire & Resilience Planning G11 G11 G11 G11 G11 G9 Political and Public Affairs

Mayoral Director, Political & Public Affairs Spot Page 167 Page

Senior Adviser to the Senior Adviser to the Senior Adviser to the Senior Adviser to the Mayor, Briefing & Mayor, Stakeholder Mayor, Political Mayor, Trade Unions Assembly Liaison Relations Affairs G12 G12 G12 G12

Adviser to the Adviser to the Adviser, Community Senior Stakeholder Mayor, Briefing & Mayor, Political Relations Relations Officer Assembly Liaison Affairs G9 G8 G9 Fixed-term, G8 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 168

Appendix 3

Equality Impact Assessment- Analysis of the potential impact of the proposed change on individuals from protected groups and action proposed

The information regarding protected groups, is based on self-disclosed data which is provided by individuals and held in the HR system (iTrent).

Due to the relatively small number of affected individuals, and the number of staff in the Mayor’s Office some data has been redacted in this report (marked as --%), as it could potentially be attributed to individuals and it is their personal information.

There are some groups (Asian or Asian British and those aged 30-39) who when compared to the profile of the Mayor’s Office directorate and/or the GLA as a whole are affected to a greater extent. However, it is important to note when reviewing the data, that there is a small number of staff at risk, a total of 10, and therefore this impacts the % for certain groups.

The GLA’s Organisational Change Policy will be followed throughout the consultation process to ensure a fair and transparent and selection process, should the proposal be confirmed.

Page 169

Gender At Risk Directorate GLA Profile Comments % Profile % as at 30/09/2020 Male 50% 42% 40% The gender of those at risk due to Female 50% 58% 60% this proposal is in line with the overall directorate profile and the Total 100% 100% 100% GLA profile.

Disability Directorate GLA Profile At Risk Profile % as at % 30/09/2020 Comments Disabled 0% --% 6% No staff who have declared they Not Disabled 70% 81% 84% have a disability are at risk due to Not Stated 30% --% 9% this proposal. However, it should be noted that there is a relatively high 'not stated' responses within the directorate, compared to the Total 100% 100% 100% GLA profile.

Age Directorate GLA Profile At Risk Profile % as at % 30/09/2020 Comments < 20 --% --% 1% More staff in the age group 30-39 20-29 --% --% 18% are at risk due to this proposal than 30-39 70% 58% 38% the overall directorate profile and 40-49 --% 26% 26% the GLA profile. Fewer staff in the 50-59 --% 10% 14% older age group of 50-59 are at risk than the overall directorate profile 60+ --% --% 3% and GLA profile. Total 100% 100% 100%

Ethnicity Directorate GLA Profile At Risk Profile % as at % 30/09/2020 Comments Asian or Asian Asian or Asian British individuals as British --% 13% 12% a % are slightly more at risk due to Black or Black this proposal than compared to the British --% --% 11% overall directorate profile and the White 70% 74% 65% GLA profile. However, it must be Chinese or any noted there is a small numbers of other ethnic group --% --% 5% staff at risk, a total of 10, and Mixed --% --% 5% therefore this impacts the % for Not Stated --% --% 2% certain groups. No other ethnic Total 100% 100% 100% groups are disproportionately at risk due to this proposal compared to the directorate and GLA profile. Page 170

Sexuality Directorate GLA Profile At Risk Profile % as at % 30/09/2020 Comments Bisexual --% --% 2% Heterosexual 90% 84% 79% Lesbian or Gay man --% 10% 5% No categories of sexuality are Prefer not to answer --% --% 6% disproportionately at risk due to Not Stated --% --% 6% this proposal compared to the Total 100% 100% 100% directorate and GLA profile.

Faith Directorate GLA Profile At Risk Profile % as at % 30/09/2020 Comments Buddhist --% --% 0% Due to the number of potential Christian --% 32% 28% response categories for 'faith', Hindu --% --% 2% there are is no data to indicate staff Jewish --% --% 1% from any particular faith groups are Muslim --% 6% 6% disproportionately affected by this proposal. Sikh --% --% 1% None 40% 42% 45% Prefer not to say --% 13% 9% Other --% --% 2% Not stated --% --% 7% Total 100% 100% 100%

Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 172 Agenda Item 12

Subject: GLA Environment and Energy Unit – Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Chief Officer

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 This paper sets out proposals for changes to the Greater London Authority (GLA) Establishment relating to the Environment and Energy Unit, which is part of the Good Growth Directorate. These proposed changes only affect the Environment and Energy Unit and not the wider Good Growth Directorate. Proposed organisational structure of the new Environment and Energy Unit is attached at Appendix 1.

1.2 The changes are aimed at ensuring the team structure is fit for purpose for delivering the Green New Deal Mission as part of the London Recovery Programme, whilst continuing to deliver the GLA’s environment statutory duties, and addressing a number of long-standing temporary arrangements that have resulted from the team’s rapid growth over recent years. The changes would:

 Formalise the existing structure which was informally introduced in January 2020, in particular creating integrated teams for Climate Change (combining the previous Climate Mitigation and Climate Adaptation teams) and Energy (combining the previous Energy Efficiency, London Power and Smart Energy teams);

 Create new central teams by repurposing existing roles to provide stronger programme management and coordination, and to lead the Green Recovery. The latter would support the unit’s work on the Green New Deal Mission and also work to embed the environment more widely across the GLA’s policies and recovery missions;

 Change the grading of eight posts to reflect increases in the scope and responsibility of these roles (in many cases due to a transfer of responsibilities from deleted posts), and formalise honoraria arrangements which have been in place for several years; and

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 173 v1/2021

 Create an additional six externally funded fixed-term posts to respond to resourcing pressures arising from £13m of new Government funding for energy efficiency (largely secured since the completion of the budget process in early March 2021). A further eighteen-month fixed-term post may also be needed to deliver the GLA Group Energy Collaboration Project, subject to the outcome of scoping work that is currently underway.

1.3 These proposals result in a net reduction in GLA-funded posts of two FTE as set out in the 2021/22 budget. However, the additional six externally funded fixed-term posts would result in an overall increase of four FTE. This additional capacity will enable the unit to accelerate progress in delivering the Green New Deal Mission and deliver Government funded programmes. If the project goes ahead, the fixed-term collaboration post would also entail a temporary addition to budgeted headcount.

1.4 The GLA is currently recruiting a new Assistant Director for Environment and Energy. These changes will ensure the successful candidate benefits from a stable team structure on arrival and can focus on team leadership and programme delivery.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee responds to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Environment and Energy Unit.

3. Background

3.1 The Mayor and GLA play a critical role in improving and protecting the environment in London and have a number of statutory duties in relation to this. The Covid-19 pandemic has further underlined the importance of the environment to London’s economy and society, and a Green New Deal mission has been identified as a key element in London’s Recovery Programme.

3.2 The Green New Deal Mission aims to tackle the climate and ecological emergencies and improve air quality by doubling the size of London's green economy by 2030 and accelerating job creation for all. By focusing on these challenges, London can build towards a sustainable city that is fairer, greener and healthier while creating and sustaining jobs and economic growth.

3.3 The unit’s business plan to support the Green New Deal Mission also reflects those statutory duties (as defined by the GLA Act) that the Environment and Energy Unit leads on delivering. These include:

 air quality, with the duty to have a strategy which achieves compliance with legal pollution limits within London in the quickest time possible, as well as overseeing borough activity through the Local Air Quality Management Framework. The recent outcome of the inquest into the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah and the resulting Prevention of Future Deaths report has underlined the importance of the GLA’s role in this work, including around information provision and monitoring;

 climate change, with the duty for the GLA to take action to mitigate or adapt to climate change;

 waste, with the duty to ensure that statutory waste authorities’ plans, services and contracts are in general conformity with Mayoral policies and proposals concerning municipal waste, as set out in the London Environment Strategy;

Page 174

 sustainable development, with the duty to have regard to the effect of the GLA’s activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the UK; and

 policy, guidance, assessment and monitoring to support delivery of the London Plan’s environmental policies.

4. Rationale for Change

4.1 Since 2016 the work of the Environment and Energy Unit has increased significantly with the team doubling in size to respond to Mayoral priorities and to properly fulfil statutory duties. This has largely been delivered through a succession of temporary arrangements put in place to respond to immediate challenges. It has become clear that this situation now needs to be addressed on a permanent basis to provide a stable structure to support the Green New Deal.

4.2 The unit structure prior to January 2020 comprised nine component teams, resulting in a large number of direct reports to the Assistant Director. This made it difficult to provide strategic support, coaching and oversight and promoted a siloed way of working. The result was poor coordination and programme management, with opportunities for collaboration, integration and efficiencies being missed. Temporary changes were made in January 2020 (these are set out in Appendix 2) to address some of these issues, resulting in some teams being merged and reducing the number of teams in the unit to six. Temporary management arrangements were also put in place with the intention that these changes were soon to be formalised but this process was paused with the onset of the pandemic.

4.3 During 2020 the Green New Deal Mission was developed as part of the London Recovery programme, and environmental improvement was identified as one of the cross-cutting principles that should run through the programme as a whole. The Mayor also allocated the first £10 million of his Green New Deal fund to support this. This has underlined the importance of finalising the restructure that had started in 2020 to provide a stable basis for this critical work, but it has also meant that some further adjustments have been needed. The proposals set out in this paper respond to the enhancements in the unit’s scope, responsibilities, budget and deliverables arising from the adoption of the Green New Deal Mission and ensure that the unit is well-placed to embed environmental principles across the recovery programme and the wider work of the GLA.

4.4 Recent months have also seen the Government identify substantial national funding pots to support homes retrofit as part of its economic recovery programme from the pandemic. The GLA has been successful in securing around £13m from this source already (largely since the completion of the 2021-22 budget process) which will allow it to expand its work in this area. Effective delivery of these programmes would leave the GLA well positioned to secure further grant funding from BEIS in future years. Homes retrofit is central to delivery of the Mayor’s Green New Deal Mission and Net Zero ambitions.

4.5 This overall context has been central to the approach adopted in developing these restructure proposals. The structure outlined in this paper will enable the unit to fulfil its statutory duties whilst also delivering on other Mayoral priorities, including the Green New Deal Mission. The new structure reflects the increasing contribution the Environment and Energy Unit has made in recent years, as well as lessons learned over the period since the temporary structure was introduced. It also reflects changes to enable the unit to operate within its new budget envelope, which has required the deletion of a small number of posts with associated changes to grades and reporting lines.

4.6 On that basis, the changes set out in the restructure proposal would:

Page 175

 Formalise the existing structure which was informally introduced in January 2020. This includes creating two new larger teams to improve integration and delivery: a Climate Change Team (combining the Climate Mitigation and Adaptation teams) and an Energy Team (combining the Energy Efficiency, London Power and Smart Energy teams);

 Create a new central team by repurposing existing roles to lead the Green Recovery. This would support the unit’s work on the Green New Deal Mission and also work to embed the environment more widely across the GLA’s policies and recovery missions, in line with the cross-cutting principles of the recovery programme. It would also enable the GLA to fulfil its statutory sustainable development duty more effectively;

 Create a Programme Management and Coordination team by combining the existing business support function with communications and engagement officers. This reflects the increased scale of the team’s responsibilities, together with its growing revenue and capital budgets, which require dedicated programme management and coordination capacity.

 Change the grading of eight posts to reflect increases in the scope and responsibility of these roles (in many cases due to a transfer of responsibilities from deleted posts); in addition several managers’ teams/responsibilities have grown significantly, and this has been reflected in honoraria to higher grades for several years which now need to be formalised; and

 Create an additional six externally funded fixed-term posts to respond to resourcing pressures created by the unit securing an additional £13m in Government funding to deliver energy programmes. The vast majority of this funding has been secured since the completion of the budget process which is why the need for these resources had not previously been identified. In addition, a further eighteen-month fixed-term post may be needed to deliver the GLA Group Energy Collaboration Project, subject to the outcome of the scoping work currently underway. Funding for this post, if required, will be provided from the GLA’s Group Collaboration budget.

4.7 The proposed changes set out in this paper will enable the Environment and Energy Unit to:

 Refocus its activities to support London’s Recovery, including delivering the Green New Deal Mission, by ensuring the right capacity at the right level is in the right place;

 Deliver additional activity using funding secured from external sources;

 Enhance the ability of the team to fulfil the Mayor and GLA’s statutory environmental duties, including in relation to air quality, waste, climate change and sustainable development;

 Implement the manifesto commitments of the new Mayoral administration;

 Support the development of team members by creating new opportunities for progression; and

 Operate within the agreed GLA-funded headcount and budget envelope set during the budget process, delivering a net reduction in GLA-funded posts.

Page 176

4.8 The process to design the new structure for the team has been led by the Interim Assistant Directors for Environment and Energy, given the need to ensure the unit structure is fit for purpose to deliver the Green New Deal Mission and to formalise other long-standing temporary arrangements. A range of options have been considered with the Chief Officer and the Executive Director for Good Growth.

4.9 The final structure set out in this proposal balances the need to ensure the unit is fit for purpose, can fulfil its statutory duties and is able to respond to the Green New Deal Mission while also minimising disruption, given the scale of the environmental programme expected over the coming Mayoral term. Other than those changes relating to externally-funded posts for energy programmes, these proposals are fully consistent with the 2021/2022 GLA budget. The proposed changes will also ensure the permanent Assistant Director currently being recruited benefits from a stable team structure on arrival enabling them to focus on team leadership and programme delivery.

5. Proposed Changes

5.1 Following the implementation of these proposals the unit will be structured around seven teams:

 Air Quality;

 Climate Change;

 Energy;

 Green Infrastructure;

 Green Recovery;

 Programme Management and Coordination; and

 Waste and Circular Economy.

5.2 The changes to implement this structure are as follows:

 Changes to the Air Quality Team: a Grade 12, two Grade 10, a Grade 8 and a Grade 6 fixed-term post will be deleted and a Grade 13 and two Grade 11 posts will be created. These changes reflect the need for the team to have more senior-level capacity due to the profile, statutory and legal dimensions of the team’s work and the complicated stakeholder management it entails with delivery partners like TfL, the London boroughs and Government. The intricacy and prominence of the work of the team has increased in recent years, for example, by leading GLA and TfL activity to deliver signature schemes like the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and coordinating the response to the Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah inquest. The team also leads on the fulfilment of statutory duties related to the Local Air Quality Management Framework and leads on tackling transport emissions for the unit. Deletion of some posts relates to the impact of the pandemic, for example, the Grade 6 fixed-term role to be deleted had been intended to lead on in-person stakeholder events and other activity in the run up to the implementation of the expended Ultra Low Emission Zone that can no longer be held. Overall these changes will enable the team to continue its track record of delivering transformational improvements in the quality of London’s air with the objective of achieving legal pollution limits by 2025 at the latest and World Health Organization recommended guidelines by 2030.

 Creation of a new Climate Change Team: by merging the Zero Carbon and Climate Adaptation teams a fully integrated team focusing on the full climate policy lifecycle can be Page 177

established, maximising impact, efficiency and synergies. Two grade 12 manager posts will be deleted and replaced with a single Grade 13 post providing management for the team as a whole and leadership for the cross-cutting Green New Deal Mission. To ensure that the team, which will have 16 members, can be appropriately managed and to ensure sufficient senior level capacity, one existing Grade 10 role will be deleted and two new Grade 11 roles will be created, one leading on climate mitigation issues and the other on climate adaptation. These changes reflect the profile of the team’s work and the complicated stakeholder management it entails with delivery partners like TfL, the London boroughs and Government. The team also leads on development of the Mayor’s net zero by 2030 target, development of a new green Finance facility and manages significant new programmes such as Future Neighbourhoods 2030. Overall these changes will ensure that the GLA is able to fully respond to the Climate Emergency, coordinating activity across London, influencing national policy and providing international leadership for cities.

 Creation of a new Energy Team: the existing Energy Efficiency, London Power and Smart Energy teams will be formally combined into one to better integrate delivery activity and future work on energy systems, maximizing impact, efficiency and synergies. A grade 13 and grade 12 post will be deleted and replaced with a new Grade 14 role to provide management and leadership for the team as a whole. As a result of the team’s track record in successfully securing external funding for retrofit and other energy programmes, a further six externally- funded fixed term posts will be created to take forward this work, comprising one grade 12 and five grade 10 positions, helping accelerate delivery of the Green New Deal Mission. The posts have a fixed duration of between 12 and 18 months depending on the funding source. In addition, a further eighteen-month fixed-term post may be required to deliver the GLA Group Energy Collaboration Project, a decision on which is subject to the outcome of the scoping work currently underway.

 Changes to the Green Infrastructure Team: minor changes are proposed with two existing roles (communication and stakeholder/engagement) being moved into the new Programme and Coordination Team. These were located in the Green Infrastructure Team for historic reasons due to their work on National Park City. The team will continue its work delivering street trees, community-led green infrastructure projects and leading on biodiversity and greening policy as well as supporting delivery of new Green New Deal programmes delivered in the most vulnerable areas of London across air quality, climate adaptation and green infrastructure priorities.

 Creation of a new Green Recovery Team: this team will be formed by combining the existing five-person Sustainable Development team with the Senior Policy Coordinator. The team would be headed by a new Grade 11 manager. This team will play a crucial role in coordinating the unit’s work on the Green New Deal Mission but would also work across the GLA to embed the environment and sustainable development in all the GLA’s recovery work as one of the cross-cutting principles. The Green Recovery team will also have a direct focus on supporting the development and support of green jobs and businesses in London, including the ‘Green Foundations’ component of the Green New Deal, which includes work on supporting clean tech businesses and green skills. Finally, this team will be responsible for London Environment Strategy coordination and reporting as well as environment cross-cutting and mainstreaming activity.

Page 178

 Creation of a new Programme Management and Coordination Team: this team combines the existing business support and programme management function with the Senior Policy and Programmes Officer – Communications and the Senior Policy and Programmes Officer – Stakeholder/Engagement. An existing grade 10 role will be deleted and replaced with a grade 11 to provide appropriate management of the team. In addition, the Grade 8 Senior Policy and Programmes Officer – Communications will be deleted and a new Grade 10 Principal Policy and Programmes Officer – Communications post created, reflecting the level of responsibility borne by this post. The increased scale of the team’s responsibilities, together with its growing revenue and capital budgets, require enhanced programme management and coordination capacity.

 Changes to the Waste, Circular Economy and Sustainable Development Team: the Sustainable Development team would move from here to join the Green Recovery Team. No other changes would be made but the changes would release 0.5 FTE additional management capacity to work on waste and circular economy. The team would continue to work to fulfil the Mayor’s statutory waste duties as well as support the Green New Deal Mission.

6. Impact on Existing Staff and Posts

6.1 In developing the proposals laid out in this document, we have continuously considered how individuals already employed in the unit would be impacted by the proposed new structure, within the framework of our Organisational Change Policy.

6.2 Although the GLA funded establishment is being reduced by two posts, no staff are at risk as a result of this proposal. This is due to a number of vacant posts and our proposed approach to creating and deleting posts in accordance with our Organisational Change Policy.

6.3 The tables below set out the posts we propose to delete and to create.

Page 179

List of posts for deletion (GLA funded) Number of Grade Post title posts 6 Project Support Officer – Air Quality 1

8 Senior Policy and Project Officer – Air Quality 1 12 Policy and Programme Manager - Climate Adaptation and 1 Sustainable Development

13 Senior Manager – Programme Delivery Sustainable Energy 1 10 Principal Policy Officer – Climate Mitigation 1 10 Principal Policy Officer – Air Quality 2 10 Programme & Business Manager, or Senior Policy and 1 Programmes Officer – Communications 12 Energy Efficiency Team Manager 1 12 Policy and Programmes Manager – Air Quality 1 12 Policy and Programmes Manager – Climate Change 1 8 Senior Policy and Programmes Officer – Communications1 1 Total 12

List of posts for creation (GLA funded) Number of Grade Post title posts 11 Policy and Programmes Manager - Climate Adaptation 1 11 Policy and Programmes Manager - Green Recovery 1 11 Policy and Programmes Manager – Climate Mitigation 1 11 Air Quality Manager – Transport Emissions 1 11 Air Quality Manager – Statutory Duties and Boroughs 1 11 Programme Manager – Programme Management and 1 Coordination 14 Head of Energy 1 13 Head of Air Quality 1 13 Head of Climate Change 1 10 Principal Policy and Programmes Officer – Communications 1 Total 10

1 one of these two posts will be deleted following completion of ringfenced exercise in accordance with the organisational change policy

Page 180

6.4 In addition to changes to GLA-funded posts we also wish to create six externally funded fixed-term roles. The roles are funded through income from BEIS to support the development of a Centre of Excellence for retrofit and delivery of energy efficiency measures in homes through the Local Authority Delivery scheme. The three grade 10 posts supporting local authority delivery are fixed term for 12 months. The two Centre of Excellence posts and Programme Manager Energy Homes retrofit are all funded through the BEIS grant for the Centre of Excellence and are 18 months in duration.

List of posts for creation (Externally funded and fixed term) Grade Post title Number of posts 12 Programme Manager Homes Retrofit 1 10 Principal Programme Officer – LAD Delivery 3 10 Principal Policy – Centre of Excellence 2 Total 6

6.5 One further eighteen-month fixed-term post may also be created to deliver the GLA Group Energy Collaboration project, subject to the outcome of the scoping work currently underway. If the project receives approval, funding for this post would be provided from the Group Collaboration budget.

6.6 Posts within the unit which are unaffected by these proposed changes as set out in Appendix 3.

7. Consultation Process

7.1 Affected members of staff will be offered an individual consultation meeting with the Interim Assistant Directors for Environment and Energy (or another appropriate member of the management team), and an HR colleague as part of the restructure process. These meetings will be held in accordance with the Organisational Change Policy. Staff will have an opportunity to learn further information about roles in the proposed structure in order to help them identify any roles in which they want to express interest. It is not anticipated that there will be any redundancies as a result of this restructure. Grades are, at this stage, indicative, subject to completion of the job evaluation process.

7.2 Affected staff will be invited to send comments on the consultation process itself direct to the Assistant Director and the HR lead and these will be considered throughout and following the consultation period. Comments gathered through individual consultation meetings will also be collated, subject to staff’s agreement, as part of this process, as will any comments and feedback from UNISON.

7.3 We know that organisational change can be unsettling and difficult for staff. As the majority of the workforce are currently working remotely, we want to ensure that we are offering appropriate support during this period of change. Additionally, we will discuss with Unison the best way to consult and provide support in the current circumstances, and the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) will provide access to a range of information, advice and support on home and work matters. It is confidential and no personal information is shared with the GLA.

Page 181

7.4 The consultation timeline is set out below:

Date Action

17th May 2021 Consultation period commences (at least 30 days), following announcement to all staff

From 17th May 2021 onwards Consultation with Unison

From 24th May 2021 onwards Individual staff meetings between Senior Managers, HR and over several weeks affected staff

25th May 2021 Proposal presented at Oversight Committee

15th June 2021 Consultation end date and deadline for all responses

The implementation timeline will be confirmed following the completion of the consultation period, when the future structure is confirmed (including any changes as a result of consultation).

8. Legal Implications

8.1 Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the Head of Paid Service (the “HoPS”) may, after consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly and having regard to the resources available and priorities of the Authority:

 appoint such staff as the HoPS considers necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Authority (section 67(2)); and

 make such appointments on such terms and conditions as the HoPS thinks fit (section 70(2)).

8.2 The Assembly has delegated its powers of consultation on staffing matters to the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

8.3 After consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly, the Staffing Protocol was adopted by the HoPS in November 2009 and revised in July 2018. The Staffing Protocol sets out the Authority’s agreed approach as to how the HoPS will discharge the staffing powers contained in sections 67(2) and 70(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended).

8.4 Paragraph 5.1 of the Staffing Protocol says that, “The HoPS will consult the Chief of Staff, on behalf of the Mayor, and the Assembly’s staffing committee, on behalf of the Assembly, on any major restructure; namely the creation or deletion of five or more posts within any one unit.” As set out above, the Assembly’s staffing committee is currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

8.5 The proposals set out in this paper fall within the definition of a ‘major restructure’ contained within the Staffing Protocol so require formal consultation with the Chief of Staff (on behalf of the Mayor) and the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee, (on behalf of the Assembly). The paper seeks to consult the Assembly (via the Assembly’s staffing committee, the GLA Oversight Committee) in line with the requirements set out in the Staffing Protocol.

8.6 The GLA should follow its Management of Change Procedure in dealing with this restructure. If any employees are made redundant, the GLA’s Compensation Payments Policy may apply.

Page 182

8.7 The GLA should ensure that its Recruitment and Selection Policy and Equal Opportunities Standard are followed when recruiting to the vacant posts.

9. Financial Implications

Overview

9.1 The proposed restructure to the GLA Environment and Energy Unit includes changes to the permanent GLA establishment and also the addition of up to 7 new fixed term contract posts. The latter were not included as part of the 2021-22 budget process as the funding sources for these posts were confirmed following the approval of the GLA budget (and one post still remains subject to approval for the GLA Group’s energy collaboration project).

Environment & Energy Permanent Establishment

9.2 This consultation paper of this restructure proposes a net reduction of 2 FTE from the GLA’s establishment, resulting from the proposed deletions of 12 FTE and the subsequent creations of 10 new FTE. Subject to consultation and formal job evaluations, the overall proposal would mean a modest saving on the Environment and Energy Unit’s approved salary budget for 2021-22 of £6,000, specifically against the Green New Deal Mission’s salary budget; hence meaning these proposals are fully containable within the budget envelope approved as part of the 2021-22 budget setting process.

Description Existing Cost New Cost Net Saving

GLA Environment £3,657,000 £3,651,000 £6,000 Unit – Green New Deal Mission

New Fixed Term Posts

9.3 This proposal also includes the creation of 6 fixed terms posts that vary in duration and the potential for a further fixed term appointment dependent on the outcome of ongoing scoping work on GLA Group energy collaboration. These are summarised below:

Page 183

Post Grade Duration Full costs Funding Source

Principal Project Officer – 10 18 Months £102,000 GLA Group Energy Collaboration Collaboration Budget (dependent on decision of GLA Collaboration Board in June)

Principal Programme Officer – 10 12 Months £68,000 BEIS LAD Delivery

Principal Programme Officer – 10 12 Months £68,000 BEIS LAD Delivery

Principal Programme Officer – 10 12 Months £68,000 BEIS LAD Delivery

Principal Project Officer – 10 18 Months £102,000 BEIS Centre of Excellence

Principal Project Officer – 10 18 Months £102,000 BEIS Centre of Excellence

Programmes Manager – Homes 12 18 Months £129,000 BEIS Retrofit

Total Costs 7 FTE - £639,000 -

9.4 Based upon the estimated duration of these fixed term posts, total estimated costs equate to £639,000. The Energy Collaboration post would be funded by the GLA if the project continues through separate budget provision agreed as part of the 2021-22 budget process. The 6 other posts will be funded by Government grant, specially BEIS grant that has been secured for the LAD Delivery and Centre of Excellence (as indicated in the table above).

9.5 As this proposal includes the deletion of posts on the GLA establishment, redundancy and pension costs may become payable by the GLA. At this stage, such costs cannot yet be quantified as staff affected will be going through the Authority’s Organisational Change and Recruitment & Selection procedures. In the event these costs become payable, they will be contained within the Authority’s existing revenue budget provision and will be subject to further approval via the Authority’s decision-making process.

Page 184

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Proposed organisational structure of the new Environment and Energy Unit

Appendix 2 – Organisational structure of the current Environment and Energy Unit

Appendix 3 – Posts which are unaffected by the proposals set out within this paper

Appendix 4 – Initial Equality Impact Assessment

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Elliot Treharne and Pete Daw, (Interim) Assistant Directors for Environment and Energy

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Page 185 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 186

Appendix 1 Appendix One: Proposed organisational structure of the new GLA Environment and Energy team1: It should be noted that grades are, at this stage, indicative subject to completion of the job evaluation process Page 187 Page

1 Currently the AD Environment and Energy position is filled on an interim basis by Elliot Treharne (Air Quality) and Pete Daw (Climate Change) as a job share with both retaining their substantive roles. There is budget provision in this structure for the AD Environment and Energy position to be filled as a full-time post.

Page 188 Page

Page 189 Page

Page 190 Page

Page 191 Page

Page 192 Page

Page 193 Page

Page 194 Page

Appendix 2 Appendix Two: Organisational structure of the current Environment and Energy Team

Page 195 Page

Page 196 Page

Page 197 Page

Page 198 Page

Page 199 Page

Page 200 Page

Page 201 Page

Page 202 Page

Appendix 3 Appendix Three: Posts unaffected by these proposals

List of posts to remain ‘as is’ (Permanent)

Grade Post title Number of posts 12 Policy & Programmes Manager – Waste & 2 CE + Green Infrastructure

11 Programme Managers Energy 4 10 Principal Policy & Programme Officers 19 9 Project Manager -Climate Adaptation 1

8 Senior Policy Officers 19 7 Business Coordinator 1 6 Project Officer 1 5 Admin Support Officer 1 Total 48

Page 203 Page

List of posts to remain ‘as is’ (Externally Funded) Grade Post title Number of posts 13* Senior Commercial Manager – London Power 1 10 LEA Project Managers 2 9 Senior Project Manager – Eflex, Programme Manager – Home 4 Response, Project Manager – Clever Cities, Senior Data Analyst1 8 Senior Policy Officer – Better Futures, Senior Marketing Officer – 2 London Power*, 7 ERDF Compliance Officer 1 6 Project Support Officer* 1 Total 11

1 Funded by London Power This page is intentionally left blank

Page 204 Appendix 4

Initial Equality Impact Assessment

Gender GLA Profile as at Comments Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Male 46% 39% 40% The distribution of individuals potentially impacted is broadly Female 54% 59% 60% consistent with the workforce demographic within the unit and Unspecified 0% 2% 0% across the GLA. Total 100% 100% 100%

Disability GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Disabled 0% 3% 6% The distribution of individuals potentially impacted is broadly Not Disabled 85% 89% 84% consistent with the workforce demographic within the unit and Not Stated 15% 8% 9% across the GLA. Total 100% 100% 100%

Age GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments < 20 0% 0% 1% A higher proportion of the 30-39 age bracket group is identified as 20-29 8% 5% 18% potentially impacted (>10 percentage point difference against both 30-39 54% 43% 38% the unit and GLA wide profiles). 40-49 31% 35% 26% 50-59 8% 16% 14% 60+ 0% 2% 3% Total 100% 100% 100%

Ethnicity GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Asian or Asian British 0% 8% 12% A higher proportion of the White demographic group is identified Black or Black British 0% 2% 11% as potentially impacted (>20 percentage point difference to the White 92% 78% 65% profile of the GLA as a whole, and >10 percentage point difference Chinese or any other ethnic group 0% 3% 5% to the profile of the unit). Mixed 0% 5% 5% Not Stated 8% 5% 2% Total 100% 100% 100%

Sexuality GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Bisexual 0% 0% 2% The distribution of individuals potentially impacted is broadly Heterosexual 77% 77% 79% consistent with the workforce demographic within the unit and Lesbian or Gay man 8% 11% 5% across the GLA. Prefer not to answer 0% 3% 6% Not Stated 15% 8% 6% Total 100% 100% 100%

Faith GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Buddist 0% 0% 0% The biggest variation from overall team and GLA profiles is in the Christian 31% 23% 28% None category. The proportion of those potentially impacted is 9% Hindu 0% 2% 2% higher than the GLA wide profile, but also 9% below the profile of Jewish 0% 0% 1% the Unit. Muslim 0% 2% 6% Sikh 0% 0% 1% None 54% 63% 45% Prefer not to say 15% 6% 9% Other 0% 0% 2% Not stated 0% 5% 7% Total 100% 100% 100%

Page 205 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 206 Agenda Item 13

Subject: GLA Skills and Employment Unit – Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Chief Officer

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out proposed staffing changes to the Skills and Employment Unit. The Skills and Employment Unit is part of the Communities and Skills Directorate. These proposed changes affect the Skills & Employment Unit only, and not the wider Directorate.

1.2 The Unit is responsible for the £340m annual Adult Education Budget, the £167m four-year European Social Fund programme (inclusive of £71m AEB match funding) and various other programmes which support the delivery of the Mayor’s Skills for Londoners Strategy. The Skills and Employment Unit will deliver the GLA-led elements of the Good Work for All Londoners recovery mission (£5.3m revenue and £5m capital funding in 2021/22).

1.3 The proposed changes are designed to ensure the Unit effectively delivers on the GLA’s skills priorities, which is particularly important as London moves into recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. The changes include creating new posts and the deletion of posts and making existing fixed term contracts permanent.

1.4 The majority of the changes proposed in this report relate to the Skills Funding Policy and Systems team who are responsible for ensuring that funding policies and systems are in place to administer and disperse the annual AEB budget of £340m. In addition, a number of fixed term posts supporting delivery of the Mayor’s Construction Academy are proposed to be converted to permanent posts, to deliver new sector-specific Skills Academies which form a key element of the Good Work for All Londoners recovery mission. These proposed changes were taken into account in the GLA’s 2021/22 GLA’s budget setting exercise.

1.5 Line management arrangements across the unit have also been considered and consolidated as part of this proposal; this is reflected in the current and proposed structure charts shown at Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 207 v1/2021

1.6 The proposed Senior Project Officer - Delivery Central & West G9 is in addition to the posts included in the budget process and has arisen due to additional funding being received from Government in relation to the AEB and National Skills Fund since the budget was agreed. The proposed post is externally funded (AEB).

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee responds to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Skills and Employment Unit.

3. Overview of Proposed Changes

3.1 In 2018, under cover of HOPS0280, 53 new positions were approved to create the Skills and Employment Unit. Since its establishment the remit, scope and size of the Unit has significantly increased. Following a formal consultation, the former European Social Fund (ESF) team was moved into the Unit at the end of 2018 bringing with it a range of existing and new ESF responsibilities and funds, and additional funding has since been received in relation to the AEB (circa £10m per annum AEB) and the National Skills Fund Level 3 entitlement (£22m in 21/22).

3.2 The Unit is now responsible for a total revenue budget of c£364m (57% of the GLA revenue spend) and total capital budget of £5m in 2021/22. This sum excludes the carry forward for ongoing programmes including AEB which continues into the 2021/22 year funded from previous budgets. The Mayor has direct responsibility for all decisions made regarding the AEB and this is done via his AEB Mayoral Board which meets four times a year

3.3 The increased funding from central government via the AEB, mean it is now necessary to update the structure of the Unit to ensure policy, delivery, governance and funding policy and system needs are met. The proposed changes are set out below:

Page 208

Team Proposed Job Title Grade Funding Source change

Funding Policy Creation Supervisory 11 Adult Education Budget and Systems Economist, Complex analysis & Statistical publications

Funding Policy Creation Economist N/A Adult Education Budget and Systems

Programme Convert to Principal Policy 10 Programme Funded (GLA core Delivery East permanent Officer – Mayors Construction and South Academy budget) and to be funded by Good Work mission from 2022/23

Programme Convert to Senior Project 9 Programme Funded (GLA core Delivery East permanent Officer – Mayors Construction and South Academy budget) and to be funded by Good Work mission from 2022/23

Programme Convert to Senior Project 9 Programme Funded (GLA core Delivery East permanent Officer – Mayors Construction and South Academy budget) and to be funded by Good Work mission from 2022/23

Programme Convert to Programme Officer 8 Programme Funded (GLA core Delivery East permanent – Mayors Construction and South Academy budget) and to be funded by Good Work mission from 2022/23

Programme Creation Senior Project N/A Adult Education Budget Delivery Officer Central and West

Strategy and Deletion Principal Policy 10 GLA core Relationships Officer

Strategy and Deletion Principal Policy 10 GLA core Relationships Officer

4. Issues for Consideration

Page 209

4.1 The proposed changes are set out in the table above and further detail on each proposal can be found from paragraph 4.2 to 4.10. The proposed Skills and Employment Unit organisational structure can be found at Appendix 1 which incorporates all proposals set out within this report.

Funding Policy and Systems

4.2 The Funding, Policy & Systems (FP&S) team is responsible for establishing the systems that manage the flow of data and funding between Government, the GLA and providers of adult education and skills, including the rules and formulas that allocate funding. The team is also responsible also for managing the bidding processes.

4.3 The team currently consists of two strands, each headed up by a G11 manager (a Funding Systems Manager and a Funding Policy Manager). The scope of the team has increased significantly, and the proposed restructure includes a third strand to be headed up by a new G11 Supervisory Economist, Complex analysis & Statistical publications.

4.4 The third strand is required to provide high-quality economic information and advice to inform policy development and service delivery by the Skills & Employment Unit. Specifically, this will include the analysis of large and/or complex adult education data, ensuring it is statistically robust. This strand will lead the programme and external publication of the Mayor’s Adult Education Budget Individual Learner Record (ILR) data and the Mayor’s London Learner Survey results.

4.5 The existing and proposed structures can be found at Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

4.6 Through the GLA’s 2021/22 budget setting process, the creation of four posts in the FP&S team was approved

 Two of the posts (G10 Principal Policy Officer GLA4658 and G8 Fixed Term Contract Senior Data Officer GLA4659) have already been established under cover of CO-254.

 This report requests that the remaining two posts are created:

o G11 Supervisory Economist, Complex analysis & Statistical Publications – This post is required to lead a team of economists and data analysts which provides expert analysis and advice on the Adult Education Budget, the GLA’s largest revenue stream, and other Skills and Employment data including ESF.

o G7 Economist – This post is required to provide data analysis for complex and statistical publications.

Delivery East and South and Delivery Central and West

4.7 Five posts which deliver the Mayor’s Construction Academy (MCA) have been extended to June 2022 to align with the programme period. The delivery model, findings and learning from the MCA programme are shaping the development of the new sector-specific Skills Academies which will play a significant part in delivering the Good Work for All Londoners recovery mission. This report proposes that all five roles are now made permanent to provide delivery capacity for the Academies and to ensure the aims of the Mission are met. The roles will be funded by the MCA programme budget until 2022/23 when the programme ends, and will then be funded by the sectoral Academies budget. This has been taken into account in setting future budgets for this work.

4.8 In addition, it is proposed to create an externally-funded Grade 9 post of Senior Project Officer for the management and support of GLA OPS processes within the Unit. This post was not included in the 21/22 GLA Budget and has arisen due to additional funding being received from central Page 210

Government in relation to the AEB and National Skills Fund since the budget was agreed. The post would report to the current Principal Project Officer within the Central and West team, who is the lead for GLA OPS systems developments for AEB and ESF programmes. The Unit is a significant user of the GLA OPS platform which is now used to manage over £300m of payments each year. With some 500 projects registered since June 2019, there is a need for this additional role in order to effectively deliver the business-as-usual functionality of the system to benefit the end users of FE colleges, local authorities and training organisations. This role would be funded by the AEB.

Strategy and Relationships

4.9 In February 2021, under cover of CO-235, the Head of Paid Service approved the creation of a G11 Strategy Manager and a regrade of an existing G10 Principal Policy Officer to a G11 Strategy Manager.

4.10 The Chief Officer form stated that the Skills and Employment Unit committed to reviewing posts which could be deleted if the G11 Strategy Manager post was approved. Two G10 Principal Policy Officer roles will now be deleted following the completion of a ring-fenced recruitment exercise to the G11 post, in accordance with the GLA’s organisational change procedure.

5. Legal Implications

5.1 Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the Head of Paid Service (the “HoPS”) may, after consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly and having regard to the resources available and priorities of the Authority:

 appoint such staff as the HoPS considers necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Authority (section 67(2)); and

 make such appointments on such terms and conditions as the HoPS thinks fit (section 70(2)).

5.2 The Assembly has delegated its powers of consultation on staffing matters to the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

5.3 After consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly, the Head of Paid Service Staffing Protocol and Scheme of Delegation (the “Staffing Protocol”) was adopted by the HoPS in November 2009 and revised in July 2018. The Staffing Protocol sets out the Authority’s agreed approach as to how the HoPS will discharge the staffing powers contained in sections 67(2) and 70(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended).

5.4 Paragraph 5.1 of the Staffing Protocol says that, “The HoPS will consult the Chief of Staff, on behalf of the Mayor, and the Assembly’s staffing committee, on behalf of the Assembly, on any major restructure; namely the creation or deletion of five or more posts within any one unit.” As set out above, the Assembly’s staffing committee is currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

Page 211

5.5 The proposals set out in this report fall within the definition of a ‘major restructure’ contained within the Staffing Protocol so require formal consultation with the Chief of Staff (on behalf of the Mayor) and the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee, (on behalf of the Assembly). The report seeks to consult the Assembly (via the Assembly’s staffing committee, the GLA Oversight Committee) in line with the requirements set out in the Staffing Protocol. The responses received will be taken into consideration when making a decision.

5.6 The GLA should follow its Organisational Change Policy in dealing with this restructure. If any employees are made redundant, the GLA’s Compensation Payments Policy may apply.

5.7 The GLA should ensure that its Recruitment and Selection Policy and Equal Opportunities Standard are followed when recruiting to the vacant posts.

5.8 Fixed term employees have the right to be treated no less favourably than permanent employees due to their fixed term employee status. Once the post holder has been in post beyond two years, they will have the same statutory right as a permanent employee not to be unfairly dismissed. After two years’ service, the post holder may also be eligible to receive a redundancy payment should the post come to an end. Any fair dismissal of the employee at the end of the fixed term will necessitate a fair reason and a fair procedure. This will involve considering suitable alternative employment before confirming that their employment is terminated. If the funding continues after the end of their fixed term contract, it may be difficult to dismiss for redundancy (one of the fair reasons) if in fact there is further work to be carried out after the end of the contract. If the employee has been employed on a series of successive fixed-term contracts, then they will be considered to be a permanent employee if their contract is renewed after four years of service and there is no objective justification for the continued use of fixed-term contracts.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 The proposed restructure of the GLA’s Skills and Employment Unit includes changes to the permanent GLA establishment. These include several deletions, creations and changes to existing posts (grades and FTE changes). The changes set out are contained within the budget envelope approved as part of the budget setting process.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Proposed Skills and Employment Organogram – To Follow

Appendix 2 – Current Funding Policy and Systems Team Structure – To Follow

Appendix 3 – Proposed Funding Policy and Systems Team Structure – To Follow

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Contact Information

Page 212

Contact Officer: Michelle Cuomo Boorer, Assistant Director, Skills & Employment

Telephone: 020 7983 6547

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 213 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 214 Agenda Item 14

Subject: GLA Culture and Creative Industries Unit – Proposed Changes to the GLA Establishment

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Chief Officer

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public. Access:

1. Summary

1.1 This paper sets out proposals for changes to the Greater London Authority (GLA) Establishment relating to the Authority’s Unit responsible for the policy areas of culture, creative industries and 24 Hour London. The Culture and Creative Industries Unit is part of the Good Growth Directorate.

1.2 The creative and night time industries are vital to London, and will deliver jobs, growth and community support as the city recovers from COVID-19. These sectors have been hardest hit by the economic impacts of the pandemic and the changes brought about by Brexit; London’s creative industries stood to lose £16.5bn and 152,500 jobs by the end of 2020 due to COVID-19. But these are also London’s growth industries, worth £58.4bn a year and providing 1 in 6 jobs in the capital; they will significantly drive economic and social recovery.

1.3 The Culture and Creative Industries Unit has a growing and complex portfolio, reflecting the devastating impact of COVID-19 on the sectors it supports, and the vital role that those sectors will play in driving recovery. Its projects are not restricted to a single Foundation or Mission, but cut widely across the recovery programme, contributing to five London Recovery Missions and seven Recovery foundations; from High Streets for All and Helping Londoners into Good Work, to Building Strong Communities and Supporting Business, Jobs and Growth.

1.4 The proposed staffing structure set out in this paper will enable the Unit to deliver this expanded programme effectively. It will secure existing capacity and provide a more stable foundation by extending fixed term contracts, while adapting flexible job descriptions into new posts to allow a more agile approach to delivery.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 215 v1/2021

1.5 Structurally, it will rebalance resource between programmes and infrastructure, with an increase in support for at risk cultural infrastructure and a focus across the Unit’s portfolio on jobs and skills and diversity. Administration capacity is being reduced to prioritise delivery and policy capacity for the changing programme.

1.6 Core staff numbers are proposed to grow by 4.2FTE in 2021-22, reducing back by 1FTE during 2022-23. Within this, 5 posts (4.8 FTE) are proposed to be deleted and 9 posts (9 FTE) created, six posts are proposed to change and nine fixed term contracts are proposed to be extended to accommodate the increased and significantly refocused recovery work of the Unit. This is an increase of 1 FTE on the 3.2 FTE allowed for in the GLA:Mayor 2021-22 budget, due to the transfer of one post (and associated) budget from the Communities and Skills Unit to Culture and Creative Industries. Funding for posts is contained within the GLA’s 2021-22 published budget, is within the Unit’s budget envelope, and is within the GLA’s posts envelope.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee responds to the Chief Officer’s consultation on the proposed changes to the GLA Establishment relating to the Culture and Creative Industries Unit.

3. Background

3.1 The creative and night-time industries are vital to London and will play a crucial role in its economic and social recovery from COVID-19, delivering jobs, growth and community support. These sectors have been devastated by the economic impacts of COVID-19 and the changes brought about by Brexit. Research commissioned in 2020 by the GLA and Oxford Economics showed that London’s creative industries stood to lose £16.5bn and 152,500 jobs by the end of 2020 due to the pandemic.

3.2 But these are also London’s growth industries, with the potential to significantly drive economic and social recovery. Prior to COVID-19 and Brexit, the creative industries were one of London’s fastest- growing sectors, contributing £58.4bn to the economy annually, and accounting for one in six jobs in the capital, with creative jobs growing three times faster than the rest of the economy. Access to culture is also proven to improve health and wellbeing and is a key part of the Mayor’s preventative approach to reducing violent crime, seeking to tackle it at its root causes by helping young people to make positive life choices.

3.3 The impacts of COVID-19 have magnified the challenges identified in the Mayor’s Culture Strategy ‘Culture for All Londoners’. These challenges include the impact of austerity on public funding, local authorities' declining ability to support culture, stark losses of cultural infrastructure, a lack of diversity in London’s creative workforce, international competition and the impact of Brexit. The Mayor’s manifesto for 2021-24 reiterates and increases his commitment to ensuring that more Londoners, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can access the positive benefits of arts and culture, and that London retains its status as a world-leading capital for culture and creativity. The manifesto includes a broad range of ambitious pledges to deliver the Mayor’s commitment to support culture, the creative industries and the night-time economy.

Page 216

3.4 The work of the Unit changed considerably during 2020. Creative and night-time businesses were the first to close and will be the last to open, and in March 2020 the Unit’s work pivoted to crisis response. The Unit designed and distributed more than £3.5m in emergency response funds for grassroots organisations and communities, keeping hundreds of businesses afloat. It undertook influential research and lobbying, resulting in creative supply chain organisations and music venues being made eligible for government’s £1.57bn Culture Recovery Fund. This work was supported by a range of staff temporarily redeployed from other GLA teams; including three members of the EURO2020 team and four Regeneration officers. By March 2021, all redeployed capacity had returned to its original team, contributing to the need to reshape Unit capacity.

3.5 In addition, the Mayor’s establishment of the London Recovery Board, supported by a London Recovery Taskforce, has led to further reshaping of the Unit’s work, in line with the missions-based approach adopted to drive recovery. This has put the Unit in a unique position, not mirrored by any other team at the GLA, of being embedded across a total of 12 key missions and foundations, as set out below and reflected in the Mayor’s new manifesto.

Missions:

 Building Strong Communities: Community Recovery grants programme; Culture at Risk office, Community Spaces at Risk Fund, and Cultural Infrastructure Plan.

 High Streets for All: Creative Enterprise Zones; 24 Hr London – Night Time Enterprise Zones and Night Time Data Observatory

 Helping Londoners Into Good Work: Creative Skills Academy; Creative Freelancers: Shaping London’s Recovery; Freelance Charter; Skills work for freelancers.

 Mental Health and Wellbeing; Culture Health and Wellbeing programme – social prescribing / young people’s mental health / Dementia Friendly Venues Charter.

 A New Deal for Young People; supporting mission by harnessing culture and creative sector.

Foundations:

 Supporting Business, Jobs and Growth; Creative Economy Growth Portfolio; London Reopening Programme; 24 Hour London – engagement programme; World Cities Culture Forum and Leadership Exchange Programme; Recovery Observatory for Culture.

 Capital Development: East Bank; New Museum of London; International Centre for Creative Industries

 Spatial Development: Thames Estuary Production Corridor

 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm; URBACT Access programme; Workforce diversity: Creative JobCentre / Leadership Accelerator / Unpacking the Credits careers education programme; London Music Fund.

 Engaging Londoners: Fourth Plinth; London Borough of Culture

 Two core blocks: Statutory Museum of London grant / UEFA EURO2020 culture programme in Events.

Page 217

3.6 The proposed structural and staffing changes will support focused delivery in this changing and challenging policy context. The reorganised structure will reflect the increasing role and work programme of the Culture and Creative Unit in delivering economic and social impact across a wide range of policy areas from health to regeneration. It will also embed lessons learned from agile working during the pandemic, and efficiencies achieved since the last restructure of the Unit in 2018. This will ensure the Unit can remain responsive to the changing social and economic landscape in London and better respond and adapt to emerging challenges and opportunities.

4. Rationale for Change

4.1 The changes proposed will enable the Culture and Creative Industries Unit to:

 Deliver impact for Londoners through new and expanded recovery programmes as outlined in the Mayor’s 2021-24 manifesto;

 Contribute to 12 Recovery missions and foundations in which the Unit’s work is embedded, including through cross cutting initiatives to deliver the Mayor’s health in all policies commitment and equality, diversity and inclusion.

 Provide more effective lobbying and advocacy, seeking impact for Londoners in the context of reduced resources and the Levelling Up agenda; and

 Bolster support for the sector and recovery through securing leverage and partnerships.

4.2 The Unit’s work programme has substantially changed. The Unit’s net budget for 2021-22 has been reduced compared with 2020-21, at £8.4m. Within this envelope, every aspect of the Unit’s work programme has been reviewed and adapted. A range of projects have been pivoted, rescoped or stopped, reducing costs to both accommodate new recovery priorities and produce an overall saving for the GLA.

4.3 During the height of the pandemic and lockdowns, the Unit designed and delivered support programmes to help stem job losses and business closures in the creative sector and night-time economy. These included an expanded Culture at Risk Office and £2.3m Culture at Risk Business Support Fund; research on COVID-19’s projected impact on jobs to support effective lobbying and advocacy; Make London community grants; the new High Street Challenge Fund; and key new data on footfall and busyness to help target borough and bid reopening planning.

4.4 This significantly increased workload was delivered throughout 2020 through redeployment of staff from other GLA teams; with up to seven officers deployed from other teams at any one time. This redeployed capacity has now returned to its original GLA teams, whilst many of the recovery focused programmes continue, resulting in the need for additional capacity in the Unit.

4.5 Three major programmes have pivoted to support recovery and London’s boroughs, communities, and hard-hit creative industries (London Borough of Culture, Creative Enterprise Zones and the Mayor’s Creative Industries Growth Programme). For example, during the pandemic, Creative Enterprise Zones generated £1.6M of additional funding, supported 300 businesses and protected 1000 jobs. The Creative Industries Growth Programme moved online, continuing to generate millions for small businesses and freelancers during the pandemic. And in London Borough of Culture, Waltham Forest’s Legends of the Forest volunteers mobilised to staff food banks and deliver medicines to vulnerable residents.

Page 218

4.6 To produce savings, the Unit took additional steps including winding down Culture Seeds; scaling back activity in London Borough of Culture; remodelling the Creative Enterprise Zones programme on reduced costs; reprofiling activity on the Fourth Plinth; securing match funding; and contracting appropriate work out to reduce GLA headcount and costs.

4.7 This has allowed new priorities to be funded within existing budget envelopes. New activity to support recovery includes:

 An expanded Culture and Community Spaces at Risk programme;

 More Creative Enterprise Zones, using a cost-effective new programme model;

 Support for a new International Centre for Creative Industries;

 Social prescribing and mental health programmes;

 Piloting a Creative Skills Academy;

 Delivering a Freelancers Charter;

 A High Street Data Partnership;

 Delivering Night Time Enterprise Zones through the High Street Challenge Fund; and

 The Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm.

4.8 In addition, in March 2021, the Mayor announced a £6m campaign to support the safe reopening of central London, to be delivered by the Economic Development team with the Culture and Creative Industries Unit. This programme is being delivered through a several roles within the Unit, along with specialist consultancy and a small number of short-term agency contracts. All delivery and staffing costs are being met within the £6m budget.

4.9 Over the past year, Unit staff have worked flexibly and achieved high impact as London has transitioned from response to recovery – and back again as needed. Given the continuing unknowns surrounding COVID-19 and cultural and night-time recovery that lie ahead, and potential emerging new priorities as the new administration reviews manifesto delivery, flexibility will remain important. The restructure will build more ongoing flexibility into new job roles and descriptions, as well as addressing gaps in delivery.

4.10 Whilst reprioritising and making a small increase to capacity to deliver the agreed programme, the restructure will also bring the Unit’s structure in line with updated GLA approaches to line management and spans of control. It will allow efficiencies to be delivered by reorganising responsibilities, for example across the operations team and policy team, managing headcount.

4.11 In addition, the Unit has a high proportion of fixed term contracts, at 49% of the Unit. 9 of these currently end between August 2021 and March 2022, creating a substantial risk to delivery and impact which this restructure will address through appropriate extensions.

Page 219

5. Proposed Changes

5.1 The Unit will continue to be structured around three sub-teams:

A. Strategy and Programmes;

B. Cultural Infrastructure and Public Realm; and

C. World City and Operations.

5.2 Within these teams, however, portfolios and reporting structures will change significantly to support delivery of the 12 recovery missions and foundations, and to deliver new spans of control in line with updated GLA policy. The proposed Unit structure is outlined in Appendix One. The existing Unit structure is in Appendix Two.

5.3 Collaboration across the GLA will be at the core of delivery and capacity to support this has been designed into this approach. The Unit will work extensively with GLA teams including MOPAC, Skills and Employment, Regeneration, Economic Development, Planning, TfL, Communities and Social Policy, the Health team, Education and Youth team, Team London, GLA Intelligence, Government Relations, International, and Housing and Land.

5.4 Headlined in Figure 1 is the work programme of each of the sub-teams, highlighting programmes which are new or changed. This revised programme will be delivered through the proposed changes. New programmes are shown in red.

Page 220

Figure 1 Strategy and Programmes Cultural Infrastructure and World City and Operations Public Realm

London Reopening Programme Expanded Culture at Risk Office London Reopening Programme London Borough of Culture Community Spaces at Risk Fund Night Time Enterprise Zones Cultural Impact Awards Creative Enterprise Zones expanded High Street Data partnership Make London grants programme High Street Challenge Fund Social prescribing pilots Creative Enterprise Zones skills Night Time Borough Champions Young people’s mental health programme Network programmes Creative Land Trust Licensing and planning Dementia Friendly Venues Planning application responses coordination Charter Cultural Infrastructure Plan Night Time Data Observatory URBACT Access citizen Thames Estuary Production Corridor Night time borough strategies engagement project International Centre for Creative Brexit/EU policy Libraries Industries Museum of London statutory Heritage New Museum of London grant Festivals/Events London Plan /Agent of Change World Cities Culture Forum Creative Industries Growth East Bank Leadership Exchange Portfolio: River Vision Programme Film London / British Fashion Good Growth Fund project delivery Immigration policy Council / London Design Royal Docks development support Cultural Tourism Festival / London Games Old Oak Park Royal development Cultural Export Festival East London Fashion District L&P / Inward investment London Culture Forum Illuminated River International visits and Creative Skills Academy pilot Design guides for developers delegations Creative JobCentres pilot Good Growth by Design Culture and environment Getting Building Fund: Art on the Underground Devolution Dagenham Film Studios and 3 Fourth Plinth Commissions Young people and education Mills Fourth Plinth Schools Awards London Music Fund Workforce Diversity projects: Artists’ Affordable Workspace Communications and stakeholder careers programme / Diversity Meanwhile use development engagement leadership programme TV and Film Studio creation Performance reporting Equal Access Network Commission for Diversity in the Governance and operations Creative Freelancers: Shaping Public Realm Finance London’s Recovery Slavery memorial, National Sikh War HR delivery Freelancers Charter Memorial Trust support, COVID-19 Providing sector advisory Statutory Mayor’s Cultural memorial support services Leadership Group Providing sector advisory services Statutory Culture Strategy Outcomes and impact framework Mayor’s Questions coordination Key correspondence Policy development and Briefings Providing sector advisory services

Page 221

Leadership

5.5 The Unit’s Senior Management Team consists of the Assistant Director and three Senior Managers who each led a sub team.

5.6 A new post of Senior Manager, World Cities Culture Forum Transition, grade 12, will be established as part of the management team for 12 months as approved by CO 282. The World Cities Culture Forum is convened by the Mayor and provides global leadership on culture in cities with up to 40 international member cities. Throughout the pandemic, cities and culture have faced unprecedented challenges, and the Forum has shared resources and supported tangible action. This post will deliver the legal, governance and fundraising activity needed to set up World Cities Culture Forum as an independent entity, securing its future sustainability and creating long term savings for the GLA.

Strategy and Programmes

5.7 Proposed changes to this sub-team are:

 The Unit’s policy responsibilities will be restructured amongst posts to better deliver recovery programmes, lobbying and advocacy. The Policy and Projects Officer, London Boroughs post will be deleted, with some responsibilities transferred to the part time Borough Engagement post for London Borough of Culture. Responsibilities between the Culture Policy Officer and Policy and Projects Officer, Culture Strategy will be reorganised, resulting in the re-evaluation of the Policy and Projects Officer, Culture Strategy and it is envisaged that this would lead to the post being regraded from grade 7 to grade 8. A new Project Support Officer post will be created.

 The London Borough of Culture team will be reshaped. The Communications Coordinator post will be deleted, with some responsibilities absorbed within existing job descriptions. The Senior Policy Officer post leading the team will be re-evaluated and it is envisaged that this would lead to the post being regraded from grade 9 to grade 10 and renamed Principal Policy Officer, reflecting increased legacy and fundraising responsibilities, and a 0.6FTE Project Officer post will be extended to 0.8FTE to help deliver the Unit’s social prescribing and young people’s mental health programmes.

 The Culture Seeds Coordinator post will be deleted as this programme no longer continues.

Cultural Infrastructure and Public Realm

5.8 Proposed changes to this sub-team are:

 The creation of a grade 9 Culture and Community Spaces at Risk Manager and grade 8 Culture and Community Spaces at Risk Officer to staff the expanded Culture at Risk office and new Community Spaces at Risk function. The office has seen an increase in case load to upwards of 750 a year compared to 150 a year prior to March 2020. It is expected that cases will rise following the end of furlough and of the government’s Culture Recovery Fund.

 The creation of a grade 10 Capital Development Manager to maximise support from across the GLA to a number of major capital projects, each of which will drive significant job creation. These include the new International Centre for Creative Industries, the East Bank development in the Olympic Park and the relocation and expansion of the Museum of London.

Page 222

 The creation of a grade 9 Senior Policy Officer, Creative Enterprise Zones and the extension of two existing fixed term posts to deliver the expansion of Creative Enterprise Zones across London.

 The creation of a grade 8 Grants Officer to provide grants expertise across the Unit and to develop and deliver a London-wide community grants programme as part of the Diversity in the Public Realm programme. The creation of a grade 8 Stakeholder and Engagement Officer to support the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm to deliver impact with boroughs and communities across London.

World City and Operations

5.9 Proposed changes to the sub-team are:

 The operations team will be reduced by 25% through the deletion of the Projects and Events Officer post. To enable this, the restructure of responsibilities in the Strategy and Programmes team will provide more flexible project support, as outlined in para 5.7.1.

 A restructure of responsibilities across the remaining three operations posts will rationalise the skill set in each post, better supporting the revised programme. It will result in a change in FTE from 1 to 0.8FTE for the Programme (Finance) Governance Officer, the deletion of a grade 5 Team Administrator post and the creation of a grade 7 Programme Governance Support Officer.

5.10 Across sub-teams, 49% of the Unit’s staff are on fixed term contracts. Nine of these currently end between August 2021 and March 2022, creating a substantial risk to delivery and impact which this restructure will address through extensions to secure delivery.

5.11 The nature of the work that is being carried out by those roles remains fixed term in line with the budget confirmed to March 2022-23. It is therefore proposed that the fixed term contracts as outlined in 6.7 are extended to end March 2023 to deliver the work programmes required.

6. Impacts on Existing Staff and Posts

6.1 In developing the proposals laid out in this document, we have continuously considered how individuals already employed in the team would be impacted by the proposed new structure, within the framework of our Organisational Change Policy.

6.2 The tables below set out the posts proposed to delete, to create and which will change as a result of this restructure. Unaffected roles are listed in Appendix 3.

6.3 Proposed post deletions:

Page 223

Post Sub team FTE Grade Culture Seeds Coordinator: Led Culture Seeds microgrants, a programme replaced by GLA wide recovery microgrants Strategy and Programmes 0.8 8 London Borough of Culture Communications Officer: Budget for the programme reduced and responsibilities distributed across team. Strategy and Programmes 1 8 Policy & Projects Officer: London Boroughs: Lead Unit capacity building for local authorities, provided policy support for London Borough for Culture and Creative Enterprise Zones. Strategy and Programmes 1 7 Projects and Events Officer: Flexible project support and lead for event delivery, bids, briefs and Unit stakeholder lists. Strategy and Programmes 1 5 Team Administrator: Business support, key World City and correspondence and flexible team support. Operations 1 5 TOTAL 4.8

Page 224

6.4 Proposed post creations:

Post Sub-team FTE Grade Capital Development Manager: Leading GLA’s cross Unit support of East Bank, New Museum of London and International Centre Cultural Infrastructure and for Creative Industries Public Realm 1 10 Culture and Community Spaces at Risk Manager: Leading expanded programme to help cultural and community spaces at risk of Cultural Infrastructure and closure, delivering case work. Public Realm 1 9 Culture and Community Spaces at Risk Officer: Delivering case work to help cultural Cultural Infrastructure and and community spaces at risk of closure. Public Realm 1 8 Senior Policy Officer: Creative Enterprise Zones: Delivering expanded programme to support jobs, businesses, skills and local Cultural Infrastructure and communities. Public Realm 1 9 Stakeholder and Engagement Officer: Leading on Diversity in the Public Realm Cultural Infrastructure and projects and flexible project support. Public Realm 1 8 Grants Officer: Delivering community grants programme to support diversity, supporting Cultural Infrastructure and GLA grant-making policy. Public Realm 1 8 Project Support Officer: Flexible support for recovery projects, including Creative Industries Growth Portfolio, Dementia Charter, diversity programmes. Strategy and Programmes 1 7

Senior Manager: World City Culture Forum Transition: Delivering transition of programme to independent entity. World City and Operations 1 12 Programme Governance Officer: Performance monitoring, contract development and management, governance support. World City and Operations 1 7 Total 9

6.5 Proposed changes to existing roles:

Page 225

Post Sub-team FTE Grade Type of Change Senior Programme Manager, Creative Enterprise Zones: leads Cultural programme team, evaluation, budget Infrastructure management, development of future and Public Extend fixed term rounds. Realm 1 10 contract Senior Policy Officer, Creative Cultural Enterprise Zones: round one Infrastructure programme delivery, knowledge and Public Extend fixed term exchange forum. Realm 1 9 contract Project Officer: Cultural Impact Extend fixed term Awards delivery, Creative Freelancers, contract, increase social prescribing and young people's Strategy and to FTE from 0.6 to mental health. Programmes 0.8 7 0.8 Senior Cultural Policy Officer: Creative Skills Academy, Freelancers Charter, Recovery Observatory for Strategy and Extend fixed term Culture, Government relations. Programmes 1 9 contract Senior Policy Officer, Diversity in the Creative Workforce: young people's careers development and leadership programmes, JobCentres programme, cross Unit diversity Strategy and Extend fixed term projects. Programmes 1 9 contract Senior Policy Officer, London Borough of Culture (Round Two): Strategy and Extend fixed term Delivery of title award programmes. Programmes 1 9 contract Change to job Principal Policy Officer, London description and Borough of Culture: leads London re-evaluate Borough of Culture team, legacy, Strategy and (expected regrade fundraising, partnership development. Programmes 1 10 from 9 to 10) Culture Policy Officer: Policy delivery including Recovery Observatory for Culture, research, data Strategy and Change to job and evidence to support recovery. Programmes 1 8 description Programme Manager World Cities Culture Forum: programme development and delivery, Leadership World City and Extend fixed term Exchange Programme. Operations 1 9 contract Policy and Research Officer, 24 Hr London: data and research, strategy guidance to boroughs, licensing and World City and Extend fixed term planning coordination. Operations 1 8 contract Programme Finance Officer: Change to job Accounts and finance, year end and World City and description and quarterly processing, Unit HR delivery. Operations 0.8 8 FTE from 1 to 0.8 Business Support Officer: Flexible ops support, finance processing, World City and Change to job approvals process. Operations 1 5 description Senior Policy Officer, Cultural World City and Extend fixed term Education and Music Operations 1 9 contract

Page 226

Change to job description and Policy and Projects Officer, Culture re-evaluate Strategy: Lead on statutory Mayor's (expected regrade Cultural Leadership Board, MQTs, from 7 to 8) and Board appointments, impact Strategy and extend fixed term evaluation, flexible project support. Programmes 1 8 contract Total 13.6

7. Consultation Process

7.1 Every member of staff affected will be offered an individual consultation meeting with the Assistant Director for Culture and Creative Industries (or another appropriate member of the management team), and an HR colleague as part of the restructure process where, working within the parameters of the Organisational Change Policy. Staff at risk will have an opportunity to learn further information about posts in the proposed structure in order to help them identify which posts they want to express interest in. It is not anticipated that there will be any redundancies as a result of this restructure. Grades are, at this stage, indicative, subject to completion of job evaluations.

7.2 Staff will be invited to send comments during the consultation process itself direct to the Assistant Director and the HR lead and these will be considered throughout the consultation period. Comments gathered through individual consultation meetings will also be collated, subject to staff agreement, as part of this process, as will any comments and feedback from UNISON.

7.3 We know that organisational change can be unsettling and difficult for staff. As the majority of the workforce are currently working remotely, we want to ensure that we are offering appropriate support during this period of change. Additionally, we will discuss with Unison the best way to consult and provide support in the current circumstances. We will ensure staff are assured that the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) is available providing a range of information, advice and support on home and work matters. It is confidential and no personal information is shared with the GLA.

Page 227

7.4 The consultation’s timeline is set out below:

Date Action

17 May 2021 Consultation period commenced (30 days), following announcement to all staff

From 17 May 2021 onwards Individual staff meetings between Senior Managers, HR and over several weeks affected staff

From 17 May 2021 onwards Consultation with Unison

25 May 2021 Proposal presented at Oversight Committee

16 June 2021 Consultation end date and deadline for all responses

The implementation timeline will be confirmed following the completion of the consultation period, when the future structure is confirmed.

8. Legal Implications

8.1 Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the Head of Paid Service (the “HoPS”) may, after consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly and having regard to the resources available and priorities of the Authority:

 appoint such staff as the HoPS considers necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Authority (section 67(2)); and

 make such appointments on such terms and conditions as the HoPS thinks fit (section 70(2)).

8.2 The Assembly has delegated its powers of consultation on staffing matters to the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

8.3 After consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly, the Head of Paid Service Staffing Protocol and Scheme of Delegation (the “Staffing Protocol”) was adopted by the HoPS in November 2009 and revised in July 2018. The Staffing Protocol sets out the Authority’s agreed approach as to how the HoPS will discharge the staffing powers contained in sections 67(2) and 70(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended).

8.4 Paragraph 5.1 of the Staffing Protocol says that, “The HoPS will consult the Chief of Staff, on behalf of the Mayor, and the Assembly’s staffing committee, on behalf of the Assembly, on any major restructure; namely the creation or deletion of five or more posts within any one unit.” As set out above, the Assembly’s staffing committee is currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

8.5 The proposals set out in this paper fall within the definition of a ‘major restructure’ contained within the Staffing Protocol so require formal consultation with the Chief of Staff (on behalf of the Mayor) and the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee, (on behalf of the Assembly). The paper seeks to consult the Assembly (via the Assembly’s staffing committee, the GLA Oversight Committee) in line with the requirements set out in the Staffing Protocol. The responses received will be taken into consideration when making a decision.

Page 228

8.6 The GLA should follow its Organisational Change Policy in dealing with this restructure. If any employees are made redundant, the GLA’s Compensation Payments Policy may apply.

8.7 The GLA should ensure that its Recruitment and Selection Policy and Equal Opportunities Standard are followed when recruiting to the vacant posts.

8.8 Fixed term employees have the right to be treated no less favourably than permanent employees due to their fixed term employee status. Once the post holder has been in post beyond two years, they will have the same statutory right as a permanent employee not to be unfairly dismissed. After two years’ service, the post holder may also be eligible to receive a redundancy payment should the post come to an end. Any fair dismissal of the employee at the end of the fixed term will necessitate a fair reason and a fair procedure. This will involve considering suitable alternative employment before confirming that their employment is terminated. If the funding continues after the end of their fixed term contract, it may be difficult to dismiss for redundancy (one of the fair reasons) if in fact there is further work to be carried out after the end of the contract. If the employee has been employed on a series of successive fixed-term contracts, then they will be considered to be a permanent employee if their contract is renewed after four years of service and there is no objective justification for the continued use of fixed-term contracts.

9. Financial Implications

Overview

9.1 The proposed restructure of the GLA’s Culture and Creative Industries Unit includes changes to the permanent GLA establishment. These include several deletions, creations and changes to existing posts (grades and FTE changes), one of which is additional to the posts set as part of the 2021-22 budget process (detail of these proposals noted within the main body of this report).

Culture and Creative Industries Permanent Establishment

9.2 The 2021-22 GLA:Mayor budget process set out a 3.2 FTE increase on posts from 2019-20, incorporating the creation and deletion of a number of posts as set out in this paper. Subsequent to the completion of the budget process, an additional increase of 1 FTE has been proposed. This is due to the transfer of a Grants Officer Post from the Communities and Skills Unit to Culture and Creative Industries. As a result, this restructure consultation paper proposes a net increase of 4.2 FTE on 2019-20 headcount, bringing the FTE count to 37.9.

9.3 Subject to consultation and formal job evaluations, the overall proposal would mean an increase in the cost of the units approved salary budget for 2021-22 of £68,000.

Unit Salary budget as Revised Salary Net Increase in approved by budget – post salary budget budget process budget Culture and £ 2,450,000 £ 2,518,000 £68,000 Creative Industries Unit

Page 229

9.4 While the proposal indicates an increase in the unit’s salary budget for 2021-22 onwards, these costs are containable within the budget envelope approved as part of the budget setting process. £14,000 of the increase in costs relate directly to programme funded posts, hence will be funded from the Culture Programme budget for 2021-22 onwards. The balance of £54,000 relates to budget provision earmarked within the Community & Social Policy Unit (Communities & Skills Directorate) for the Grant Officer post which will now be created within the Culture Unit. As such, this post will be funded via a permanent virement from the budget provision held within Community & Social Policy Unit.

9.5 As this proposal includes the deletion of posts on the GLA establishment, redundancy and pension costs may become payable by the GLA. At this stage, such costs cannot yet be quantified as staff affected will be going through the Authority’s Management of Change and Recruitment & Selection procedures. In the event these costs become payable, they will be contained within the Authority’s existing revenue budget provision and will be subject to further approval via the Authority’s decision-making process.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Proposed organisational structure of the GLA Culture and Creative Industries Unit

Appendix 2 – Current organisational structure of the GLA Culture and Creative Industries Unit

Appendix 3 – Unaffected Roles

Appendix 4 – Initial Equality Impact Assessment

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Shonagh Manson, Assistant Director - Culture & Creative Industries

Telephone: 020 7983 4832

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 230 Appendix 1

Permanent GLA Culture & Creative Industries unit – proposed structure post

Fixed term post

Assistant Director Page 231 Page Senior Manager: Senior Manager: Senior Manager: Senior Manager: World City and World Cities Culture Strategy and Cultural Infrastructure Operations Forum Transition Programmes and Public Realm

Principal Policy 24 hour London Officer, Creative Manager Industries, Heritage and Skills Permanent GLA Culture & Creative Industries unit – proposed structure post

Fixed term post

Senior Manager: World City and Operations Page 232 Page

Programme Manager: Senior 24 hour London Business Support Programme Finance Governance Support World Cities Culture Communication and Manager Officer Officer Officer Forum Engagement Officer

Senior Policy Officer: Cultural Policy and Education and Research Officer Music Permanent GLA Culture & Creative Industries unit – proposed structure post

Fixed term post

Senior Manager: Strategy and Programmes

Principal Policy Page 233 Page Officer: Principal London Borough Creative Project Principal Policy Senior Policy Borough of Engagement Project Officer Industries, Development Officer Officer Culture Officer Heritage and Officer Coordinator Skills

Senior Policy Officer: Diversity Senior Cultural Culture Policy Policy and Project Support in the Creative Policy Officer Officer Projects Strategy Officer Workforce Permanent GLA Culture & Creative Industries unit – proposed structure post

Fixed term post

Senior Manager: Cultural Infrastructure and Public Realm

Page 234 Page Senior Programme Stakeholder Senior Policy Culture and Culture and Policy & Programme Capital Manager: Relations and Officer: Visual Community Community Projects Manager: Development Commission for Grants Officer Engagement Arts and Public Spaces At Risk Spaces at Risk Officer: Culture Creative Manager Diversity in the Officer Realm Manager Officer at Risk Enterprise Public Realm Zones

Senior Policy Policy Officer: Senior Policy Senior Policy Senior Policy Officer: Capital Thames Estuary Officer: Cultural Officer: Creative Officer: Creative Development & Production Infrastructure Enterprise Zones Enterprise Zones Placemaking Corridor Appendix 2

Culture and Creative Industries Unit: current structure Senior Management Team

Assistant Director Page 235 Page

Senior Manager, Strategy and Programmes Senior Manager, World City and Operations Senior Manager, Cultural Infrastructure and Public Realm

Principal Policy Officer, Creative Industries, Heritage and 24 Hr London Manager Skills World City and Operations

Senior Manager, World City and Operations (0.9)

Programme Manager, World Cities Culture Team Administrator Senior Communications and Engagement Programme (Finance) Governance Officer 24 Hr London Manager Forum Governance Officer Officer Page 236 Page

Senior Policy Officer, Cultural Education & Policy and Research Officer, 24 Hr London Music

Project and Events Officer Programmes and Strategy

Senior Manager, Strategy and Programmes

Principal Policy Officer, Principal Policy Officer, Principal Project Creative Industries, London Borough of Development Officer Heritage and Skills Culture

Page 237 Page Senior Policy Officer, London Borough of Senior Policy Officer, Senior Cultural Policy Policy and Projects Officer, London Borough of Culture Policy Officer Culture Seeds Coordinator London Borough of Culture Communications Diversity Officer London Boroughs Culture Coordinator Culture Coordinator

Policy & Projects Officer, Borough Engagement Business Support Officer Project Officer Culture Strategy Officer 0.6 Cultural Infrastructure and Public Realm

Senior Manager, Cultural Infrastructure and Public Realm Page 238 Page

Senior Programme Manager, Creative Senior Policy Officer, Visual Arts and Public Senior Policy Officer, Capital Projects and Programme Manager, Commission for Senior Policy Officer, Cultural Infrastructure Enterprise Zones Realm Placemaking Diversity

Senior Policy Officer, Creative Enterprise Policy Officer, Thames Estuary Production Policy and Projects Officer, Culture at Risk Zones Corridor

Appendix 3 Unaffected roles: Post Sub-team FTE Grade Senior Management Assistant Director Team 1 14 Senior Manager: World City and World City and Operations Operations 0.9 13 Senior Manager: Cultural Infrastructure Cultural Infrastructure and Public Realm and Public Realm 1 12 Senior Manager: Strategy and Strategy and Programmes Programmes 1 12 World City and 24 Hour London Manager Operations 1 11 Strategy and Principal Project Development Officer Programmes 1 10 Senior Policy Officer: Cultural Cultural Infrastructure Infrastructure and Public Realm 1 9 Strategy and Borough Engagement Officer Programmes 0.6 8 Senior Policy Officer: Visual Arts and Cultural Infrastructure Public Realm and Public Realm 1 9 Programme Manager, Commission for Cultural Infrastructure Diversity in the Public Realm and Public Realm 1 9 Policy & Projects Officer: Culture at Cultural Infrastructure Risk and Public Realm 1 8 Senior Policy Officer, Capital Cultural Infrastructure Development and Placemaking and Public Realm 1 9 Policy Officer: Thames Estuary Cultural Infrastructure Production Corridor and Public Realm 1 8 Principal Policy Officer, Creative Strategy and Industries, Heritage and Skills Programmes 1 11 Strategy and London Borough of Culture Coordinator Programmes 0.8 8 Senior Communications and World City and Engagement Officer Operations 1 8 Total 15.3

Page 239

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 240 Appendix 4

CCI Initial EQIA

Gender GLA Profile as at Comments Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Male 20% 30% 40% A higher proportion of females are potentially impacted by these proposals (10 percentage Female 80% 70% 60% points higher than the Unit profile, and 20 percentage points higher than the GLA wide profile). Unspecified 0% 0% 0% Further discussion will take place during the consultation period (minimising the potential for Total 100% 100% 100% individuals to become identifiable given the small numbers involved).

Disability GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Disabled 0% 3% 6% The projected impact is broadly in line with the GLA wide profile, albeit with a higher degree of Not Disabled 80% 85% 84% impact on those who have not stated whether or not they have a disability. Further discussion Not Stated 20% 12% 9% will take place during the consultation period (minimising the potential for individuals to become Total 100% 100% 100% identifiable given the small numbers involved).

Age GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments < 20 0% 0% 1% The three demographic groups with the most representation within the Unit is consistent with 20-29 20% 15% 18% the three groups within which individuals have been identified as being impacted by these 30-39 40% 27% 38% proposals. Further discussion will take place during the consultation period (minimising the 40-49 40% 48% 26% potential for individuals to become identifiable given the small numbers involved). 50-59 0% 9% 14% 60+ 0% 0% 3% Total 100% 100% 100%

Ethnicity GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Asian or Asian British 20% 9% 12% The three demographic groups with the most representation within the Unit are consistent with Black or Black British 0% 6% 11% the three groups within which individuals have been identified as being impacted by these White 60% 67% 65% proposals. Further discussion will take place during the consultation period (minimising the Chinese or any other ethnic group0% 3% 5% potential for individuals to become identifiable given the small numbers involved). Mixed 20% 9% 5% Not Stated 0% 6% 2% Total 100% 100% 100%

Sexuality GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Bisexual 0% 0% 2% The three demographic groups with the greatest representation within the Unit are consistent Heterosexual 60% 67% 79% with the three groups within which individuals have been identified as being impacted by these Lesbian or Gay man 20% 18% 5% proposals. Further discussion will take place during the consultation period (minimising the Prefer not to answer 20% 9% 6% potential for individuals to become identifiable given the small numbers involved). Not Stated 0% 6% 6% Total 100% 100% 100%

Faith GLA Profile as at Impacted % Unit Profile % 30/09/2020 Comments Buddist 0% 0% 0% The two demographic groups with the greatest representation within the Unit are consistent Christian 0% 12% 28% with the three groups within which individuals have been identified as being impacted by these Hindu 0% 3% 2% proposals. Further discussion will take place during the consultation period (minimising the Jewish 0% 3% 1% potential for individuals to become identifiable given the small numbers involved). Muslim 0% 3% 6% Sikh 0% 0% 1% None 60% 52% 45% Prefer not to say 40% 21% 9% Other 0% 0% 2% Not stated 0% 6% 7% Total 100% 100% 100%

Page 241 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 242 Agenda Item 15

Subject: Changes to the GLA Establishment

Report to: GLA Oversight Committee

Report of: Chief Officer

Date: 25 May 2021

Public This report will be considered in public Access:

1. Summary

1.1 The development of the GLA:Mayor budget 2021-22 has involved detailed consideration on how the GLA’s constrained resources are deployed to support London’s recovery from COVID-19. As part of this our staffing has been reviewed in detail to ensure it is configured to support recovery.

1.2 The detailed staffing implications set out in the published Budget included a number of staffing changes. This paper addresses the requirement to extend a number of fixed term posts and to convert a small number of posts from fixed term to permanent.

1.3 The GLA Oversight Committee are being consulted on these proposals.

1.4 45.6 fixed-term posts (31.0 FTE funded externally) are proposed for extensions for a further fixed-term period beyond their current end dates in 2021-22. 3.0 FTE posts are proposed for conversion from fixed term to permanent.

1.5 The body of this report sets out the rationale for each of these changes, along with the source of funding for each post. Appendix 1 to the report details the proposed extension dates for each fixed term post. Appendix 2 to the report provides a summary of those posts proposed to be made permanent.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee responds to the Chief Officer’s consultation on proposed changes to the GLA establishment.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 www.london.gov.uk Page 243 v1/2021

3. Background Extensions to Fixed Term Posts

3.1 The following section of the report details the 45.6 FTE fixed term posts to be extended. The full proposed changes are listed as follows: Fixed Term Extensions by FTE Total Sum of Directorate Unit External GLA Post FTE Assembly Secretariat Assembly Communications 1 1 Communities and Skills Team London 3 3 Culture and Creative Industries 1 8.6 Good Growth 10.6 Environment 1 Housing and Land Programme Policy and Services 24 1 25 Strategy and External Relations 4 6 Communications Strategy Intelligence and Analysis 2 Grand Total 31 14.6 45.6

Assembly Secretariat – Assembly Communications

3.2 The following posts are proposed for extension:

Unit Post Post Post Post Funding Reference FTE Grade Source Assembly 004286 Events Officer 1.00 Grade 6 GLA Communications

3.3 The Assembly Comms team advises, plans and executes all external communications materials for the London Assembly and its Committees that are of a cross party, non-political or balanced nature. The Events Officer post supports events, whether virtual or online, being delivered by the London Assembly. If the post were not to be extended there would be a significant reduction in events and a cut to the support from the Assembly for the Chair of the Assembly in any GLA-related events. This would also significantly reduce the additional support to the London Youth Assembly that is current provided on an informal, ‘goodwill’ basis.

Communities and Skills – Team London

3.4 The following fixed term posts are proposed for extension:

Unit Post Post Post Post Funding Reference FTE Grade Source Team London 003083 Network Lead 1.00 Grade 8 External Team London 003523 Network Lead 1.00 Grade 8 External Team London 003920 Regional Lead London 1.00 Grade 9 External

Page 244

3.5 The extension of the 3 posts is connected with the expansion and commissioning model of the Careers and Enterprise Company (CEC) programme and the London Enterprise Advisors Network. Team London delivers this on behalf of the CEC for the London region.

Good Growth – Culture and Creative Industries

3.6 The following fixed term posts are proposed for extension:

Unit Post Post Post Post Funding Reference FTE Grade Source Culture and Creative 003308 Senior Policy Officer Creative 1.00 Grade 9 GLA Industries Enterprise Zones Culture and Creative 003310 Programme Manager World 1.00 Grade 9 GLA Industries Cities Culture Forum Culture and Creative 003379 Senior Policy Officer Cultural 1.00 Grade 9 GLA Industries Education and Music Culture and Creative 003562 Policy and Projects Officer 1.00 Grade 7 GLA Industries Cultural Strategy Culture and Creative 003935 Policy and Research Officer 1.00 Grade 8 GLA Industries 24 hr London Culture and Creative 004167 Senior Policy Officer Diversity 1.00 Grade 9 GLA Industries in the Creative Workforce Culture and Creative 004172 Senior Policy Officer London 1.00 Grade 9 GLA Industries Borough of Culture Round Two Culture and Creative 004173 Project Officer London 0.60 Grade 7 GLA Industries Borough of Culture Round Two Culture and Creative 004174 Senior Programme Manager 1.00 Grade GLA Industries Creative Enterprise Zones 10 Culture and Creative 004479 Policy Officer Thames Estuary 1.00 Grade 8 External Industries Production Corridor

3.7 The creative and night-time industries are vital to London, and will deliver jobs, growth and community support as the city recovers from COVID-19. These sectors have been hardest hit by the economic impacts of the pandemic and the changes brought about by Brexit; London’s creative industries stood to lose £16.5bn and 152,500 jobs by the end of 2020 due to COVID-19. But these are also London’s growth industries, worth £58.4bn a year and providing 1 in 6 jobs in the capital; they will significantly drive economic and social recovery.

3.8 The Culture and Creative Industries Unit has a growing and complex portfolio, reflecting the impact of COVID-19 on the sectors it supports, and the vital role that those sectors will play in driving recovery. Its projects are not restricted to a single Foundation or Mission, but cut widely across the recovery programme, contributing to five London Recovery Missions and seven Recovery foundations; from High Streets for All and Helping Londoners into Good Work, to Building Strong Communities and Supporting Business, Jobs and Growth.

3.9 These extensions should be seen as part of the broader proposals to amend the structure of this unit, which will also be considered by this committee and can be seen in full in the report at Agenda Item 14.

Page 245

Good Growth – Environment

3.10 The following fixed term post is proposed for extension:

Unit Post Post Post Post Funding Reference FTE Grade Source Environment 004140 Project Manager for Home 1.00 Grade 9 External Response

3.11 The completion of this project was delayed due to the impact of COVID-19. An extension to funding to continue this work has now been confirmed by BEIS, which includes the proposed extension to this post.

Housing and Land – Programme Policy and Services

3.12 The following fixed term posts are proposed for extension:

Page 246

Unit Post Post Post Post Funding Reference FTE Grade Source Programme, Policy and 004371 Grenfell Inquiry Coordination 1.00 Grade 8 GLA Services Officer Programme, Policy and 003915 Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 8 External Services Programme, Policy and 004310 Project Officer Private Rented 1.00 Grade 7 External Services Sector Programme, Policy and 004312 Senior Policy and Project Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Rough Sleeping and Migration

Programme, Policy and 004313 Project Officer Rough Sleeping 1.00 Grade 7 External Services and Migration Programme, Policy and 004319 Senior Project Officer 1.00 Grade 8 External Services Community Led Housing Programme, Policy and 004488 Senior Programme Manager 1.00 Grade 12 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004489 Programme Manager Building 1.00 Grade 11 External Services Safety Programme, Policy and 004490 Programme Manager Building 1.00 Grade 11 External Services Safety Programme, Policy and 004491 Programme Manager Building 1.00 Grade 11 External Services Safety Programme, Policy and 004492 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004493 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004494 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004495 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004496 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004497 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004498 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004499 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004500 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004501 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004502 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004503 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety

Page 247

Programme, Policy and 004504 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004505 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety Programme, Policy and 004506 Senior Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 9 External Services Building Safety

3.13 The Grenfell Inquiry Coordination Officer post is proposed to be extended to 31 March 2022. The extension is in line with the Grenfell Inquiry timetable.

3.14 All other posts proposed for extension in Housing and Land are externally funded and the extensions are linked to the programmes of work being undertaken by those teams. In the Spring Budget 2020, the Government announced £1bn of grant funding available nationally via a new Building Safety Fund (BSF) for the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe non-ACM external wall systems. Through MD2630, the Mayor of London agreed to administer the BSF. Extensions here are to that team.

Strategy and Communications – External Relations

3.15 The following fixed term posts are proposed for extension:

Unit Post Post Post Post Funding Reference FTE Grade Source External Relations 003596 EURO 2020 Project Manager 1.00 Grade GLA 11 External Relations 004535 Press and Marketing Intern 1.00 Grade 1 GLA

External Relations 004536 Press and Marketing Intern 1.00 Grade 1 GLA

External Relations 004344 Major Sports Events Business 1.00 Grade 9 GLA Manager

3.16 The EURO 2020 Project Manager post is proposed for extension to 31 October 2022 to support work associated with the postponed UEFA Women’s European Football Championship from July 2021 to July 2022 which was delayed as a result of the Covid -19 pandemic.

3.17 The Press and Marketing Intern posts are part of a rolling programme of internships as a positive action programme to open up opportunities into press and marketing roles for BAME graduates.

3.18 The Major Sports Events and Business Manager role was originally created in February 2020 and exists to centralise, coordinate and manage a variety of core functions, including procurement, governance and finance for these very large projects and our extensive contractual host city commitments. The role plays a central part in project management and ensuring delivery is on track. This post is also fixed term until 31 October 2021. Similarly, the extension of this post is required given the remaining period of the contract no longer covers the delivery dates of the Women’s EURO championship. The extension to 31 October 2022 is to allow for the extensive close down and wrap up work to ensure all the reporting and end of contract requirements are met and lessons learnt captured and fed into future large scale sporting events.

Strategy and Communications – Strategy Intelligence and Analysis

3.19 The following fixed term posts are proposed for extension: Page 248

Unit Post Post Post Post Funding Reference FTE Grade Source Strategy Intelligence 004363 Communications Manager 1.00 Grade 8 External and Analysis

Strategy Intelligence 004144 Back End Developer Data 1.00 Grade External and Analysis Web Services 10

3.20 The Communications Manager post is one of the three Sharing Cities posts extended until the end of this calendar year to reflect the extension of the entire programme, which suffered delays in completion as a result of Covid-19. As a reminder, the Sharing Cities programme is a fully externally funded, 5-year programme, drawing to a close, funded from the EU Horizon budget (the successor to which the UK remains part of), which the GLA has been leading.

3.21 The Back End Developer Data Web Services post is fully funded from external sources and the extension is in line with the funding and relevant programmes of work for this post. Conversions of Fixed Term to Permanent roles

Good Growth – Planning

3.22 The following fixed term post is proposed for conversion to permanent:

Post Post Post Funding Unit Reference Post FTE Grade Source Planning 004285 Communications Officer 1.0 Grade 7 External

3.23 The work undertaken through this post to support and promote the activity of the unit is now clearly required on a permanent basis (e.g. recent work to support the London Plan). There is no longer a clear rationale through which this post can be maintained on a temporary basis.

Strategy and Communications – External Relations

3.24 The following fixed term posts are proposed for conversion to permanent:

Post Post Post Funding Unit Reference Post FTE Grade Source Senior Digital External Relations 004417 Communications Officer 1.0 Grade 8 GLA Head of Digital External Relations 004549 Communications 1.0 Grade 13 GLA

3.25 The Senior Digital Communications Officer role was created as a fixed term contract to provide additional capacity in response to COVID 19. The role provides essential BAU support to the work of the External Relations unit and in particular to paid digital advertising which spans several teams, primarily Digital Communications and Marketing Campaigns, but also the GLA’s policy teams. This role is necessary to be able to continue delivering this work. The GLA, relies on more in-house capacity to deliver digital advertising in a cost-effective way, and through this post the GLA has increased its in-house digital advertising volumes, and reduced costs by circa £300k for the GLA.

Page 249

3.26 The function of the Head of Digital Communications post is to act as a senior representative of the External Relations Unit, working across the organisation to coordinate and deploy all digital communications activity, including advising on digital outputs for GLA Campaigns, Press activity and other strategic communications activity. This post provides significant contribution to the GLA’s core strategic communications.

4. Legal Implications

4.1 Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended), the Head of Paid Service (the “HoPS”) may, after consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly and having regard to the resources available and priorities of the Authority:

 appoint such staff as the HoPS considers necessary for the proper discharge of the functions of the Authority (section 67(2)); and

 make such appointments on such terms and conditions as the HoPS thinks fit (section 70(2)).

4.2 The Assembly has delegated its powers of consultation on staffing matters to the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

4.3 After consultation with the Mayor and the Assembly, the GLA Head of Paid Service Staffing Protocol and Scheme of Delegation (the “Staffing Protocol”) was adopted by the HoPS in November 2009 and revised in July 2018. The Staffing Protocol sets out the Authority’s agreed approach as to how the HoPS will discharge the staffing powers contained in sections 67(2) and 70(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended).

4.4 Paragraph 5.1 of the Staffing Protocol says that, “The HoPS will consult the Chief of Staff, on behalf of the Mayor, and the Assembly’s staffing committee, on behalf of the Assembly, on any major restructure; namely the creation or deletion of five or more posts within any one unit.”

4.5 Paragraph 6.1 of the Staffing Protocol says that “Any proposals to create a temporary staff post – defined as being up to two years in duration – must be approved by the Head of Paid Service”. Paragraph 6.2 of the Staffing Protocol says that “These will be reported by the HoPS to the Chief of Staff (on behalf of the Mayor) and to the Assembly’s staffing committee (on behalf of the Assembly) in a six-monthly report”.

4.6 As set out above, the Assembly’s staffing committee is currently the GLA Oversight Committee.

4.7 The proposals to extend fixed-term posts where the total duration of those posts is two years or more and the proposals to convert fixed-term posts to permanent posts (which involves deleting the fixed-term posts and creating new permanent posts) fall within the definition of a ‘major restructure’ contained within the Staffing Protocol so require formal consultation with the Chief of Staff (on behalf of the Mayor) and the Assembly’s staffing committee, currently the GLA Oversight Committee, (on behalf of the Assembly). This paper seeks to consult the Assembly (via the Assembly’s staffing committee, the GLA Oversight Committee) in line with the requirements set out in the Staffing Protocol. The HoPS will take the Assembly’s views into consideration when making a decision.

4.8 The proposals to extend fixed-term posts where the total duration of those posts is less than two years are proposals to create temporary posts. This paper seeks to report to the Assembly (via the Assembly’s staffing committee, the GLA Oversight Committee) in line with the requirements set out in the Staffing Protocol.

Page 250

4.9 The GLA will need to follow a proper process in order to convert the posts from fixed-term to permanent because conversion could be seen as a dismissal and will involve a change to the terms and conditions of employment of the affected employees. Where fixed-term posts are being extended, this will also necessitate a change to the terms and conditions of employment of the affected employees.

4.10 Fixed term employees have the right to be treated no less favourably than permanent employees due to their fixed term employee status. Once the post holder has been in post beyond two years, they will have the same statutory right as a permanent employee not to be unfairly dismissed. After two years’ service, the post holder may also be eligible to receive a redundancy payment should the post come to an end. Any fair dismissal of the employee at the end of the fixed term will necessitate a fair reason and a fair procedure. This will involve considering suitable alternative employment before confirming that their employment is terminated. If the funding continues after the end of their fixed term contract, it may be difficult to dismiss for redundancy (one of the fair reasons) if in fact there is further work to be carried out after the end of the contract. If the employee has been employed on a series of successive fixed-term contracts, then they will be considered to be a permanent employee if their contract is renewed after four years of service and there is no objective justification for the continued use of fixed-term contracts.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 This paper proposes the extension of 45.6 FTE fixed term posts and the conversion of 3 FTE fixed term posts to permanent positions. 15.6 FTE of the extensions will be funded by the GLA and 30 will be funded from external sources. The cost of will be £891k to the GLA and £1.946k to external sources. A breakdown of the cost:

Budget GLA Third GLA Third Party Party Grade Cost Cost £ FTE FTE £000s £000s 1 29,000 2 58.0 6 44,000 1 44.0 7 53,000 2 2 106.0 106.0 8 59,000 3 5 177.0 295.0 9 64,000 5.6 18 358.4 1,152.0 10 72,000 1 1 72.0 72.0 11 76,000 1 3 76.0 228.0 12 93,000 1 93.0 TOTAL 15.6 30 891.4 1,946.0

5.2 Two of the three conversions to fixed term posts to permanent posts will be funded by the GLA and one will be funded from external sources. The cost will be £165k to the GLA and £53k to external sources. A breakdown of the cost, by grade, is shown in the table below:

Page 251

Budget GLA Third GLA Third Party Party Grade Cost Cost £ FTE FTE £000s £000s 7 53,000 0 1 0.0 53.0 8 59,000 1 0 59.0 0.0 13 106,000 1 0 106.0 0.0 TOTAL 2 1 165 53.0

5.3 The costs for the extensions and conversions will be covered by the 2021-22 agreed budget.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1 – Proposed Extensions to Fixed Term Posts

Appendix 2 – Proposed Conversions of Existing Fixed Term Posts to Permanent

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

List of Background Papers:

None

Contact Information

Contact Officer: Charmaine DeSouza, Assistant Director, Human Resources and Organisational Development

Telephone: 0207 983 4194

E-mail: [email protected]

Page 252

Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Details of all affected fixed term posts

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date

Assembly Assembly 004286 Events Officer 1.00 Grade 6 12/09/2019 31/05/2021 GLA 31/05/2022 Secretariat Communications

Communities and Team London 003083 Network Lead 1.00 Grade 8 01/08/2018 31/08/2021 External 30/08/2024 Skills

Communities and Team London 003253 Network Lead 1.00 Grade 8 01/08/2018 31/08/2021 External 30/08/2024

Page 253 Page Skills

Communities and Team London 003920 Regional Lead 1.00 Grade 9 21/09/2018 31/08/2021 External 30/08/2024 Skills London

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date

Good Growth Culture and 003308 Senior Policy Officer 1.00 Grade 9 01/10/2018 31/10/2021 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries Creative Enterprise Zones Good Growth Culture and 003310 Programme Manager 1.00 Grade 9 01/11/2018 31/03/2022 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries World Cities Culture Forum Good Growth Culture and 003379 Senior Policy Officer 1.00 Grade 9 01/11/2018 31/03/2022 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries Cultural Education and Music Good Growth Culture and 003562 Policy and Projects 1.00 Grade 7 01/10/2018 31/03/2022 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries Officer Cultural Page 254 Page Strategy Good Growth Culture and 003935 Policy and Research 1.00 Grade 8 01/10/2018 31/03/2022 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries Officer 24 hr London Good Growth Culture and 004167 Senior Policy Officer 1.00 Grade 9 01/04/2019 31/05/2021 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries Diversity in the Creative Workforce Good Growth Culture and 004172 Senior Policy Officer 1.00 Grade 9 01/04/2019 31/05/2021 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries London Borough of Culture Round Two Good Growth Culture and 004173 Project Officer London 0.60 Grade 7 01/04/2019 31/05/2021 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries Borough of Culture Round Two

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date

Good Growth Culture and 004174 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 10 02/04/2019 15/09/2021 GLA 31/03/2023 Creative Industries Manager Creative Enterprise Zones Good Growth Culture and 004479 Policy Officer Thames 1.00 Grade 8 01/09/2020 31/03/2022 External 31//03/2023 Creative Industries Estuary Production Corridor

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date Page 255 Page

Good Growth Environment 004140 Project Manager for 1.00 Grade 9 18/02/2019 31/03/2022 External 31/3/222 Home Response

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 003915 Programme Officer 1.00 Grade 8 01/09/2018 30/04/2021 External 31/10/2021 and Services

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004310 Project Officer Private 1.00 Grade 7 17/10/2019 16/09/2021 External 31/03/2022 and Services Rented Sector

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004312 Senior Policy and 1.00 Grade 9 17/10/2019 14/10/2021 External 31/03/2023 and Services Project Officer Rough Sleeping and Migration

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004313 Project Officer Rough 1.00 Grade 7 17/10/2019 30/09/2021 External 31/03/2023 and Services Sleeping and Page 256 Page Migration Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004319 Senior Project Officer 1.00 Grade 8 17/10/2019 16/09/2021 External 31/03/2024 and Services Community Led Housing

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004371 Grenfell Inquiry 1.00 Grade 8 16/01/2020 31/07/2021 GLA 31/03/2022 and Services Coordination Officer

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004488 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 12 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Manager Building Safety Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004489 Programme Manager 1.00 Grade 11 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Building Safety

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004490 Programme Manager 1.00 Grade 11 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 11/04/2022 and Services Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004491 Programme Manager 1.00 Grade 11 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004492 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 01/05/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004493 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004494 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 04/04/2022 Page 257 Page and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004495 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004496 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 24/07/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004497 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004498 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004499 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 06/04/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004500 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 17/07/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004501 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 04/07/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004502 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004503 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 01/05/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004504 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004505 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 Page 258 Page and Services Officer Building Safety

Housing and Land Programme, Policy 004506 Senior Programme 1.00 Grade 9 20/08/2020 31/03/2022 External 31/03/2022 and Services Officer Building Safety

Directorate Unit Post Post Post Post Post start Current Funding Proposed end Reference FTE Grade date End date Source date

Strategy and External Relations 004344 Major Sports Events 1.00 Grade 9 03/12/2019 31/10/2021 GLA 31/10/2022 Communications Business Manager Strategy and External Relations 003596 EURO 2020 Project 1.00 Grade 16/08/2019 31/10/2021 GLA 31/10/2022 Communications Manager 11

Strategy and Mayor's Press 004535 Press and 1.00 Grade 1 03/03/2020 31/07/2021 GLA 31/08/2022 Communications Office Marketing Intern

Strategy and Mayor's Press 004536 Press and 1.00 Grade 1 03/03/2020 31/07/2021 GLA 31/08/2022 Communications Office Marketing Intern

Page 259 Page Strategy and Strategy 004144 Back End Developer 1.00 Grade 18/02/2019 17/08/2021 External 31/03/2022 Communications Intelligence and Data Web Services 10 Analysis Strategy and Strategy 004363 Communications 1.00 Grade 8 21/11/2019 31/12/2021 External 31/12/2021 Communications Intelligence and Manager Analysis

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 260

Appendix 2 Appendix 2 Proposed conversions of existing fixed term posts to permanent

Directorate Unit Post Reference Post Post Post Post start Current Funding FTE Grade date End date Source

Good Growth Planning 004285 Communications 1.00 Grade 7 12/09/2019 30/04/2021 External Officer Strategy and External 004417 Senior Digital 1.00 Grade 8 20/03/2020 31/05/2021 GLA Communications Relations Communications Officer Strategy and External 004321(004549) Head of Digital 1.00 Grade 13 27/07/2020 31/07/2021 GLA

Page 261 Page Communications Relations Communications

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 262